Oi! Derren Brown! NO!

[durbster]

carmonk said:

...

So to summarise what you're saying: you don't understand how he does his act so you've decided you must be being conned.

At the risk of presumption, I'm sure if you studied the techniques he uses in detail (psychology, hypnosis, suggestion etc.) you would be more accepting of his version of events. I've read a little about hypnosis and its roots and it's a fascinating demonstration of how easily people can be manipulated.

Also (again) he cannot legally claim he doesn't use stooges if he does. They just can't make that sort of declaration on TV.

LandR said:

He won't use them because they aren't reliable enough to make a stage show.

Psychology is unreliable? That's an interesting viewpoint when there's more than enough evidence to prove the opposite.

The key point here is whether you believe that people are predictable or not. It's quite obvious to me that people are incredibly predictable. The basic behaviour of the vast majority of human beings is well studied and does follow patterns.

It's in our nature; if we weren't then we'd be unable to form societies, make laws, use roads, organise events etc. Put simply, if we weren't predictable, it'd be chaos.

Let me suggest an example: on Match of the Day tonight, watch the crowd behind the goal after a near miss. I predict you will see thousands of people put their hands to their head. Does that make me psychic or are people just predictable?

That's exactly the sort of behaviour that Brown exploits.

[LandR]

durbster said:

That's exactly the sort of behaviour that Brown exploits.

It's unreliable enough that you can't pick someone from an audience at random and tell what their thinking from their body language. You can't influence them to draw a picture of something or pull a memory out of their head, so on and so on every night and get it right every night.

Do you really believe Derren Brown isn't just doing simple magic tricks dressed up as psychology ?

What's more likely, that he is some psychology master or that he is doing conventional mental ism / conjuring tricks ?

Don't be gullible.

And what about that performance in my link that I posted ? Psychology or trick ?

From the link above on Derrens very own blog

Derren Brown said:

2. My techniques are rooted in conjuring magic and hypnosis. All else is most likely misdirection and should be taken with a hefty pinch of salt.

3. I have never claimed to use NLP to achieve my ‘tricks’. On the contrary, I have written very critically about it in Tricks of the Mind. I reserve the same scepticism for subliminal messaging, as well as a lot of body-language reading and the like.

Edited by LandR on Sunday 6th November 21:46

Edited by LandR on Sunday 6th November 21:46

[carmonk]

Halb said:

Is this on youtube?
I don't rigidly believe he doesn't use stooges, but I would be disappointed if he did...then again, that is an old and trusted magic method and DB may feel like it's valid. Hope not though.

I had a look and can't see it, although I the full show could well be on there, just can't recall the name of it. I'll have a look later and see if I can spot it.

[durbster]

LandR said:

It's unreliable enough that you can't pick someone from an audience at random and tell what their thinking from their body language. You can't influence them to draw a picture of something or pull a memory out of their head, so on and so on every night and get it right every night.

Do you really believe Derren Brown isn't just doing simple magic tricks dressed up as psychology ?

Do you really believe Derren Brown isn't just doing some simple psychology tricks dressed up as magic?

LandR said:

What's more likely, that he is some psychology master or that he is doing conventional mental ism / conjuring tricks ?

Don't be gullible.

OK, so you do admit he uses mentalism techniques?

LandR said:

And what about that performance in my link that I posted ? Psychology or trick ?

The link didn't work actually (says Channel 4 blocked it). Anyway, I'm not saying he doesn't use traditional magic, clever props and off-screen helpers etc. There's no point suggesting he doesn't when he's quite open about that. I'm just saying there's absolutely no reason to believe that the other techniques he says he uses are bogus.

Edited by durbster on Sunday 6th November 21:52

[carmonk]

durbster said:

carmonk said:

...

So to summarise what you're saying: you don't understand how he does his act so you've decided you must be being conned.

Not at all, as I said there are tricks and there are tricks. I can watch tricks all day and admit I don't know how they're done, but there's a difference between not knowing how they're done and knowing how they're not done.

durbster said:

At the risk of presumption, I'm sure if you studied the techniques he uses in detail (psychology, hypnosis, suggestion etc.) you would be more accepting of his version of events. I've read a little about hypnosis and its roots and it's a fascinating demonstration of how easily people can be manipulated.

I would never pretend to be able to apply any psychological techniques, or be any good on stage, but I've read pretty extensively on the subject of hypnotism, influence and human behaviour. I don't read DB's accounts, however, because we know he doesn't tell the truth. His books are simply part of his PR machine.

durbster said:

Also (again) he cannot legally claim he doesn't use stooges if he does.

Yes he can. There's no legal restriction to not telling the truth as long as it isn't to obtain money by deception or similar (and even then it's often OK, e.g. to tell people you can psychically diagnose their problems and get them to pay for the service, just check out the channels on Sky).

durbster said:

They just can't make that sort of declaration on TV.

Sorry, you're wrong.

durbster said:

LandR said:

He won't use them because they aren't reliable enough to make a stage show.

Psychology is unreliable? That's an interesting viewpoint when there's more than enough evidence to prove the opposite.

The key point here is whether you believe that people are predictable or not. It's quite obvious to me that people are incredibly predictable. The basic behaviour of the vast majority of human beings is well studied and does follow patterns.

You wouldn't bet your life on them, though, or your career. That's what DB expects us to believe he does, and it simply isn't true.

[durbster]

carmonk said:

You wouldn't bet your life on them, though, or your career. That's what DB expects us to believe he does, and it simply isn't true.

Well, you've clearly made up your mind. You haven't actually provided any evidence beyond your opinion, so I'll continue to disagree.

[LandR]

dubster said:

Do you really believe Derren Brown isn't just doing some simple psychology tricks dressed up as magic?

Yes.

dubster said:

OK, so you do admit he uses mentalism techniques?

Of course, but these mentalism techniques don't need you to be able read body language, or influence someone to pick a certain card, or use psychology to determine what someone has drawn on a piece of paper.

Mentalism isn't the method, it's the presentation.

The tricks remain largely the same, mentalists just use a different window dressing.

dubster said:

The link didn't work actually (said Channel 4 blocked it).

He takes 3 strippers. He makes them, one by one, hold out their hand and close their eyes. He doesn't touch their hands (motions as if he does but doesn't actually touch them) but they feel the touches. Psychology or trick ?

[durbster]

LandR said:

He takes 3 strippers. He makes them, one by one, hold out their hand and close their eyes. He doesn't touch their hands (motions as if he does but doesn't actually touch them) but they feel the touches. Psychology or trick ?

Neither - almost certainly hypnosis.

The drawings, card tricks etc. are just traditional magic. I don't see why you're attributing those things to the psychology.

[LandR]

durbster said:

Neither - almost certainly hypnosis.

Nope. You can do this yourself, the participants don't have to be hypnotised and you don't "touch" them.

but what is the method ? Are you going to be using psychology or is it just a trick ?

A similar but different method can be used to "create a bond" between two people. You put them at opposite ends of the room, both blind folded. When one raises and drops their arm the other raises and drops their arm. Again, another mentalism trick that can be found in loads of mentalists acts.

Are these guys using pychology and behaviour and influencing them, or is it a trick ?

I'll give you a hint, their BOTH tricks.

Edited by LandR on Sunday 6th November 22:15

[Halb]

[redacted]

[carmonk]

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.

[hairykrishna]

This threads always seem to go one way. Here's an idea that might be informative.

Quick task for one of the people who thinks that Derren uses a lot of suggestion/psychological techniques. Pick one of his tricks/routines from his stage shows that you think uses these techniques. They're all available on 4OD (I think) so we can be sure we're looking the same thing. It's on stage so we can rule out camera tricks. The people that think he's more or less an conventional magician then do their best to explain how it's actually done.

[Mr GrimNasty]

LandR said:

He takes 3 strippers. He makes them, one by one, hold out their hand and close their eyes. He doesn't touch their hands (motions as if he does but doesn't actually touch them) but they feel the touches. Psychology or trick ?

The hands are covered in tiny hairs as well as the skin being full of nerves - any air disturbance or pressure wave produce by a jabbing or wafting movement nearby is easily discernable as a touch - try it. It's also easily possible to suggest that you won't touch, move the finger in really fast and stop short, the tip whips on and touches but you'd never see it with the naked eye.

Such things are just juvenile party tricks.

[carmonk]

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 butter

Not sure how that's relevant, as he wasn't involved. In the last show the woman nearly fell over whilst changing her dress. If someone's giving a talk and walking round the room I'd keep my eyes on them, and so would most people. Trust me, if a woman started changing her cloths and tripping over I'd notice. And that's just one example in a hundred.

Bedazzled 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]

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?

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.

[carmonk]

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?

I'm very aware of the selection methods, but IMO these people aren't selected for their ability to be hypnotised or influenced, they're selected for their desire to go along with whatever's happening in order to make a good show. In other words, they'll do anything to get on TV. When you combine that with whatever contracts they sign and interviews they partake in, they can be sure the people involved know - at least in general terms - what's expected of them, i.e. play along.

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.

[carmonk]

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]

Your argument appears to be that you can't see how it can be done, therefore it can't be done.

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. 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.

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.

[carmonk]

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.

[tank slapper]

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? 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.

The fact is that some people are very easily manipulated, something which confidence tricksters and scam artists exploit all the time.