Oi! Derren Brown! NO!

[carmonk]

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

[carmonk]

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?

If rooms rearranged themselves, my food disappeared and people's clothing changed mid-sentence I'd either know someone was playing a trick or I'd go straight to the doctor. But I agree, it's a personality trait that was being exploited; not that of suggestibility but of the 'I'll do anything to get on TV' mentality. He knew he was part of a show, I don't understand how anyone can think otherwise.

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]

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.

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. Given the fairly recent outcry over the falsification of TV programmes, I doubt that it would be done that blatantly.

[carmonk]

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!

[hairykrishna]

Bedazzled said:

It's just entertainment, and some clever tricks are involved, but I don't think your simplistic stooge theory quite cuts the mustard. He wouldn't get away with it; and playing along with something to get on TV is one thing, but happily sitting in a bath of ice until your heart stops, or throwing 'acid' in someone's face... really??

But they know they're playing along with a TV program, that they're not in any real danger and neither is anyone else. Whether this is stage hypnosis or being some variety of instant stooge is a moot point because hypnosis is essentially just playing along.

The more impressive of his 'psychological tricks'/'suggestion' are, as far as I have seen, explainable through sleight of hand or normal magicians props and gimmicks.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

...but because it's DB you suspend your disbelief and swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker.

It's just entertainment, and some clever tricks are involved, but I don't think your simplistic stooge theory quite cuts the mustard. He wouldn't get away with it; and playing along with something to get on TV is one thing, but happily sitting in a bath of ice until your heart stops, or throwing 'acid' in someone's face... really??

No one sat in slightly cold water until their heart stopped and no one threw acid (and yes I did see the program).

You don't need to be hypnotised to stand slightly chilly water nor to die of hypothermia if it should go that far - in fact the very way in which it takes you is unawares - you feel hot then sleepy simplistically. They even sat a nerdy bloke in an ice bath to measure the effect on that weather program. Have you noticed how your fingers only start to hurt after the fun's gone out of the snowball fight? Do you really not understand that people can put up with a bit of discomfort if they WANT/HAVE to.

It's a TV show, they KNOW they won't hurt a participant or give them real acid FFS.

[hairykrishna]

Bedazzled said:

I don't think a person could sit in an ice bath at 1.5'C without grimacing or jumping out after a few seconds

Firstly I doubt it was as low as 1.5 degrees, but people do all the time. It's common among long distance runners and weightlifters for example. It's one of those things that looks impressive but isn't. Like fire-walking, I suppose.

Edited by hairykrishna on Monday 7th November 23:18

[durbster]

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!

It begs the question why everyone else who gets into an ice bath on telly goes, "fkING HELL IT'S FREEZING!". They must not be Derren Brown fans.

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?

There have been some excellent points raised in this thread but some of you are getting ridiculous and are undermining the original post.

[hairykrishna]

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!

It begs the question why everyone else who gets into an ice bath on telly goes, "fkING HELL IT'S FREEZING!". They must not be Derren Brown fans.

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?

There have been some excellent points raised in this thread but some of you are getting ridiculous and are undermining the original post.

Stage hypnosis and playing along because they're on telly are essentially the same thing though, right? My point was that sitting in a bath of ice isn't 'an extreme feat'. Anyone can do it happily, regardless of hypnosis. The playing along is just not showing a reaction.

[Halb]

hairykrishna said:

Stage hypnosis and playing along because they're on telly are essentially the same thing though, right? My point was that sitting in a bath of ice isn't 'an extreme feat'. Anyone can do it happily, regardless of hypnosis. The playing along is just not showing a reaction.

I think you're stretching it now. It is an extreme feat. Not many would do it willingly. The water was 1.5 and he showed no signs of noticing it. When I see people take an ice bath they show signs, it's not an everyday thing even for athletes. When DB did his little trick the fella could 'feel' the cold and reacted as everyone else would.

[durbster]

hairykrishna said:

Stage hypnosis and playing along because they're on telly are essentially the same thing though, right? My point was that sitting in a bath of ice isn't 'an extreme feat'. Anyone can do it happily, regardless of hypnosis. The playing along is just not showing a reaction.

Well yes they are, but you can't just ask somebody to do something without preparation. That preparation is crucial to get them into a submissive way of thinking, and that's all hypnosis is.

Have you ever been in an ice bath? If you can get into one without reacting then you must have no nerve endings. I have and was completely incapable of keeping my cool, despite being in front of mates. I just did a quick search on YouTube and I can't find a single one where somebody gets into one without reacting, including the Welsh Rugy Team.

[shauniebabes]

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 ?

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.

[carmonk]

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, "fkING 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'.

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.

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 are

a) 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.

[carmonk]

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]

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.

[carmonk]

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.

To be fair that's what I've always said, they are not paid actors, they are people playing along. I use the word 'stooge' only because I don't want to write 'a person who plays along' all the time

[durbster]

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

To me a stooge is somebody that has already established a relationship with DB prior to the show, they know what's coming and what their role is beforehand but they pretend otherwise.

I certainly wouldn't classify somebody randomly selected from the audience who plays along as a stooge because that's essentially what every single person who volunteers themselves up on stage is doing. As I think we all agree, many stage acts whether religious preachers or hypnotists, rely on people doing what they think they should be doing.

This works exceptionally well in front of an audience because people are very rarely likely to rock the boat but I wouldn't use the word stooge in that case. If you do then surely you're saying that any spectator who gets up on stage and doesn't cry foul is a stooge.

[tank slapper]

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.

[carmonk]

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.

[carmonk]

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.

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.