Experimental article: Developing a psychic rapport/mind control

[The Founder]

Hello everyone, what you are about to read is an article compiled from varying different experiences and information sources, however before you read it there are a couple of things I have to point out to you, and I implore you to please read these warnings beforehand, as they are of great importance.

Firstly, and most significantly, while this post is deliberately worded like an article, it is not to be treated as such. I am writing this not to *teach* people something, but to gauge their reactions on something, the reason for this will become clear in due time. If you do wish to read this article and take it to heart, then I ask only that you stick to this thread until its completion, you will understand why this is important when I make my next post here.

Secondly, there is something in particular about this article that may immediately jump out at one or two people, if and when you should find what that is, (You will know it when you see it), I urge you not to say anything. Message me privately, and I will explain to you in person, but don't make any foolish assumptions and react on impulse. To the rest of you, I implore that you ignore this point, and take this article in the spirit it is intended, not simply to try and identify the hidden factor of which I am speaking.

So with that in mind, here goes the article. Please take it at face value, and please give me genuine reactions. I want to see how you feel about it, if you agree, disagree, STRONGLY disagree, or whatever else. Please be honest, and please try not to be too biased in your judgment of it. Don't try to decode it, as there is no code, and don't try to catch me out, or be influenced by other people's posts.

Treat it as any other article, but simply give me all the feedback you want afterwards. Just be open and honest about your reaction to it. But most important of all, please properly READ it before you make a response.

And please, remember to stick around for my next post in this thread to observe the conclusion. Enjoy. :)



Methods for developing Psychic connection with people and mind control. (http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/reading_minds/inside.html)

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/reading_minds/inside.html


Please feel free to share your thoughts on this, I will be listening eagerly. :)


The Founder


Please bear Rule 4 in mind and do not violate copyright.
In addition, you have plagarized this entire article, so I have complete excised it except for the title and left a link. There may be further action taken by the Admins.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ha. Ha.

Any, you know, something called "evidence"?

[JonWhite]

Read any NLP books lately perchance?

[Moochie]

Sorry, I generally skip lengthy posts such as yours. If you care to give a synopsis, perhaps I'll read it then.


M.

[Jackalgirl]

...Since the 1970s, rapport has been studied...

However, the gurus in this field then say...

First off, you need to cite your sources. List the study or studies you're referencing; name some of "the gurus". Otherwise, you're appealing to some unnamed authority and expecting us to simply accept the argument on that basis.

Next, although you've titled your article "psychic rapport/mind control", it doesn't look like you're describing either in the classic, paranormal sense. Looks like you're just describing being sensitive to body language and actually paying attention to what the other person says. I'm intrigued, though, by your contention that you can manipulate someone's opinions by developing a conversational rapport with them.

How far would this go? Do you think you could get someone to make a decision that goes against their beliefs? How long would it take?

Edited to add: and how long would the effect last, especially if you weren't around? It would be one thing, for example, to get someone like, say, my parents (who are die-hard liberals) to /say/ that they'd vote for McCain; it would be quite another for them to actually /do/ it. How do you distinguish between people who appear to agree with your opinion simply because they don't like conflict, and people who genuinely do?

[Spung]

This sounds a bit like those help-sites for people with Asperger's Syndrome, with hints that strike people without Asperger's as oddly obvious. "When you talk with a person, try to make them know that you're listening to what they are saying; look at them and try to make eye contact occasionally, and encourage them to go on every now and then." Uh. . .
And I don't see anything 'psychic' going on here. More like job interview advice.

[arthwollipot]

I don't see anything wrong with this - it seems to be pretty much standard self-help stuff. It draws from a lot of recent psychology as well as NLP and other techniques. I've read similar accounts in various places.

I'd just like to ask a question though - and given the disclaimers at the beginning I'll understand if it isn't answered: What is the target audience for the article?

[Steven Howard]

The first thing I noticed, and the first thing I'd have you fix if I were your editor, is person. Everything's in the second person up to here:


I develop that rapport by learning to see the situation from the perspective of the other person, not my own.

And then it immediately switches back to second person for the rest of that section and all the way up to the last paragraph, which is in the first person again:

It is from this starting point that I can begin to play with the mind control. It's not that I am really controlling other people. Rather, I am seeing events through their eyes and second-guessing their responses and thoughts. It's great fun.

Looking at that again, quite apart from the content, I can't recommend that anybody ever write a sentence like "It is from this starting point that I can begin to play with the mind control." That's just awful.

[Loss Leader]

There's quite a long jump between the first paragraph of "Patterns" to the second. You don't explain at all how to go about doing anything that you say to do. Positioning your body like someone else's and keeping an open posture are specific tips. They are easy to understand and implement (and, also, easy to check if they are working). You don't give any hints as to how to see things from others' perspective or build up "a representation of their way of seeing the world."

How you get from there to mind control is, frankly, a mystery.

[Empress]

So, basically you're saying, do the old "fake it 'til you make it" thing, be a good listener, and then suddenly you can compel people to your will? I must admit, I'm skeptical.

[kerikiwi]

Once you understand someone else's perception of a situation, you can mentally exist inside their heads.

Two questions:
Just how many heads does this someone have?
Is the state of existing in their heads (one at a time, or simultaneously) rather like the way Homer exists in his own head?

[Senex]

Firstly,... If you do wish to read this article and take it to heart, then I ask only that you stick to this thread until its completion, you will understand why this is important when I make my next post here.
I historically stick with threads until they drop off the first couple of pages or until/if my contribution is no longer relevant. If this doesn't work for you let me know.

Secondly, there is something in particular about this article that may immediately jump out at one or two people, if and when you should find what that is, (You will know it when you see it), I urge you not to say anything.
You are only asking us to only respond to things that don't jump out at us. This is asking for a boring thread and I won't comply.


Rapport

Mirroring


This reminds of a 20 year old "Current Affair" show. I remember advertisements stating someone I was interested at the time, Tony Robbins, was going to be exposed that day. The british guy who was the basis for the journalist in Bonfires of the Vanities stated he would expose Robbins. All he did was show how Robbins mimicked his posture as Robbins explained in his Personal Power book that was a technique for gaining raport. He also ambushed Robbins saying Robbins dad was living in poverty while Robbins was rich. Robbins responded that his dad was an SOB who left him and his mom whe he was very young and he wanted nothing to do with his dad. It wasn't any expose. Robbins practiced what he preached and anyone who was abandoned would react the same way to a dad who shows up after abandoning you and only showing up later to ask for money.

That show gave back-handed credibility to Robbins it took a few years for me to shake.

Signals

... And then as more people respond well to you, you start to change your own opinions about yourself.

Maybe

Behaviour

...
And remember: if you do have to fake it and then fake it quite well, you are actually being that confident person in that situation. It's just behaviour!
I believe successful disingenuous behavior reflects on whom you're trying to fool as well as your own abilities. I have friends that I'll admit are better than I am at recognizing disingenuous personality behavior. I'm better than they are at recognizing scams, but not better at recognizing a pretty girl who bats her eyes at me to get something. I fall for that and need my friends to set me straight.

Patterns

I develop that rapport by learning to see the situation from the perspective of the other person, not my own. Consider what happens in a normal conversation. Someone sits and talks about themselves, while you pick up on a few things that relate to you. You wait for then to finish so that you can say, 'Yes, I ...' and then start talking about yourself. They then respond by returning to their own stories and opinions, and so the dialogue continues. In other words, you are listening to someone to see how the conversation relates to you.

Now consider the alternative: you listen to whatever they have to say to learn how the content of their conversation relates to them. You build in your mind a representation of their way of seeing the world, and you piece together their patterns. People love talking about themselves, so you can happily ask any questions to complete those patterns and gain more information about their world. After a while, this will become almost second nature to you, and you will be able simply to look at someone and tell almost immediately what their reactions to various stimuli might be.
You can be a good salesman or improve your ability to pick up a girl of certain quality easily. Like anything, if you work at it you can improve at it.

Mind control?

Once you understand someone else's perception of a situation, you can mentally exist inside their heads. If they want you to sort out a problem for them, you can do so more effectively, for you are not letting your own prejudices and ideas get in the way.

It is from this starting point that I can begin to play with the mind control. It's not that I am really controlling other people. Rather, I am seeing events through their eyes and second-guessing their responses and thoughts. It's great fun.
It doesn't sound evil, it sounds like a systematic method of putting some people in a position you might want to manipulate. You aren't breaking any new ground. This system falls far short of what anyone would call "mind control.

" Oh, this fellow is interested in what I have to say, I'll be his sex slave."

Believe me, if it was that easy I would have way more sex slaves than I do.

What you are studying may actually work as a plecebo because it gives you more confidence. Don't think you can ever actually "mind control."
It has been studied scientifically by the CIA in MKULTRA and abandoned. They didn't give up on mind control because they were afraid to conduct unethical research. They abandoned it because they did the unethical research and found there was nothing to it.

Please feel free to share your thoughts on this, I will be listening eagerly. :)


I think I already did share.

[Empress]

Believe me, if it was that easy I would have way more sex slaves than I do.

Just how many sex slaves do you presently have, Senex? Inquiring minds, and all that.... :D

[Senex]

Just how many sex slaves do you presently have, Senex? Inquiring minds, and all that.... :D

I'll answer that question the way I always answer that question...


Always room for one more ;)

[six7s]

So, basically you're saying, do the old "fake it 'til you make it" thing, be a good listener, and then suddenly you can compel people to your will? I must admit, I'm skeptical.

As the kids at the Buddhist pantomime called out: It's beyond you!

Acting is all about honesty.
If you can fake that, you've got it made.
George Burns (1896 - 1996)

[Senex]

And please, remember to stick around for my next post in this thread to observe the conclusion. Enjoy.

Today is day 9 without a next post. You aren't someone who reneges on a promise they made on a post are you?

I'll have to rethink my beliefs of fellows who are interested in mind control. I had always thought they were on the up and up.

[Steven Howard]

I must have missed this earlier thread featuring The Founder (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83303)the first time around.

[The Founder]

Senex- I am merely waiting for a few more replies before I make the "explanation" post which I promised. To anyone else- this, itself, is not the explanation post, I am only posting now because apparently Senex is not satisfied with my silence despite the early stages of this thread, sorry if he caused you confusion.

Steven- Is it really mature to try and dredge up a person's past to begrudge their name? I asked for one simple thing, your reaction to the article. Thank you for supplying that, however adding onto that a barely discrete jab at my credibility is not productive, and can only be received maliciously. Please show some decorum in this thread.

Additionally, that previous thread (I didn't check the link but I'm guessing which one you mean) was merely a case of me having to constantly and painstakingly say the same thing over and over again. Which was essentially an explanation that I had not been "claiming" what one person thought I had claimed. Every subsequent post was a reaction to the current discussion (my "claim") so everyone continued to make that same assumption.

It got to the point where I had simply lost interest in repeating myself. If people aren't going to listen to you then what's the point, they were having one argument, I was having another. It is neither relevant to this discussion, nor revealing of anything negative about me. I would thank you to please continue this thread with an open and unbiased mind. :)

To everyone, please continue stating your reactions, I've found the posts so far to be very interesting.


The Founder

[MetalPig]

You wait for then to finish so that you can say, 'Yes, I ...' and then start talking about yourself.
Most of the time that annoys the [rule10] out of me.

One of my coworkers uses 'No, I...':
Me: When I was in New Orleans it was raining a lot.
Him: No, I went to Chicago and the weather was excellent.

[quarky]

Are we being manipulated now? is this an experiment of sorts, wherein you will reveal that you predicted these responses? That would be fun, and doable, to some extent. Skeptics are a predictable lot; they will poo-poo unsubstantial claims and innuendos.

Meanwhile,

This rapport you mention:

In music, especially improv type jazz, wherein a 'conversation' of sorts is taking place, with an emphasis on cooperation and genuine listening, the rapport is at its most genuine and most subtle. Mimicing body language isn't going to cut it, as per making good music.

In salesmenship, it might be more effective...but only if someone is buying.
I have remained especially immune to sales pitches because I'm usually broke.

[quarky]

My post wouldn't take. (wait 60 seconds, etc, even though it was my only post)
am I being manipulated?

Weird. I see now that my posts went down, even though I was instructed that they hadn't.
Anyone know what's up with that?

[Cuddles]

adding onto that a barely discrete jab at my credibility is not productive

What credibility?

Seriously, you're posts merely read like an incredibly arrogant and condescending version of "How do you keep an idiot in suspense?", and your past behaviour does absolutely nothing to help you.

[The Founder]

Cuddles, please be reasonable. If you are not going to kindly stay on topic and avoid making jabs, I am going to ignore you.

I will *not* be drawn into another argument. If you have nothing about this topic to say, then please say nothing. I am sure that is no more than you would ask in your own threads.

To everyone else, thank you for your continued interest, I'll probably wrap this up soon as the insults have started creeping their way in already.


The Founder

[dustbunny]

Isn't this what psychics use to cold read someone?

[catbasket]

OP reported for copyright violation.

Original (http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/reading_minds/inside.html)

[six7s]

OP reported for copyright violation.

Original (http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/reading_minds/inside.html)


Well spotted!
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

[The Founder]

**sigh** You bloody jerks, I told you to message me if you noticed the hidden thing. I would have explained it all to you.

I also told you NOT to take it as an article, that it was an experiment. Since it's ruined now I'll do the promised reveal.


The purpose of this experiment was to show you an article on psychology (I posted it on several forums, skeptic and metaphysical) to gague the reactions, in order to test how deeply association will effect how you percieve it.

In other words, I was looking to see if the skeptics would see the word "psychic" and assume it was BS (even though it clearly isn't, since it is recognized psychology), and if the believers would see the word and assume it must be metaphysical (which, again, it clearly isn't).

I was pleasently surprised to see that a lot of you noticed that this is an article on NPL, Neuro-linguistic programming. And as I predicted, I got a few "show me evidence" and mocking replies too. This is the data I was looking for, to see what ratio of assumption takes place in your perception of psychic ability.

The whole point of this experiment was that the article was not mine (nor did I claim it was) it was not to be submitted OR taken AS an article (which I made perfectly clear), and would come from a more reputable source than myself, in order to invallidate the reactions. Which it would have done if someone hadn't tried to be a smartarse and ruin it.

Anyway, the link to the site where I got it has been supplied, so I don't need to. I suggest you read up on Derran's work, he is an amazing man. Thanks for your patience everyone else. :)


The Founder

[Loss Leader]

. This is the data I was looking for, to see what ratio of assumption takes place in your perception of psychic ability.


I ... don't get it. How was this a valid experiment of any sort? What did our responses show about anything? How were you able to collect any data with such few responses? What "ratio of assumption" did you derive and how did you derive it?

I just ... I don't get it. Is it avante garde?


I suggest you read up on Derran's work, he is an amazing man.


See, I think this is the reason you posted. I think you wanted to trick people into reading Derran Brown. I think you wanted some people to agree with the article (which, up until the last four paragraphs, was fairly cliched stuff) so that you could pop out and say: "Ha ha! You just agreed with Derran Brown."

And I think you failed.

[The Founder]

Loss Leader- you don't seem to have understood what I was saying, which is probably my fault.

I am working on a project designed to ease the relationship between "skeptics" and "believers", and to do this I need to know where communication fails between them.

So, this, among with other tests, is my way of trying to locate those problems in order to find a solution. You see? I wanted to see if a skeptic takes one look at an article labelled "psychic" and accuses it of being false, even though the content is perfectly acceptible and scientific.

At the same time, I wanted to see if a believer takes one look, and assumes that everything described MUST be metaphysical, in spite of the fact that it is not.

This gives me data to add into my own articles, where I can point out how one side reacts that way, and the other reacts this way, and how they are both seeing the world through tinted goggles. In the skeptic's case, through cynical goggles, in the believer's case, through naive goggles.

I have been surprised to see how many people figured out what the article was about so quickly, I did expect there to be a little bit more blindness than I have seen. And this will be reflected in my results.

Please let me know if you understand.

Also, for the record, Derran Brown is a psychologist, not a psychic. His articles are completely scientific and wholly testable.

Now I can't be certain, but you seemed to be under the impression that he is a psychic and I am trying to trick people into believing in him (there would be no achievment in tricking skeptics into agreeing with a psychologist, since that is recognized science.) If this is the case, then you are a testament to exactly what I was trying to achieve with this test.

You have taken one look at a situation, and assumed it was BS because you *thought* it was to do with psychic ability. When in fact, it was not. So you see, that's exactly what I came here to test.

If I am wrong that you thought that, then sorry maybe I missunderstood. :)


The Founder

[Empress]

Anyway, the link to the site where I got it has been supplied, so I don't need to. I suggest you read up on Derran's work, he is an amazing man. Thanks for your patience everyone else. :)


The Founder

Oooookaaaaay...

Well, I for one, regret spending a portion of my life reading this thread.

[six7s]

I told you to message me if you noticed...

I also told you NOT to take it as an article, that it was an experiment....

One catch: you don't make the rules

Hello everyone, what you are about to read is an article compiled from varying different experiences and informationLiar


I am writing thisLiar

Please take it at face valueWhich face?

Please be honestNeeding a role model?

and don't try to catch me outHah! N.B. This ain't forums.alldaysuckers.org

[Hokulele]

Derren Brown. Derren.

[The Founder]

Empress, sorry you are not satisfied, I admit this undertaking was more for me than anyone else, but I was hoping that some of those who labelled it as BS would realize the flaw in their assumptions and might benefit from that? **shrugs**


Six7s, you're right, I made an error back there saying "I am writing this." That's my mistake, I think I was trying to say "posting" but since I was writing at the time I got confused. Nevertheless, you're right, that was my mistake.

When I said "Hello everyone, what you are about to read is an article compiled from varying different experiences and information", I did lie for the most part. I was trying to make it *look* like I had written it, without actually saying it. I never said I was going to be honest.

Lastly, what are you positing, exactly? That I, someone who writes such lengthy posts and is clearly capable of writing my own articles, would intentionally try to steal a PSYCHOLOGY article, and pass it off as my own PSYCHIC article, rather than just steal an actual psychic one?

And telling you beforehand that it was all just an experiment was just... what, a colorful coincidence? I think you're smart enough to understand that is not the case. This was an experiment, and I have been running it at many forums. I write plenty of my own articles, so I have no genuine need to steal one, nor would I benefit by choosing one of a totally different subject than was advertised.


Hokulele, crap, lol, you're right. I wonder how long I've been doing that. XD


The Founder

[six7s]

Lastly
Tip #1: Note that the term 'lastly' is, by convention, reserved for the final point

what are you positing, exactly?
I am 'positing' that, as far as establishing any sense of credibility, you screwed up by first burying yourself in a pile of crap

And telling you beforehand that it was all just an experiment was just... what, a colorful coincidence? I think you're smart enough to understand that is not the case. This was an experiment, and I have been running it at many forums. I write plenty of my own articles, so I have no genuine need to steal one, nor would I benefit by choosing one of a totally different subject than was advertised.
Tip #2: Note that the most efficient means of extricating yourself from a hole rarely involves digging

[Senex]

This was a bad idea pathetically carried out (rudely too, calling people bloody jerks isn't the way to build mind control raport.)


Also, for the record, Derran Brown is a psychologist, not a psychic. His articles are completely scientific and wholly testable.


For the record, Derren Brown is an entertainer not a psychchologist. His articles are completely written as misdirection for his mentalism. Brown uses the same standard methods as all other mentalists. His talk of NLP and body language and subliminal messages is all bulloney.

That article you, umm "borrowed," seems more of a retraction of his hard core NLP explanations. He may have started to feel bad he was helping to promote new age woo. I've seen a number of videos of him on Youtube and read the dozens and dozens of comments people have left who firmy believe that "Ericsonian" handshakes and subliminal pictures on walls are behind seeming miracles that really involved envelope switches and carbon paper.

[The Founder]

Senex, you're right I could have done it better, but I wasn't going for anything life changing, this was just a curiosity I decided to explore.

Are you sure about Derren being an entertainer? I find it hard to believe, but then I don't know everything about it, I suppose it could well be true. Nevertheless, even if he is not a psychologist, surely his article about NLP still applies, even if he himself does not do it?


Six7's, it wasn't a final "point" it was a final response, I was never making any points. And it *was* my final response, it was just a long one.

I'm not gonna let you trick me into a hole to start digging, buddy. My experiment is perfectly clear, and for someone to not understand it at this point, only suggests they are not very clever. I have faith that the majority of people here ARE, in fact, clever enough to figure this out.

In fact, I think you are too, and you are just trying to have some fun at my expense. But I could be wrong.


The Founder

[Babbylonian]

I suggest you read up on Derran's work, he is an amazing man.

Also, for the record, Derran Brown is a psychologist, not a psychic. His articles are completely scientific and wholly testable.

Are you sure about Derren being an entertainer? I find it hard to believe, but then I don't know everything about it, I suppose it could well be true. Nevertheless, even if he is not a psychologist, surely his article about NLP still applies, even if he himself does not do it?

An "experimenter" ought to at least be able to identify the components used in his or her experiment. Having a clear, testable hypothesis doesn't hurt, either.

ETA: For the record, the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_brown) on Derren Brown.

[kerikiwi]

My experiment is perfectly clear, and for someone to not understand it at this point, only suggests they are not very clever.



Can I be the first to admit that, according to the above criterion, I am not very clever?

[The Founder]

Babbylionan, I realize that Derren is an "entertainer" in the sense that he does TV and public demonstrations and so on, but are you sure he is JUST an entertainer? I'm not claiming to know different, but he always seemed to know what he is talking about.

Also, that article was just one of many on his website, in others he goes into much greater detail, and references the forms of psychology he uses (such as NLP) which have extensive backgrounds of their own. So it seems to me that he does have the knowledge, unless that's not what you meant?

If you were not questioning his expertese, however, I'm not sure I understood what you were saying. Probably my fault. :)


Kerikiwi, please let me know what you don't understand, I suspect that so far you've probably just missed or not fully taken in the post where I explained it. It's pretty simple really, I just wanted to see if skeptics would not take an article seriously simply because I labelled it "psychic".


The Founder

[Babbylonian]

If you were not questioning his expertese, however, I'm not sure I understood what you were saying. Probably my fault. :)
What I was questioning were a) your knowledge of who Derren Brown is and what his qualifications for discussing psychological phenomena might be (you had no such knowledge since you called him a "psychologist"), and b) your ability/qualifications to determine the truth/accuracy of what Derren Brown writes on his website.

For example, if I write a long screed about how human memory works and put it on a website without references to my sources and qualifications, how could you judge the truth of it? Even if it sounds like I know what I'm talking about, it could be complete garbage.

I was further questioning your "experiment." You've not yet provided the hypothesis for it, and you've clearly demonstrated that you didn't even understand what seems to be your primary tool (the article in question).

In short, you trolled this forum with the article, either for your own entertainment, or in pursuit of some nebulous [scientific?] goal that you have not yet adequately explained.

[kerikiwi]

Kerikiwi, please let me know what you don't understand, I suspect that so far you've probably just missed or not fully taken in the post where I explained it. It's pretty simple really, I just wanted to see if skeptics would not take an article seriously simply because I labelled it "psychic".


The Founder

Well, my post was a little tongue-in-cheek.
Do you mean you were trying to find out whether skeptics were more or less likely than some control group to actually read articles rather than headlines?
Labelling your post an 'experiment' is stretching it a bit.

[six7s]

Six7's,
The Flounder, please n'ote the'r'e ar'ent a'ny apo'stroph'es in my scr'een nam'e

I'm not gonna let you trick me into a hole to start digging,Trick you into? Don't make me laugh! You were over your head in crap long before I knew you'd even registered on this forum

buddyLeave it out, mate

[The Founder]

Babbylonian -

You may be right that I unwittingly made assumptions about Derren Brown. I didn't intend to. I have followed his work on television and marvelled at what he has achieved, and with the limited understanding of psycholgy that I have emassed, reading his articles seemed to suggest that theory behind most of what he does, is sound. In addition to that, as I said earlier, he utilizes concepts like Neuro-Linguistic programming, which is well established already.

Nevertheless, I concede the point that my experiment was conducted on the assumption that Derren knows what he is talking about, and that *may*, for all I know, not be the case. I am not an avid student of his work, I only know what I have seen, and while it seems to check out, I could easily have been misled. But then, you could apply that same logic to any situation really.

Regardless, the function of the experiment was not neccesarily to have people judge whether Derren knew what he was talking about, as that was largely inconsequential and wouldn't have mattered one way or the other - it was to ascertain how many people judged the article to be superstitious "psychic" BS, despite that fact that it was ABOUT (whether accurate or not) recognized psychology.

So in my opinion the experiment was not defeated by this lapse, I still got the information I wanted.


Kerikiwi -

You more or less have it right. Ideally, I wanted people to actually *read* the article thoroughly, and still decide that it was spiritualist nonsense. The aim being, to prove that preconceptions can taint a person's impression of an otherwise credible peice of work. I did the same thing on the metaphysical forums but with the opposite motive.

Yeah, calling it an "experiment" is a bit of a stretch, heh. I just wanted to make that stick in people's minds so that when I make the reveal post, people will figure out that it was a test, not plagurism. So I picked a stronger sounding word just to make sure people would notice that factor.


Six7s, sorry about the mispell (been a little rushed while responding here).


Trick you into? Don't make me laugh! You were over your head in crap long before I knew you'd even registered on this forum


No I wasn't.


Leave it out, mate

Knock it off, pally.

:P


Anyway, I think that about covers it... there's nothing more I need from this thread and everything has been revealled, so I'm off. :)

Thank you everyone for your time and patience. This has been very helpful. :)


The Founder

The Founder

[six7s]

You were over your head in crap long before I knew you'd even registered on this forumNo I wasn't.Just cos you deny it doesn't mean it ain't so

I did lie for the most part ... I never said I was going to be honest.Faeces for breakfast, Faeces for lunch and Faeces for dinner: The F-plan diet

[Loss Leader]

You have taken one look at a situation, and assumed it was BS because you *thought* it was to do with psychic ability. When in fact, it was not. So you see, that's exactly what I came here to test.


No, I have not. I took a look at the article and said that the last four paragraphs, roughly, did not follow from the rest, were not common knowledge and were not acceptable without detail or reference. Here I am now:

There's quite a long jump between the first paragraph of "Patterns" to the second. You don't explain at all how to go about doing anything that you say to do. Positioning your body like someone else's and keeping an open posture are specific tips. They are easy to understand and implement (and, also, easy to check if they are working). You don't give any hints as to how to see things from others' perspective or build up "a representation of their way of seeing the world."

How you get from there to mind control is, frankly, a mystery.


So, my problem was that the article did not explain itself. I never said anything like "It sounds psychic, so it must be wrong." I said the jump to mind control was not sufficiently explained.

You appear to premise your "experiment" on the idea that Brown's article is accepted scientific fact. Some of it is, but the last four paragraphs are utter lunacy. If the article isn't provably true, you cannot count results of "skeptics" who doubt the article.

There is more than one explanation as to why someone doubts the article: 1) Derren Brown wrote it; or 2) it's not established science. Your so-called "experiment" does not contain a method of differentiating the two. Your conclusions (lumping all skeptics into group 1) does not follow from the evidence. Your experimental design, execution and result are terrible.



Regardless, the function of the experiment was not neccesarily to have people judge whether Derren knew what he was talking about, as that was largely inconsequential and wouldn't have mattered one way or the other - it was to ascertain how many people judged the article to be superstitious "psychic" BS, despite that fact that it was ABOUT (whether accurate or not) recognized psychology.


You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're tapdancing to save your life. I'm not buying it. Please consider your credibility to be zero.

[Babbylonian]

Regardless, the function of the experiment was not neccesarily to have people judge whether Derren knew what he was talking about, as that was largely inconsequential and wouldn't have mattered one way or the other...
It wouldn't? How many of the posters here are psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, therapists, etc.? How would you be able to determine if responses are based on knee-jerk reactions or on actual expertise and knowledge?
...it was to ascertain how many people judged the article to be superstitious "psychic" BS, despite that fact that it was ABOUT (whether accurate or not) recognized psychology.You've claimed that you have no special psychology training, so how have you determined that this article is about "recognized" psychology? What does "recognized" mean in this context?

Further, you've asserted that you want to use this data for your own "articles." Do you have a questionnaire ready to send to the respondents here in order to attempt to accurately determine the reasoning behind their responses, their expertise and/or experiences that led them to respond the way they did? Is there a control group? What was your hypothesis?

Do you have any methodology at all besides trolling?

You may have data, but it's worthless in any scientific respect.

[arthwollipot]

I'd just like to point out that reposting someone else's work without their permission is a copyright violation and against the rules of this forum as well as the laws of most countries.

That's all.

[quarky]

I hope this thread doesn't get really awkward.

[chillzero]

This gives me data to add into my own articles,

This wasn't your own article, however, and the rules are very clear on this. To issue abuse to the forum members for doing the right thing in alerting the mods to a potential legal issue is crass at least.


For anyone else wishing to undertake such an experiment in future, the advice would be to PM one or more of the mods for advice and assistance with wording the OP so as not to claim someone else's work as your own, and still retain the basis of the experiment.

A good (similar) example recently was Unsecured Coins's expose of how readily 911 CTists will take a piece of uncorroborated information and run with it.

As for this thread, I don't see how it can be used as any kind of dataset - the input is too low and the premise was flawed from the outset.

[Ashles]

I have followed his work on television and marvelled at what he has achieved, and with the limited understanding of psycholgy that I have emassed, reading his articles seemed to suggest that theory behind most of what he does, is sound. In addition to that, as I said earlier, he utilizes concepts like Neuro-Linguistic programming, which is well established already.
No he doesn't. In his book 'Tricks of the Mind' he essentially says NLP is pretty useless and NLP proponenets are full of themselves to a fairly ludicrous degree.
But he does say it has a couple of techniques that may be useful, (but they aren't unique to NLP and are fairly common sense).

And however you think he does what he does - it absolutely isn't how he actually does it.
All the talk of psychology and NLP is also part of his misdirection. He uses a variety of techniques and many are simple magic techniques that have been around for decades, but he updates them with great performance and a psychology veneer.
There is no 'theory' behind what he does other than he is an illusionist, magician and entertainer. Albeit a pretty damn good one. And a funny guy.

Having said that I think everyone should read his tips on memory improvement - if you practise they are very powerful.

[Ashles]

I think we should all go a bit easier on The Founder - he didn't know that people in this forum would know as much about Psychology and Derren Brown as they do.

To be fair he has admitted a fairly small exposure to psychology, and certainly wouldn't be the first to be taken in by Derren Brown's performance.

[arthwollipot]

I think we should all go a bit easier on The Founder - he didn't know that people in this forum would know as much about Psychology and Derren Brown as they do.

To be fair he has admitted a fairly small exposure to psychology, and certainly wouldn't be the first to be taken in by Derren Brown's performance.I picked one of Derren's tricks on his show once. Well - let's say that I picked up on part of the trick. I'm sure that there were other methods involved. He took someone's watch and set it to a particular time, then placed it back on their wrist where they couldn't see it. Then he asked them to "randomly" choose a time by visualising a clock face. Lo and behold, when they looked at the watch, it was set to the time they had picked. I could tell pretty much how he did it, but I'm not at all sure I'd have the charisma to pull it off myself. He's a very clever man.

[Cuddles]

Cuddles, please be reasonable. If you are not going to kindly stay on topic and avoid making jabs, I am going to ignore you.

I will *not* be drawn into another argument. If you have nothing about this topic to say, then please say nothing. I am sure that is no more than you would ask in your own threads.

To everyone else, thank you for your continued interest, I'll probably wrap this up soon as the insults have started creeping their way in already.


The Founder

Well, as skeptics we have to admit when we are wrong. I foolishly said, or at least implied, that you had no credibility. For that I apologise. It turns out that you actually did have a tiny scrap of creibility left, which you successfully crushed, burned, buried and then dug up and made into firelighters. I may have been wrong before, but I can state with absolute certainty that you now have exactly zero credibility left. Now please, just give up. At the rate you're digging you'll soon be getting very hot.

[Ashles]

I picked one of Derren's tricks on his show once. Well - let's say that I picked up on part of the trick. I'm sure that there were other methods involved. He took someone's watch and set it to a particular time, then placed it back on their wrist where they couldn't see it. Then he asked them to "randomly" choose a time by visualising a clock face. Lo and behold, when they looked at the watch, it was set to the time they had picked. I could tell pretty much how he did it, but I'm not at all sure I'd have the charisma to pull it off myself. He's a very clever man.
True - so many of the things magicians/illusionists do often mostly require having the balls to actually do something and trust that they'll get away with it.
I once tried a trick of David Blaine's I had seen explained, on someone in the office with no preparation.
The crucial part required me to 'rip up' some paper they had written on because they had done part of the trick 'wrong' and then 'start again'.

Even as I did it I thought it wouldn't work, that it must be obvious what I was doing - but it was amazing that they went along with it and as soon as we started the trick again ('for real' this time) it was as if they had completely forgotten about the false start (which was so crucial).

A very good magician usually has some fall back as well so if part of the trick is spotted they can segue into a different technique, or sometimes a different trick altogether.

And Derren Brown is very, very good - he is probably so effective because he is able to use so many very different techniques.

[arthwollipot]

And Derren Brown is very, very good - he is probably so effective because he is able to use so many very different techniques.I think that's critical - a vast repertoire of methods means that you can pick and choose and have a fallback position if one doesn't work.

That show actually showed him performing the trick three times - twice it worked, and on a third it completely failed. I liked the fact that he showed the failed trick as well.

[The Founder]

I would like to thank some of you, especially LossLeader, Chillzero and Ashles for your advice on what I did wrong and how to improve upon it, this information will be useful in my future experiments. The critical mistake, I realize, was not informing the Mods before I attempted this, I took it to be too light-hearted to matter and neglected to see it from their point of view. Choosing a more reliable median for the subject matter would have helped too.

Everyone else thanks for your participation, especially to those few who were able to remain civil. :) I'll not be responding to the trouble-stirrers or those trying to make mountains out of molehills, trying to goad an enflamed situation further. Especially when some of them are supposed to be setting an example as staff members. :rolleyes:

Still, that disappointment aside, I enjoyed this thread, got some useful pointers and was pleasantly surprised by some of the reactions I received. Look forward to seeing you all next time.

Take care. :)


The Founder

[chillzero]

I'm glad you found it productive in the end.

I do have to point out though that no staff members participated in this thread, and that nothing written by mods or admins of the forum can be taken as coming from the JREF.