Oi! Derren Brown! NO!

[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?

[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!

[carmonk]

erdnase said:

durbster said:

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.

I'm not sure what you have proven is nonsense - my thoughts on the stunt, or the idea that it isn't a "parlour trick"?

I think there are too many variables we don't know about to be able to decide if someone did perform a feat through hypnosis that would be impossible/very difficult otherwise.

Were all the ice-cubes really ice, or were some plastic? Was the thermometer real? Does being a "big and hard bd" make you more capable of enduring feats like this - or perhaps the opposite where skinny guys have less surface area to lose heat.. I just don't buy that hypnosis is some altered state that could make a person do something that positive-thinking, belief, adrenalin and confidence couldn't.

Derren does lots of cool, impressive and clever things - but I'm reserving judgement on the ice-bath stunt.

And we have to ask the question, if he cheats on one of his tricks why on earth would anyone assume he doesn't cheat on all of them?

[carmonk]

erdnase said:

carmonk said:

And we have to ask the question, if he cheats on one of his tricks why on earth would anyone assume he doesn't cheat on all of them?

He does - all magicians do. All we're debating is the level at which he's "cheating".

But you can't say all magicians cheat because by and large they make no claims. A magician doesn't 'cut the woman in half' and claim he used actual magic. When Paul Daniels does a trick he doesn't claim to do it any particular way, or to use any particular method, therefore he can't be said to cheat. He just does the trick and that's that. DB is different in that he makes specific claims that he is using a certain method, and these have been proven in several cases to be blatantly not true. More damaging, he uses these claims as a basis for debunking the work of woo merchants such as mediums and faith healers, which is towering hypocrisy being that he indulges in much the same thing.

[carmonk]

erdnase said:

carmonk said:

But you can't say all magicians cheat because by and large they make no claims. A magician doesn't 'cut the woman in half' and claim he used actual magic. When Paul Daniels does a trick he doesn't claim to do it any particular way, or to use any particular method, therefore he can't be said to cheat. He just does the trick and that's that. DB is different in that he makes specific claims that he is using a certain method, and these have been proven in several cases to be blatantly not true. More damaging, he uses these claims as a basis for debunking the work of woo merchants such as mediums and faith healers, which is towering hypocrisy being that he indulges in much the same thing.

I think we're on the same page here - the reason I'm no longer a Derren fan is all his woo-woo claims about nlp, hypnosis and psychology.

Exactly, and he uses those claims very cleverly. One thing that's sure is that he really is an expert in misdirection. I consider myself pretty hard-faced when it comes to sceptically evaluating claims yet for several years I'd quote DB as an example of how seemingly paranormal effects could be achieved through the manipulation of the mind and an applied knowledge of psychology. Truth is, I'd been taken in by his waffle in exactly the same way (although not to the same extent) as an audience member who believes the medium on stage is communicating messages from the dead. Just goes to show...

[carmonk]

durbster said:

The fact is that by the end of it, everyone involved was absolutely papping themself, completely sucked into the experience, and it was achieved through psychology.

I think you're grasping at straws there. You could argue that anytime someone gets frightened it's through psychology, but only in the very broadest sense. The point is that all the evidence points to psychology not playing a causal role in DB's shows, and the results he obtains being a result of standard stage magic and outright cheating and stoogism (and there's a word).

[carmonk]

torqueofthedevil said:

As others have said i have had many arguements with mates of mine who get angry when i suggest its all rubbish!!! They goes on about how its special techniques, NLP, suggestion. The fact that he tells us all this proves that this is how he is doing a trick.

My arguement is always the same. It is his "story" to build the trick around. I remember as a kid getting a magic book and it said it was really important to have a story, so instead of just finding which card somebody had chosen, you would tell them that you had magical powers etc.

All DB is doing is saying he did it with amazing phsycological techniques!

I think about amazing magic tricks I have seen where you pick a card and the magician throws the pack at a window and your signed card ends up on the other side of the glass! That is mind boggling but there will be some explanation. DB's approach is to say that he "knew" which you'd pick because he had "suggested" it to you first!

Indeed, and in the case of DB the believer effect is compounded because he appears such a nice guy (unlike that weirdo Blaine) and you actively want to believe what he's telling you. After watching him and falling for his patter for some years it was quite a wrench to realise that his modus operandi is exactly the same as the mediums and psychics he rightly vilifies. The whole psychology / influencing / suggestion / memory thing is simply spin, to make him stand out from the crowd.

[carmonk]

durbster said:

carmonk said:

I think you're grasping at straws there. You could argue that anytime someone gets frightened it's through psychology, but only in the very broadest sense. The point is that all the evidence points to psychology not playing a causal role in DB's shows, and the results he obtains being a result of standard stage magic and outright cheating and stoogism (and there's a word).

Grasping at straws? I really don't think your and my definition of psychology can be the same. The ability to affect somebody's state of mind is surely the ultimate aim of psychology. In Seance, he affected their state of mind to an extreme degree; where they lost their logical and reasonable function to a very primal state of fear.

So if I run at you with an axe you'd say I used psychology to frighten you? Arguably I would have but it would hardly require any special knowledge or ability on my part. Same with DB. If he uses cheap tricks to frighten people then psychology doesn't come into play in anything but its most broad sense.

[carmonk]

Halb said:

carmonk said:

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'....
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.

I think you may have attempted to not show any facial signs, I think you would have failed! I think that kind of control needs to be accessed by decades of training (I am thinking of monks here, the sort you can't push over) or through hypnosis.

I'm interested to try it now, just for my own benefit. I'll have to make do without the ice but running the bath in winter will produce water of a very similar temperature.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

Nobody understands how hypnotism really works, or its limitations, you just have to look at the number of competing theories on Wiki to see that. But the effects are real; it can be used as an anesthetic which supports the ice-bath scenario, and to trigger memory loss here, as experienced by the assassin in Ep1.

DB's idea for the acid test may have originated in Young’s 1952 paper "Antisocial uses of hypnosis":

Young said:

“Rowland and Young found that hypnotized Ss were willing to carry out such apparently antisocial actions as grasping a dangerous reptile, plunging their hand into concentrated acid, and throwing the acid at an assistant.”

Some interesting comments on DB's show from a practising hypnotherapist here:

Adam Eason said:

Following these studies, subsequent researchers and academics have scrutinized them and explain the findings in terms of the research subjects wanting to please and aid the researcher and hypnotist, believing that what they were doing was actually perfectly safe, and assuming that someone else was ultimately responsible for any wrong-doing.

Quite a damning article, from DB's perspective, and it didn't even touch on the observational evidence. The 1989 case noted may well have been true, but that's a husband and wife scenario that played out over years, I'd guess, and more to do with brainwashing than hypnosis. I very much doubt the husband just clicked his fingers and sent his wife off to murder someone.

Adam Eason said:

I think it's possible to trick subjects into believing what they are doing is safe. For example DB may have used a trigger word to make the assassin believe the gun was only loaded with blanks, and he trusted DB completely so he was then quite happy to fire at Fry, knowing that nothing bad would happen.

But you don't even need to go that far. If you get someone up on stage and ask them to do something they wouldn't normally do, they'll likely do it without any need for hypnosis. Who has the balls to refuse in front of a live audience and potentially 6m viewers? They know they're not going to be asked to do anything actually dangerous so they just go ahead. In the Stephen Fry show all the bloke had to do was ask himself, "Would Derren Brown actually commission the murder of Stephen Fry for a TV show?" Clearly, unless he was mentally ill, he'd conclude that no, it wasn't particularly likely. And that's all we need to account for the fact he fired the gun. Forget the woo-woo, the simple explanation fits perfectly.

[carmonk]

Halb said:

carmonk said:

I'm interested to try it now, just for my own benefit. I'll have to make do without the ice but running the bath in winter will produce water of a very similar temperature.

If you do try it, take the temperature and get someone to watch you. I would bet a fiver that at the very start there would be some indication that your environment has changed.
I know I would scream like a 9 year old girl when I used to take a dip in the plunge pool or go under the bucket shower.
basically something like this

I used to take cold showers to wake me up (before I became too sedated to care). They don't really bother me. But I will try with the bath, and if I do it first thing on a cold day (say -10C outside) the water won't be significantly warmer than 2C. Of course, it's likely that the water in DB's show was nowhere near 2C but that's an aside.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

...if I do it first thing on a cold day...

Here come the excuses, grab some ice from the freezer and get on with it, science waits for no man! There's no way you'll keep a straight face at that temp!

I don't have any ice in the freezer, nor room for any I'm afraid. You'll need to wait for the verdict but I'm quietly confident I can prove it to myself at least.

[carmonk]

hairykrishna said:

The more I think about it, the more I think the bath Derren used was nowhere near 1.5 degrees anyway. It'd be trivially easy to fake while having it at near room temperature. That'd be the more reliable way to do it, without relying on your 'volunteer' so much.

And being that we know he cheated on several other occasions there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have used this method.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

hairykrishna said:

The more I think about it, the more I think the bath Derren used was nowhere near 1.5 degrees anyway. It'd be trivially easy to fake while having it at near room temperature. That'd be the more reliable way to do it, without relying on your 'volunteer' so much.

And being that we know he cheated on several other occasions there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have used this method.

Finally a bit of sense, it's a proper trick rather than merely a stooge, but of course it's 'cheating' he's a magician what do you expect?

So if it were proven that DB actually used warm water and plastic ice cubes you'd be OK with that? You wouldn't feel cheated? You're in a minority there. You refer to all magicians 'cheating' but as I said, that's simply not so. When Paul Daniels does a trick he makes no claims to how it's done, so how can it be cheating? Yet DB is clear that he uses mind techniques and that all the evidence points to him not doing. If DB made none of these claims nobody would watch his shows, because you or I or anybody could do those tricks. When Penn & Teller do a trick we generally have no idea how it's done. The same is true with DB but only if we believe his premise that he's using mind techniques. Take that away and there is a blatant and obvious method in many of the cases. Camera tricks, plastic ice cubes, stage hands, 'stooges'. And that's what the evidence suggests he does in all his tricks.

Bedazzled said:

It's not trivial to fake a moving image on a thermal imaging camera, but maybe they increased the gain so that merely chilly water appears very dark blue, for example.

Exactly. Very easy to make a tone adjustment of a digital image and probably very easy to alter the sensitivity range on the actual imaging equipment. But beyond that, you're missing something. How would a layman know what level of colour change applied to what level of actual temperature change? Of course, they wouldn't. We wouldn't. For all anybody knows that colour change could be produced by standing outside on a chilly day, or it might be expected only to be produced from a block of ice. Why take DB's word for it that those colours represent a massive temperature drop?

Bedazzled said:

That would explain the rest of the image looking so uniformly hot. But it still requires the subject to be hypnotised so they experience the right sensations of hot and cold and react in the right way; in this case making him feel cold and jump out of the bath when DB placed his hand on the side.

Are you kidding? You think someone who's not hypnotised is incapable of saying, "Woo, that's cold!" and jumping out of a bath? He already told the guy what he wanted to happen, so the guy was playing along. Why would he want to make a fool of himself by deliberately doing something he knew DB didn't want to happen. DB would have been disappointed, the audience would just think he was being a dick and the scene would end up on the cutting room floor. Hardly a great result for someone who obviously wants to appear on TV.

Bedazzled said:

here is a similar trick using hypnotism to alter someone's colour perception. Watch how he triggers uncertainty by touching her right shoulder, and certainty by touching her left. Or is it yet another stooge...?

Within my definition of a stooge as someone who plays along and who's had dealings with DB or his production crew before-hand, I'd say yes. There's a lot more set-up than we're given to believe and things have been arranged behind the scenes. If seems that you and others suspend all critical faculties where DB is involved, yet I'm sure you would be suspicious of that situation had anyone else been involved. Did you not notice that when they walked outside, her car was right there next to the entrance, the first one they came across? How likely is that? Very convenient to avoid the camera crew threading their way through rows of parked cars. Then she said, "This black car looks like mine." If you're searching for a red car you wouldn't even look at a black car, so her behaviour was inexplicable. Then she pointed out the yellow ('red') Hummer; how convenient that there was a monstrous banana yellow vehicle parked right there in order she could provde DB's red / yellow 'hypnosis' trick had worked. Honestly, if you take that at face value then I admit defeat - You'll never come round to my way of thinking. I'll end with a red smiley...

Edited by carmonk on Wednesday 9th November 15:43

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

I think you're missing the point entirely. Hypnotism is clearly used in his act, but it's combined with clever trickery and deception so that he appears to achieve the impossible. Magic isn't real, so all magicians are by definition cheats

So which magician actually claims to use magic? I don't know of a single one. And when you say hypnotism is clearly used in DB's act this is simply not true. Where's your evidence? Several times it's been proved that hypnosis is not used in acts where he claims it was. Does every one of his acts need to be debunked for you to dismiss the idea? That's not what I'd call critical thinking.

Bedazzled said:

If you're suggesting that every time DB hypnotises someone he's using a stooge then you need to get a grip, just think how many people that would involve, it would inevitably leak and yet it hasn't, has it?

Why do you keep repeating this, I've said numerous times that it's a combination of people playing along, camera tricks, stagehands and yes, maybe even real stooges on occasion - not actors but individuals who have had dealings with DB and his crew before the act itself. Regarding the 'leaks', I've already explained that. Few people would listen, fewer would care, any publicity attracted would be negative and in many cases you'd be on the wrong end of a lawsuit, being that some partipants without question must have signed some sort of contract before appearing on the show. What has anybody to gain by starting some misguided campaign, other than attracting the wrath of numerous DB fanboys?

Bedazzled said:

His skill is to combine it with trickery to amplify the effects and make us wonder how he does it.

Why on earth would anybody who has a genuine and allegedly unique skill need to employ heavy use of trickery? Again, even when proof is forthcoming you can't fall back to that baseline of logical scepticism, you have to cling on to the possibility that DB uses hypnosis some of the time. "OK, so he cheated then, and used a camera trick then and a stage-hand then, but I bet he used real hypnotism in this episode..." Do you apply the same criteria to mediums? Do you believe mediums really receive messages from the dead, because even I'll admit that the vast majority of mediumistic shows have never been analysed or debunked.

Bedazzled said:

If you want to believe it's a stooge then fine, but there is no point in you watching the show, because it's wasted on you.

I don't understand the relevance.

Bedazzled said:

For the ice-bath we've now got a scenario that fits with the limitations of stage hypnosis; controlling the environment with trickery and deception, and then using simple hypnosis to trigger sensations of hot and cold in an innocent volunteer to generate human reactions that fit with the story being told.

Jesus, you admit that the environment was likely controlled yet you cling like a drowning man to this assertion that hypnotism was still used! It's a god of the gaps scenario only with DB's hypnosis replacing God.

Bedazzled said:

You asked why I was discussing the ice-bath and it's because once we've figured out his basic tricks, in all likelihood the more spectacular stunts, such as getting the volunteer to shoot someone, will use the exact same principles.

Exactly. His basic trick is misdirection, as he himself claims, but what he doesn't say is it's misdirection to cover the fact he doesn't use any psychology whatsoever other than being a nice guy who audience members don't want to disappoint or disagree with.

[carmonk]

hairykrishna said:

You're arguing at cross purposes to a certain extent I think. It's back to the definition of hypnotism again. Personally I'm happy to accept the people on Derrens show are 'hypnotised' to the extent that they happily go along with everything he says.

The caveat to this is that they are fully aware that they are in a TV show and do nothing which they wouldn't comfortably do anyway. There's nothing special about the 'hypnotism' over asking them to do it normally. They are not performing any superhuman feats or doing anything particularly dramatic. This seems to me to fly in the face of the premise of the 'experiments' show. These people do not think they're going to kill Steven Fry and are therefore not 'programmed to be an assassin'. They realise that they are not really confessing to a murder.

Anything which would require something out of the ordinary is faked using normal magicians techniques.

Sure, you could say someone's hypnotised in the colloquial sense if they're in a compliant state. Someone might be said to be hypnotised when meeting a person they admire but that doesn't mean the person has any skill or even intent as a hypnotist. Basically it's a case of playing along and the only psychology used is that people don't tend to rock the boat if an acceptable and often desirable alternative exists.

[carmonk]

durbster said:

hairykrishna said:

...The caveat to this is that they are fully aware that they are in a TV show and do nothing which they wouldn't comfortably do anyway...

I wouldn't do half the stuff on his shows, whether on stage or not.

Why not?

Nevertheless, you can assume that a person applying to be on his show would be prepared to do whatever is expected of them.

[carmonk]

And a 10 second Google search reveals that there are some suspicious goings-on re stooges; people pop up but as I say nobody takes any notice. Here's one where an actress has the DB show on her CV... oops...

http://aboutderrenbrown.blogspot.com/2008/07/revea...

And here's what a contestant had to say about his appearance on the show, whose video was posted on YouTube and then blocked by C4.

contestant said:

Sorry guys, but this is all an act, as I am the bald guy that freaks out (just look at my profile pic). It was all an act from start to finish. We auditioned at the Adelphi hotel in Liverpool, and then travelled down to Portmeirion. I even got travel expenses for giving some of the other contestants (the young guy at the start and someone else)a lift, so we where not just random people picked out of the crown. We had to do it several times as the camera man wanted it from different angles.

I also read a very good point which says that if DB does use actors and actresses then this would explain why few if any come forward. If you're an actor and you breach contract then you'll likely never work again. A heck of a motivator.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

when you say hypnotism is clearly used in DB's act this is simply not true. Where's your evidence?

I've already provided several examples but you're skirting around them with your claim that everyone is a stooge, rather than analysing them properly, simply because they don't fit with your viewpoint; it's called confirmation bias.

Why do you keep repeating that I think everyone is a stooge when in almost every answer I give I explain in detail that this isn't the case? Honestly, I'm baffled.

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

Why on earth would anybody who has a genuine and allegedly unique skill need to employ heavy use of trickery?

I'm not suggesting his hypnotic skill is unique, in fact quite the reverse; I'm saying he supplements clever trickery and deception with standard stage hypnosis techniques in order to give the appearance of achieving the impossible; the goal of every magician.

OK, case in point. Check out the example I gave earlier, the woman in the box who chucks the tambourine. Where does the hypnosis element come into play and why would you suggest it's anything other than a direct cheat with no psychological aspect or merit whatsoever?

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

you admit that the environment was likely controlled yet you cling like a drowning man to this assertion that hypnotism was still used!

I've said all along the environment was controlled, but I think he also uses hypnotism to enhance his magic act. Simple stage hypnosis is well understood and it's more reliable than putting your trust in unknown stooges. Anyhow if the trick were performed merely with a stooge, everyone and his uncle would be making similar shows; but they aren't, are they?

People who claim to use hypnosis are ten a penny, you'll find one at the end of every pier. You could take any performer at the top of their game and ask why them? It proves nothing.

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

Several times it's been proved that hypnosis is not used in acts where he claims it was.

Can you give me some examples of this, rather than just demanding evidence to the contrary? I don't doubt some of his acts are standard trickery, but when has he claimed to use psychology in previous tricks which have subsequently been debunked?

But I HAVE given examples, are you not reading my posts? I pointed to the split screen technique on the lottery and the stagehand pre-recorded tambourine throwing in the seance-type show. Check them out on YouTube.

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

Do you believe mediums really receive messages from the dead, because even I'll admit that the vast majority of mediumistic shows have never been analysed or debunked.

Why do you keep comparing hypnotism to supernatural mediums and God? It's a standard psychological procedure which has been tested in the laboratory. Are you suggesting it doesn't exist?

Surgery has been proven to exist in an operating theatre but that doesn't mean I believe faith healers can extract your kidneys by waving a finger. So no, I don't believe that in the stressful situation of a studio, with live audience and 6m TV viewers, a person can be hypnotised into doing anything, let alone 'killing' someone or behaving in some totally outlandish manner. Find me one evidential scientific experiment where a person has been put into a trance by someone clicking their fingers and saying 'sleep'. It's woo-woo of the highest order.

[carmonk]

hairykrishna said:

Bedazzled said:

Can you give me some examples of this, rather than just demanding evidence to the contrary? I don't doubt some of his acts are standard trickery, but when has he claimed to use psychology in previous tricks which have subsequently been debunked?

The spirit cabinet one I mentioned earlier for a start. Editing in the TV shows makes them hard to catch - you never know what's missing. I've seen all of his stage shows and, as far as I remember, there's nothing in there that's not a normal magicians trick.

He tends to make fairly extensive use of well made, sometimes high tech, gimmicks. This might look familiar if you've seen 'An Evening of Wonder' for example;

http://www.malloymodernmagic.com/master_prediction...

He has also used variants of this;

http://www.magictricks.co.uk/products/4-NEW/5342-M...

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