Oi! Derren Brown! NO!

[carmonk]

hairykrishna said:

durbster said:

hairykrishna said:

His early work (Mind control, Trick of the Mind) was all normal magicians illusions tied up with new patter about psychology.

You keep persisting with this.

Perfect example of a simple pscyhological trick: the lost wallet?

Some persistence and editing would make that a laughably easy segment to film. How many times did he do it? How many times was the wallet picked up? How much time actually elapsed with a wallet there? You have no idea.

Exactly. A little lateral thinking and the explanation stares you in the face.

[carmonk]

durbster said:

hairykrishna said:

Some persistence and editing would make that a laughably easy segment to film. How many times did he do it? How many times was the wallet picked up? How much time actually elapsed with a wallet there? You have no idea.

What makes you think this is so far-fetched that they'd need to bother with all that? And so what if they lost a few along the way - in fact it doesn't matter if it didn't even work. The point is that it's a psychology trick and not a magic trick

Eh? So if they filmed 9 attempts and only the 10th worked how on earth would that be a psychology trick? You've completely disagreed with what you wrote in the previous sentence. How about this

I stand on the street and stick my finger in my temples and say that using psychology I can make someone trip up. We film 100 people and the someone trips up. We televise that. You're happy that this is a psychology trick? How does that work?

[carmonk]

durbster said:

carmonk said:

Eh? So if they filmed 9 attempts and only the 10th worked how on earth would that be a psychology trick? You've completely disagreed with what you wrote in the previous sentence.

Erm, what are you talking about?

The accusation was that Brown has never used psychology so I provided a clear example of him using psychology. There are no card tricks, stuff up sleeves or stooges, hypnosis or camera tricks.

You said "And so what if they lost a few along the way - in fact it doesn't matter if it didn't even work". So what I'm asking is, if it doesn't work then how can it be psychology? It's exactly what I and others have been saying all along, they film a number of instances and replay the one that works. What has that got to do with psychology? Maybe there's a bit of psychology related to the concept, in that people see a circle and think that someone's having a joke and therefore ignore it, but if they have to edit the film then that suggests the link is so tenuous that it's actually the editing that produces the effect, not the psychology.

durbster said:

carmonk said:

I stand on the street and stick my finger in my temples and say that using psychology I can make someone trip up. We film 100 people and the someone trips up. We televise that. You're happy that this is a psychology trick? How does that work?

Right. So you think that's an analogy of dozens of people stepping over a cash-filled wallet in broad daylight?

Yes. Exactly that same principle. In my example it's more unlikely for someone to trip than to fail to pick up a wallet but that's completely irrelevant. The point is I can achieve exactly the same effect using editing and I don't need to be able to demonstrate some psychological effect or have amazing powers of woo.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

Your entire argument appears to rest on the idea that because a phenomenon might be valid, anybody who says they're using it (and appears to be a nice guy) must be telling the truth.
...
An amateur hypnotist did try once. Oddly enough, nothing happened.

I haven't claimed DB is honest, nor that he's somehow trying to expose other frauds; I've said all along he's a clever magician/entertainer who combines psychology with trickery and deception. But it turns out you don't even believe in psychology anyhow, you seem to think all of it, even that tested in a lab, is fake superstitious 'woo-woo'.

I would never suggest that I don't believe in psychology, nor have I ever done so. It would be like saying I don't believe in human nature. I've read a great deal on psychology, many dozens of books, so I have a good layman's grasp of what limits it can be given credit for. Those limits, in terms of magnitude and reliability especially, are routinely and massively exceeded by DB and since his tricks can be explained without recourse to psychological techniques, and bearing in mind the fact we know he's lied about using those techniques on several occasions, it's logical to assume that the effects he demonstrates are not a result of psychology.

Bedazzled said:

I'm not saying that stage hypnosis is always genuine either, no doubt some volunteers jump onto the stage for their 15 minutes, and I have no idea what proportion of subjects actually experience true hypnosis; but I think there is evidence that sometimes it is genuine; and an experienced hypnotist could spot someone faking it easily.

The clue is that all these stage hypnotists will say a person can't be hypnotised unless they want to be. Well, that's convenient. If a person wants to be hypnotised then there's no need for hypnosis anyway, as you know they're going to play along. It reminds me of proponents of the paranormal who say that only people who believe in poltergeists / telepathy / homeopathy can experience them. Riiiight...

Bedazzled said:

If an armchair physicist failed to build a space rocket would you say that it was impossible?

You're asking the wrong question. Surely a better analogy is, If an armchair physicist says he can build a space rocket in 30 minutes in his back garden (a rocket which has a 100% chance of working) then do I call BS? And the answer is yes, certainly. That doesn't mean space rockets don't exist.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

I would never suggest that I don't believe in psychology, nor have I ever done so. It would be like saying I don't believe in human nature. I've read a great deal on psychology, many dozens of books, so I have a good layman's grasp of what limits it can be given credit for. Those limits, in terms of magnitude and reliability especially, are routinely and massively exceeded by DB and since his tricks can be explained without recourse to psychological techniques, and bearing in mind the fact we know he's lied about using those techniques on several occasions, it's logical to assume that the effects he demonstrates are not a result of psychology.

IMHO, your mistake is to be too black & white in your analysis; either it's all psychology or all trickery, either it exists or it doesn't; either all stage hypnosis is true or false; either he's telling the truth or lies. It isn't like that, there are shades of grey involved, and I think DB's skill is to combine psychology and trickery in the right measure to create an illusion of the impossible. Why use only camera tricks and stooges, if he's got a raft of psychological skills at his disposal?

The answer's simple; he hasn't, and even if he had why would he use unpredictable mind-games in preference to camera tricks and other unsophisticated yet tried-and-tested methods? The argument was never about whether DB uses stooges or editing in every single second of his shows, it's whether he uses psychology to achieve remarkable results. And the answer is no, he doesn't. He seems to know a lot about psychology, and talks about it quite intelligently, but that's all part of his act, his misdirection. He says it himself, his act is a combination of psychology, misdirection and trickery. What you don't seem to understand is that the psychology and misdirection works on you, to make you believe that his act is something more than trickery. In that way alone I suppose I must admit his use of psychology is quite striking.

Bedazzled said:

Using them in combination means he can confuse even the experts.

I don't think he's ever confused any expert. No reputable scientist would make any conclusions based on an entertainment show.

Bedazzled said:

I appreciate that you've read something on the subject, but I really don't think you've grasped how hypnosis works; or how the effects would manifest themselves in the mind of the subject.

Nobody has fully grasped it but surely even someone with zero knowledge of hypnosis would realise that these claims made by DB are bogus. If someone could be hypnotised into committing a murder (and by extension, any crime) then the world would be jam packed with Manchurian Candidates committing all manner of crimes for their masters. Yet this isn't the case. Why not? Because it's simply not possible.

Edited by carmonk on Friday 11th November 18:32

[carmonk]

Dizeee said:

I can't work out how on earth that dice managed to show what it was supposed to on the 3rd roll. HOW?

I don't even study magic but I can think of several options.

What about; DB has 7 dice, the normal one in his hand and six weighted dice around his person, weighted on numbers 1 to 6. When the audience choose 4, he palms the die weighted on the number 3. He gives the normal die to the bloke who throws it twice and gets a 2 and a 6. One the third throw DB switches the die for the weighted one and gives it to the bloke and lo and behold, a 4 shows up.

Regarding the rest of the show, 'meh' isn't the word. I'm struggling to think of anything impressive enough to warrant examination. Of course, the bit where the two publicans were asked for help with the car was fixed, little could be more obvious. Aside from the bizarre reasoning that someone who isn't lucky wouldn't help someone change a tyre, the woman appeared to forget what she was supposed to say and had almost walked off when she said something like, "Oh yeah, I have a pub." Oh, glad you mentioned that, because the whole point of this charade is that I come and do a gig there. Phew. Pull the other one.

Halb said:

carmonk said:

Nobody has fully grasped it but surely even someone with zero knowledge of hypnosis would realise that these claims made by DB are bogus. If someone could be hypnotised into committing a murder (and by extension, any crime) then the world would be jam packed with Manchurian Candidates committing all manner of crimes for their masters. Yet this isn't the case. Why not? Because it's simply not possible.

I am not sure about jampacked, but there are assassinations, lots. I think there have been Manchurian candidates. I think Sirhan Sirhan is a good candidate.

There have, but the claims are (a) debatable, (b) able to be counted on one hand and (c) if they were valid, likely to have been the result of lengthy conditioning and no small amount of drugs. If hypnotism was a possible cause then worldwide you'd see hundreds or thousands of these murders every day.

[carmonk]

cazzer said:

Just some comments from "Tony the Pagan".

He helped to construct the chute (there were no hidden flaps or anything, as was suggested somewhere else).
The bowl it landed in was just a normal glass bowl.
DB didn't touch the die from the moment he handed it to Waynes Mrs til the end of the trick.
Wayne's Mrs took it out of the bowl and handed it to him in between each roll.
The third roll wasn't prerecorded for the monitor as has also been suggested as tony was in the front row and it did land on a 4 in the bowl.

Not for a moment suggesting it wasn't a trick, but it wasn't done as simply as suggested.

OK (assuming he's telling the truth and wasn't being fooled)...

DB has 6 dice, not weighted but each with a piece of metal under every number (i.e. each die has 6 metal plates). The plates in each die weigh the same but one is magnetic whereas the others aren't. The audience choose 4. DB palms the die with the magnetic strip under the 4 and gives it to the bloke who throws the die twice and because it's not weighted, the results are random. One the third throw a magnet underneath the wooden base beneath the bowl is activated and this ensures the throw comes up a 4.

As for him helping build the chute, I'm sure he did, but no way could he have observed it for every single second from that point to its final usage.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

Not brilliant TV, but I thought it was impressive how quickly interest in the dog spread through the village, and how everyone started noticing good things happening to them; apart from Wayne of course. Some of the characters made me chuckle, especially Wayne when he saw the video of what he'd missed (looked genuinely gutted, imho) and the old bloke who said "yeah, it's been happening for years!"

So, did DB influence Wayne to go for it, using psychology? Or was he yet another stooge?

What psychology would you need to influence someone to bet their life's savings on the throw of a die? Perhaps a subtle suggestion that if they do so, they're not going to lose..?

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

Perhaps a subtle suggestion that if they do so, they're not going to lose..?

That's exactly what the video was... or are you suggesting a rather less subtle suggestion? If it was a dead cert, why only bet £1000?

He only had £1000 if the show is to be believed (although I wouldn't suggest this is truer than any other part). Also, I doubt the TV company would want to pay out £500,000 in the event they picked someone with £100K savings.

I'd guess that the suggestion went along the lines of

Producer: How about it then? You wager a grand on this trick Derren's going to do
Bloke: But I only have £250 in the bank
Producer: Don't worry about that. We'll sort it out.
Bloke: OK, but I can't really afford to lose anything
Producer: (pat on the back) We'll see you right, mate, don't you worry. All you have to do is throw a die
Bloke: But what if I lose?
Producer: This is TV, mate, you're not going to lose
Bloke: Er, OK

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

'guess' is the right description... and yet you call it evidence. No need to mention confidentiality then?

When did I call it evidence? And what confidentiality?

Do you believe DB achieved his dice throwing through psychology? Or hypnotism? Did he use hypnotism to convince the butcher to wager his life savings on a die? I must have missed that bit, and yet someone must have spoken to him, the bloke didn't decide to do it himself. So who could it be? The producer perhaps? Seems logical to me. Or do you think it goes like this

Producer: My god this show's going to be dull. All you're doing is rolling a die.
DB: Yeah, the show is really st. I should have thought it through.
Bloke: Hang on, I'm so shaken up by throwing away a scratch card and not answering a question about meat that I'm willing to bet my life's savings totalling one thousand quid that you can predict the throw of a die.
DB: Jesus Christ, man, are you mad?
Producer: Hang on a minute, that would make great TV. Butcher bloke, are you serious? You're willing to risk £1000 on a six to one shot?
Bloke: Sure, DB has taught me that I must grasp the moment and an 83.3% chance of losing all my money sounds like a great opportunity.
DB: Fantastic. Let's hope I can use psychology to make it work.
Bloke: Yes
Producer: Yes

Sounds reasonable to me.




PH, where having to wait 2 hours to edit a post matters

Edited by carmonk on Saturday 12th November 19:13

[carmonk]

Frederick said:

carmonk said:

Regarding the rest of the show, 'meh' isn't the word. I'm struggling to think of anything impressive enough to warrant examination. Of course, the bit where the two publicans were asked for help with the car was fixed, little could be more obvious. Aside from the bizarre reasoning that someone who isn't lucky wouldn't help someone change a tyre, the woman appeared to forget what she was supposed to say and had almost walked off when she said something like, "Oh yeah, I have a pub." Oh, glad you mentioned that, because the whole point of this charade is that I come and do a gig there. Phew. Pull the other one.

Hello.

I stumbled onto this thread looking for something else but thought it worthwhile commenting.

I was part of the film crew that shot the above Jason Manford sequence and no, none of it was fixed. Indeed I spent several rather stressful hours cramped inside an SUV in order to achieve it.

I think the problem with shows like Derren's is that they invite 'de-bunking'. However, that does result in people starting to take issue with every element of their production, no matter how inconsequential. And fun though that can be, at the end of the day the results are just pure speculation masquerading as fact.

Good of you to comment. How do you know it wasn't fixed, however? In that the people involved were not given any guidance as to what to expect / do? If the production team had primed one or both people, would you be aware of that? If you say you waited there then I must accept there was no rendezvous or pre-arranged meeting, but that doesn't mean some elements weren't fixed. The behaviour of the female landlord looked very fishy to me, like she was hanging around trying to bring up the subject of her pub so that Jason Mansford could offer to do a gig for her.

And if you could answer another question, what would have happened if the female landlord had failed to offer help, or the guy had offered help? Because that would have meant that Jason Mansford's presence would either not have been needed or he'd have had to play two 'free' gigs for no purpose (ostensibly destroying the premise of the theme in the process, although they wouldn't have been shown I presume). Furthermore, it would have required two other test subjects to be found. Did you film a large number of subjects then edit it down? Because if not, I maintain there had to be something going on in order for DB to predict these two people would behave.

[carmonk]

Mr GrimNasty said:

All 'magicians' have multiple alternative outcomes planned for. Altering what they do/say according to what happens. The audience just assumes what they see is the only way it could work and is how it was meant to work. Pretty easy to arrange to bump into her and strike up a conversation - whatever happened with the car - isn't it?

It is, but it's the size of the investment in the trick that's key - time and money. In other words, if a trick requires a certain personality to turn up and also requires significant set-up in terms of the people involved and the cost of filming, or booking a location, then the chance of alternatives being filmed in preference to, well, fixing, reduces.

[carmonk]

Mr GrimNasty said:

carmonk said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

All 'magicians' have multiple alternative outcomes planned for. Altering what they do/say according to what happens. The audience just assumes what they see is the only way it could work and is how it was meant to work. Pretty easy to arrange to bump into her and strike up a conversation - whatever happened with the car - isn't it?

It is, but it's the size of the investment in the trick that's key - time and money. In other words, if a trick requires a certain personality to turn up and also requires significant set-up in terms of the people involved and the cost of filming, or booking a location, then the chance of alternatives being filmed in preference to, well, fixing, reduces.

It's not a question of filming alternatives, you missed the point, it's a question of adapting to circumstances. In the example of the trick I mentioned, there is only ever one shot, just 'little helpers' behind the scenes altering the perceived outcome.

And it's the little helpers that I sincerely believe in.

[carmonk]

Frederick said:

carmonk said:

Good of you to comment. How do you know it wasn't fixed, however? In that the people involved were not given any guidance as to what to expect / do? If the production team had primed one or both people, would you be aware of that? If you say you waited there then I must accept there was no rendezvous or pre-arranged meeting, but that doesn't mean some elements weren't fixed. The behaviour of the female landlord looked very fishy to me, like she was hanging around trying to bring up the subject of her pub so that Jason Mansford could offer to do a gig for her.

And if you could answer another question, what would have happened if the female landlord had failed to offer help, or the guy had offered help? Because that would have meant that Jason Mansford's presence would either not have been needed or he'd have had to play two 'free' gigs for no purpose (ostensibly destroying the premise of the theme in the process, although they wouldn't have been shown I presume). Furthermore, it would have required two other test subjects to be found. Did you film a large number of subjects then edit it down? Because if not, I maintain there had to be something going on in order for DB to predict these two people would behave.

I don't want to get too specific about editorial - that is not my place and it's a little too close to discussing how the show is made which I'm just not going to do.

However, in terms of the section we are discussing I can assure you that the punters were NOT primed. I'd know anyway (you could try and hide this, but it would be needlessly difficult and incredibly time-wasting) but anyway it was clear from how we shot this stuff that it was a real experiment with all the inherent risks of it going wrong. Apologies if that's vague, but I have a business to protect. Suffice to say that this bit of the show is definitely real!

Well, I have no doubt you believe it's real (as in the two people were completely unprimed) but I'm far from convinced. Unless there were existing alternatives then leaving all that up to chance would not be viable IMO. As I said, Jason Mansford could have ended up promising to play two shows that would not have been televised. Or not having the opportunity at all. Indeed, unless there was an alternative he could easily have ended up going home. I'm all for exploring psychology but the idea that a bloke won't help someone change a wheel on account of thinking himself unlucky is not a premise anybody would invest in unless some preparation had been carried out, and certainly not when it formed a large part of the show.

Frederick said:

In terms of the publicans 'fishy behavior' I think you are reading too much of your own bias into it. Jason was the one left to press the idea of a free gig, though the lady in question is of a type not backwards in coming forwards so to speak (which was kind of the point).

It was the way it happened that made me immediately suspicious. I don't understand why anybody would volunteer the information that they owned a pub on being asked to help change a wheel. Unless, of course, someone had mentioned earlier in the day that it might be beneficial to publicise that fact at some time in the future, if it seemed appropriate. Just maybe.

Frederick said:

At the time I was more concerned that the punters wouldn't buy the set up, but as a veteran of several hidden camera shows I can testify that in general people actually WANT to believe in the most ridiculous of scenarios. It's left to the camera crew and then the viewer to curl up in embarrassment.

After seeing a housewife singing along with aliens beside a plastic meteor on Beadle's About I have no doubt this is true, but it wasn't the situation here that I found unbelievable, it was the actions of those involved.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

If the production team had primed one or both people, would you be aware of that?

Talk about clutching at straws, if the various characters had been primed why would the poor TV crew have to camp out for hours trying to catch them on film?

Christ on a bike, do you never read my posts?

[carmonk]

Frederick said:

carmonk said:

Well, I have no doubt you believe it's real (as in the two people were completely unprimed) but I'm far from convinced. Unless there were existing alternatives then leaving all that up to chance would not be viable IMO. As I said, Jason Mansford could have ended up promising to play two shows that would not have been televised. Or not having the opportunity at all. Indeed, unless there was an alternative he could easily have ended up going home. I'm all for exploring psychology but the idea that a bloke won't help someone change a wheel on account of thinking himself unlucky is not a premise anybody would invest in unless some preparation had been carried out, and certainly not when it formed a large part of the show.

I vaguely resent that. You seem to be equating your own personal opinion of the shows construction as being on a par with the folks who made it happen. I don't 'believe' that section is real - I know. I was there. I'm sorry I'm not able to go into incredible detail on the filming, but Objective wouldn't be remotely amused.

My point was how do you know it was completely genuine? I never suggested they were reading from a script but the idea that you can assert that nobody said or suggested anything to either of them before that point is far from convincing. Whilst I appreciate that you were involved in the show I'm unable to believe that every member of the camera crew is fully briefed on the workings on the show. I'm sorry you 'vaguely resent' my not believing it happened the way you say but you did post in my thread, so it can't be entirely unexpected

[carmonk]

Frederick said:

carmonk said:

My point was how do you know it was completely genuine? I never suggested they were reading from a script but the idea that you can assert that nobody said or suggested anything to either of them before that point is far from convincing. Whilst I appreciate that you were involved in the show I'm unable to believe that every member of the camera crew is fully briefed on the workings on the show. I'm sorry you 'vaguely resent' my not believing it happened the way you say but you did post in my thread, so it can't be entirely unexpected

I rather suspect though that the entire production team could turn up at your door with the full three months worth of uncut rushes and you'd still sneer and scratch your nose so I'll just have to give up.

You call it sneering, I call it making an informed decision based on observational and circumstantial evidence. But whilst we're at it, I find it suspicious that you just happened to browsing a forum you've never posted on before, whilst looking for 'something else', less than 24 hours after the programme you were involved with was aired, and just happen to see this thread. That seems more in keeping with PR back office work, like many companies that trawl the net to gauge feedback of their products or services. When asked to give extra information about how you know what you claim is true, you accuse me of sneering and claim to be offended that people don't roll over and accept your word as gospel. I'm not sure why you posted in the first place nor why you can't give some more details that would help clarify the matter. Did the NDA or confidentiality agreement you signed state you can talk about some bits of the show but not others? Provide some explanation and I might well accept that this trick was perfectly above board with no priming or set-up of any kind. How do you know no earlier suggestion was made to these two people that they might / might not want to help a stranger if the circumstance arose? Why was it assumed that an 'unlucky' person, or even an unsociable one, would not help someone change a wheel? What would have happened in the event neither or both landlords behaved not as expected? Was it pre-arranged that the car would be able to park in a 1-hour restricted zone for several hours (and two other cars on the private land across the way)? How did the crew know these two people would pass that point on the same day, and both would be alone?

I have no issue with accepting I'm wrong in the face of evidence or reasoned explanation, but maybe the next time you're involved with a DB show you could ask DB if he would accept the word of an anonymous poster on the internet over his own reasoned judgement.

Edited by carmonk on Monday 14th November 15:11

[carmonk]

Wouldn't get her offering to change someone's wheel - http://www.todmordennews.co.uk/news/local/is_marga...

[carmonk]

I must admit I hope I don't get a reply about the wheel-changing, it is getting a bit boring whatever the explanation.

In terms of the whole show I agree with you. The theme was actually an interesting one, basically that networking provides opportunities and to a certain extent you make your own luck. The problem came with the life savings thing. Anybody who puts their life savings on a 6 to 1 chance can either afford to lose them or has the brains of a louse. Obviously the butcher had been told he would win, so clearly he made the right choice to 'make the bet' adn take home a guaranteed £5K, but mindless gambling has little to do with searching out and assessing opportunity.

[carmonk]

Bedazzled said:

carmonk said:

I call it making an informed decision based on observational and circumstantial evidence

There you go again, referring to your own ill-informed speculation as 'evidence', you don't even understand the basics of personality types and their likely reactions.

But we've seen that you're nothing more than a fan-boy, unwilling or unable to present any other argument but 'I believe', so I'm not sure where that leaves us. What's next, are you going to post up one of these for DB? http://youtu.be/kHmvkRoEowc. Leave Derren Alone!