Who is Derren Brown and why am I so fascinated by him?

[Moochie]

Possibly because he does such an excellent job of deflating woo ideas in a terrifically entertaining way.

I would suggest all those who entertain woo beliefs either watch his shows or get a copy of the videos.

M.

[Alan Heap]

the thing i find interesting is the way he presents tricks which can be extremely misleading in a bad way sometimes, but often in a good way. he likes to mislead by mixing it up, either displaying the trick openly and are self-explaining (just really impressive) or as pseudoscience. i think this can be very misleading in a bad way, promoting things like hypnosis and nlp even if he doesn't directly promote or say anything about them.

derren is an awesome performer of course and i've read how he doesn't think much of nlp, especially the self-help stuff. the suggestion stuff that does work can be found in proper psychology and probably for free or for a fraction of the price. i love his shows, tv and live, but can be a bit to misleading sometimes. just read some of the comments on youtube, so much stuff about nlp, i find it very disturbing as you can see some of these people would be easy to con with nlp and hypnosis media, seminars, and even self-help crap. oh yeah and theres michael prescotts blog and a million other sites. just a point. i like derrens shows of course.

[Victor Meldrew]

I think Derren is quite clever in the way he presents his stuff, and it is a mixture of what he says - magic, suggestion, hypnosis, NLP, psychology and misdirection - with I personally feel, a leaning towards magic and misdirection. I think he even uses misdirection when he explanains how it was done.

There is some value in hypnosis and NLP - but I believe that ultimately all hypnosis is self-hypnosis - all a hypnotherapist does is get someone to relax, and then feeds in suggestions that the person wants to hear and accept.

NLP is a bit the same - it works if you believe in it, and even if you think you don't. That sounds a bit daft, but if you believe in the person performing the NLP, and believe what they say will happen, then it generally does. Like hypnosis, all NLP is self-NLP.

The magic of the mind! A fascinating subject. if you would like to find out more about how the brain works, I can recommend 2 books - Mapping the Mind by Rita Carter, and Phantoms in the Brain by V S Ramachandran.

Derrens latest book, Trick of the Mind, is an excellent read.

[Kage]

His special, Messiah, is an awesome debunking of wo. Truly amazing.

[jimbob]

I have just finished his book "tricks of the mind" which I'd strongly recommend.

In it he discusses some of his problems with NLP. One problem invloved him attending an NLP course, after which he was entitled to call himself an "NLP practictioner" for a year *without* any testing; they then ssent him another certificate despite him not asking for it.

meaningless piece of paper.

[Alan Heap]

my thoughts on nlp and hypnosis:

nlp or hypnosis don't exist in the literal sense, and most of the truth is practical and very obvious, what you see is what you get. thats why i think nlp and hypnosis is a con, a big con and i wish it was exposed more as i think a hell of a lot of people are falling for it. the practical side of it has effects that work, no doubt about that, but their theory is bs.

hypnosis and nlp are conformity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity_%28psychology%29). that's all, i really don't think there is anything more to it.

hypnosis is identification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification) and compliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance) which are subcategories of conformity.

nlp is internalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization) (subcategory), specifically introjection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introjection).

i'm not even sure what nlp is supposed to be, i've watched hours of the stuff and i'm left thinking 'what the $*^!', incredibly glad i didn't pay for any of it (shiver me timbers!).

i hope this also shows why i think nlp and hypnosis just isn't anything that amazing or even new. and also why it can be used to rope people in and manipulate them. people view the teachers as masters will do anything to reach their point of skill when their isn't really any skill to master, they'll pay for the overpriced seminars then pay for several more then buy the dvd yet learn very little. it's like a double bluff, advertise "nlp" or "hypnosis", then perform "nlp" and "hypnosis" on them. it's semi-pseudoscience along with bad education.

anyway, gone a bit of topic, but i'm rather passionately against the concept of nlp and hypnosis. if anyone is interested with this sort of stuff, then PLEASE read or study proper founded psychology, not NLP or hypnosis. or mentalism if your into that side of it.

my 2 cents.

[Kage]

my thoughts on nlp and hypnosis:

nlp or hypnosis don't exist in the literal sense, and most of the truth is practical and very obvious, what you see is what you get. thats why i think nlp and hypnosis is a con, a big con and i wish it was exposed more as i think a hell of a lot of people are falling for it. the practical side of it has effects that work, no doubt about that, but their theory is bs.

hypnosis and nlp are conformity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity_%28psychology%29). that's all, i really don't think there is anything more to it.

hypnosis is identification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification) and compliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance) which are subcategories of conformity.

nlp is internalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization) (subcategory), specifically introjection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introjection).

i'm not even sure what nlp is supposed to be, i've watched hours of the stuff and i'm left thinking 'what the $*^!', incredibly glad i didn't pay for any of it (shiver me timbers!).

i hope this also shows why i think nlp and hypnosis just isn't anything that amazing or even new. and also why it can be used to rope people in and manipulate them. people view the teachers as masters will do anything to reach their point of skill when their isn't really any skill to master, they'll pay for the overpriced seminars then pay for several more then buy the dvd yet learn very little. it's like a double bluff, advertise "nlp" or "hypnosis", then perform "nlp" and "hypnosis" on them. it's semi-pseudoscience along with bad education.

anyway, gone a bit of topic, but i'm rather passionately against the concept of nlp and hypnosis. if anyone is interested with this sort of stuff, then PLEASE read or study proper founded psychology, not NLP or hypnosis. or mentalism if your into that side of it.

my 2 cents.

having been hypnotized and having done a lot of research into it, I have to disagree. One article regarding scientific testing of hypnosis can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/science/22hypno.html?ex=1290315600&en=bbfd74b2a1656ff2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This doesn't mean that the field of hypnosis isn't FILLED with woo. It is. Hypnosis cannot bring back memories or make your naughty parts bigger (there are people who claim that they can do this), so any discussion of whether hypnosis "works" gets colored by this. False memory syndrome is an example of a place where hypnosis doesn't do what those practitioners say it does, but it is doing something.

[Alan Heap]

having been hypnotized and having done a lot of research into it, I have to disagree. One article regarding scientific testing of hypnosis can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/science/22hypno.html?ex=1290315600&en=bbfd74b2a1656ff2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This doesn't mean that the field of hypnosis isn't FILLED with woo. It is. Hypnosis cannot bring back memories or make your naughty parts bigger (there are people who claim that they can do this), so any discussion of whether hypnosis "works" gets colored by this. False memory syndrome is an example of a place where hypnosis doesn't do what those practitioners say it does, but it is doing something.

i disagree with disagreeing

anyway, maybe hypnotism could include internalization. i think you underestimate these behaviors. but you've been hypnotized, i haven't, so your perspective might be better. then again perhaps not:D

conformity is especially obvious with things like self-help, as it's basically a person who you perceive as higher authority or social rank telling you what to do. people from what i've seen are always asked to sleep then pretend to fall asleep or are told they're feeling tired and act tired. they follow such literal orders.

[Moochie]

the thing i find interesting is the way he presents tricks which can be extremely misleading in a bad way sometimes, but often in a good way. he likes to mislead by mixing it up, either displaying the trick openly and are self-explaining (just really impressive) or as pseudoscience. i think this can be very misleading in a bad way, promoting things like hypnosis and nlp even if he doesn't directly promote or say anything about them.

derren is an awesome performer of course and i've read how he doesn't think much of nlp, especially the self-help stuff. the suggestion stuff that does work can be found in proper psychology and probably for free or for a fraction of the price. i love his shows, tv and live, but can be a bit to misleading sometimes. just read some of the comments on youtube, so much stuff about nlp, i find it very disturbing as you can see some of these people would be easy to con with nlp and hypnosis media, seminars, and even self-help crap. oh yeah and theres michael prescotts blog and a million other sites. just a point. i like derrens shows of course.

Since when is hypnosis woo? Without evidence I would say the majority of the population are prone to suggestibility.

It's their suggestibility that allows them to believe in woo in the first place.

M.

[Moochie]

I haven't seen many of his programs, but recently saw the "seance" episode again.

In this program, he has people correctly "guess" simple drawings he has done, such as a square, and so on.

If you watch carefully, you can see that he is actually telegraphing the content of what he draws through various means. But it is done in such a way that, unless you are looking for it, you will not see it.

This guy is teaching in such a clever and entertaining way, I feel he deserves an award of some kind.

The "seance" part of the program was just brilliant, IMO.

M.

[Alan Heap]

Since when is hypnosis woo? Without evidence I would say the majority of the population are prone to suggestibility.

It's their suggestibility that allows them to believe in woo in the first place.

M.

i don't mean to make out derren (or any self-proclaimed mentalist for that matter) is the bad buy, he's not, his shows make you think, are very entertaining and derren gives a foreword at the beginning of his show.

what i mean is, some of his tricks have such a big effect on people, that they will seek out ways to learn these effects from sources which exploit them. the tricks they saw might not have even been suggestibility. i know many tricks that can be made to look like nlp, hypnosis, suggestibility or whatever, but are really done physically (more with his live performances than tv shows). many of these tricks can be found in sales books, which shows the effect they can have on people.

just look at the comments on derrens videos on youtube, michael prescotts blog, some seduction nlp sites (ross jeffries in particular). i don't see why this sort of stuff is ok, yet selling holy water is a scam when it's the same type scam.

[Victor Meldrew]

my thoughts on nlp and hypnosis:

nlp or hypnosis don't exist in the literal sense, and most of the truth is practical and very obvious, what you see is what you get. thats why i think nlp and hypnosis is a con, a big con and i wish it was exposed more as i think a hell of a lot of people are falling for it. the practical side of it has effects that work, no doubt about that, but their theory is bs.

hypnosis and nlp are conformity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity_%28psychology%29). that's all, i really don't think there is anything more to it.

hypnosis is identification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification) and compliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance) which are subcategories of conformity.

nlp is internalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization) (subcategory), specifically introjection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introjection).

i'm not even sure what nlp is supposed to be, i've watched hours of the stuff and i'm left thinking 'what the $*^!', incredibly glad i didn't pay for any of it (shiver me timbers!).

i hope this also shows why i think nlp and hypnosis just isn't anything that amazing or even new. and also why it can be used to rope people in and manipulate them. people view the teachers as masters will do anything to reach their point of skill when their isn't really any skill to master, they'll pay for the overpriced seminars then pay for several more then buy the dvd yet learn very little. it's like a double bluff, advertise "nlp" or "hypnosis", then perform "nlp" and "hypnosis" on them. it's semi-pseudoscience along with bad education.

anyway, gone a bit of topic, but i'm rather passionately against the concept of nlp and hypnosis. if anyone is interested with this sort of stuff, then PLEASE read or study proper founded psychology, not NLP or hypnosis. or mentalism if your into that side of it.

my 2 cents.

I agree with a lot of what you say Alan - but please read my comments above about hypnotism and NLP.

It may interest you to know that I am a Certified Hypnotherapist, AND studying for a degree in Psychology, and I know that hypnosis does help people - when they want to be helped. Same with NLP, which I have also studied (and like you, take a lot of it with a big pinch of salt).

In other words, it's about helping people to use their mind constructively - to push them in the right direction. I don't think there is anything magical or mystical about hypnosis or NLP.

[Alan Heap]

having been hypnotized and having done a lot of research into it, I have to disagree. One article regarding scientific testing of hypnosis can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/science/22hypno.html?ex=1290315600&en=bbfd74b2a1656ff2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This doesn't mean that the field of hypnosis isn't FILLED with woo. It is. Hypnosis cannot bring back memories or make your naughty parts bigger (there are people who claim that they can do this), so any discussion of whether hypnosis "works" gets colored by this. False memory syndrome is an example of a place where hypnosis doesn't do what those practitioners say it does, but it is doing something.


ok took a look at link.

i don't see how this experiment proves hypnosis. they're paying attention to one source of information rather than another source, they have just made the assumption they were hypnotized, how did they know they were hypnotized? they didn't, they could just as easily make the assumption the hypnotized subjects were the ones viewing the colour and not the word. it's a very poor and flawed experiment. less activity in one brain area (anterior cingulate?) can be easily explained as paying attention to one instead of two sources of information.

so it's not hypnosis, but another instruction effect, where the instruction was given in a condition labelled "hypnosis". they are conforming with the instruction.

[jimbob]

i don't mean to make out derren (or any self-proclaimed mentalist for that matter) is the bad buy, he's not, his shows make you think, are very entertaining and derren gives a foreword at the beginning of his show.

what i mean is, some of his tricks have such a big effect on people, that they will seek out ways to learn these effects from sources which exploit them. the tricks they saw might not have even been suggestibility. i know many tricks that can be made to look like nlp, hypnosis, suggestibility or whatever, but are really done physically (more with his live performances than tv shows). many of these tricks can be found in sales books, which shows the effect they can have on people.

just look at the comments on derrens videos on youtube, michael prescotts blog, some seduction nlp sites (ross jeffries in particular). i don't see why this sort of stuff is ok, yet selling holy water is a scam when it's the same type scam.

In the book "tricks of the mind" Derren Brown basically agrees with this. He explains the looking up at the bright swinging orb, "your eyes are getting tired", which is true from the physiology of the situation, yet makes the subject think that the "hypnosis" is working. He argues that it works because the subject thinks it will, and that the "technique" consists of convincing the subject of the hypnotist's "power".

It sounded convincing to me.

Jim

[Moochie]

i don't mean to make out derren (or any self-proclaimed mentalist for that matter) is the bad buy, he's not, his shows make you think, are very entertaining and derren gives a foreword at the beginning of his show.

what i mean is, some of his tricks have such a big effect on people, that they will seek out ways to learn these effects from sources which exploit them. the tricks they saw might not have even been suggestibility. i know many tricks that can be made to look like nlp, hypnosis, suggestibility or whatever, but are really done physically (more with his live performances than tv shows). many of these tricks can be found in sales books, which shows the effect they can have on people.

just look at the comments on derrens videos on youtube, michael prescotts blog, some seduction nlp sites (ross jeffries in particular). i don't see why this sort of stuff is ok, yet selling holy water is a scam when it's the same type scam.

Sorry, but I have no idea of what you're on about.

M.

[Kage]

Quite a few of Derren's tricks involve using a dual reality, and are quite simple and require little or no hypnosis.

One of my favorite tricks he does is rock paper scissors, where he beats people repeatedly (part of the trick involves making people go really fast, so they don't have time to think) which I taught to a few of my friends.

I just really like the fact that he can perform cold reading so much better than the people out there who do it for a living. REally goes to show what hacks Saliva Browne and her friends are.

[Alan Heap]

Sorry, but I have no idea of what you're on about.


Since when is hypnosis woo? Without evidence I would say the majority of the population are prone to suggestibility.

It's their suggestibility that allows them to believe in woo in the first place.yeah, missed the point :)

of course the majority are prone to suggestibility, we're all prone to suggestibility. the only exception maybe someone who's brain damaged. i don't understand where your going with this.

woo? yes, evidence for it not being "woo"? what makes it more credible than drinking plain tap water that's claimed to increase your confidence?

so many people take derrens tricks literally, even in this thread. somewhat disturbing.

[Moochie]

so many people take derrens tricks literally, even in this thread. somewhat disturbing.

Apart from yourself, I'm not aware of anyone doing what you say.

What's your date of birth?

M.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Interesting stuff (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_query=Derren%20Brown)

Thanks!

[Moochie]

Interesting stuff (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_query=Derren%20Brown)

Thanks!

The man clearly has "power." But isn't it "power" we willingly cede to him, and people like him?

Isn't this what people do with Sylvia and Rosemary?

M.

[Mr. Stick]

Whenever somebody says: "well, how did that psychic know all these things about me/my dead grandmother/my dog?", I always think of Derren Brown. If he can do what he does without any psychic powers, how can anyone seriously believe those stage psychics with their crappy cold reading are for real?

[Moochie]

Whenever somebody says: "well, how did that psychic know all these things about me/my dead grandmother/my dog?", I always think of Derren Brown. If he can do what he does without any psychic powers, how can anyone seriously believe those stage psychics with their crappy cold reading are for real?

Exactly. Mr. Brown's not the only nonpsychic to demonstrate how easy cold reading really is. The difference, I think, is that he does it in such a transparent way, so that if you're a nonbeliever, you can actually spot how it's being done, without subsequent recourse to transcript analysis, and so on. In this way I think he's a damn good teacher.

Sadly, I doubt whether many believers actually watch his programs.

I've seen it claimed that the "victims" of the $ylvias, John Edwards, Alteas, etc., are not stupid people.

I beg to differ. Not only do I think that these people are muy stupid, I also suspect that they are the recipient of a stupid gene. If this exonerates them of the charge of stupidity, then so be it.

M.

[jimbob]

Exactly. Mr. Brown's not the only nonpsychic to demonstrate how easy cold reading really is. The difference, I think, is that he does it in such a transparent way, so that if you're a nonbeliever, you can actually spot how it's being done, without subsequent recourse to transcript analysis, and so on. In this way I think he's a damn good teacher.

Sadly, I doubt whether many believers actually watch his programs.

I've seen it claimed that the "victims" of the $ylvias, John Edwards, Alteas, etc., are not stupid people.

I beg to differ. Not only do I think that these people are muy stupid, I also suspect that they are the recipient of a stupid gene. If this exonerates them of the charge of stupidity, then so be it.

M.

He did writh that he had wanted to put the "real" psuchic's cold reading transcripts into some of his TV shows, but it when filmed it was dire: Either hey showed the whole caboodle, which was tedious beyond description (very low hit rate), or they editied it, which made it look *far* too good (and still boring).

Have I mentioned that I liked his book?

Jim

[Victor Meldrew]

An interview with Derren, from the conjurers magazine, Genii:

http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html

Especially interesting from the part "a complete toolbox" stroll down about half way.

[pjh]

I just really like the fact that he can perform cold reading so much better than the people out there who do it for a living. REally goes to show what hacks Saliva Browne and her friends are.
I'm not sure I've seen him do cold reading, which show does he do this on?

[Azrael 5]

I'm not sure I've seen him do cold reading, which show does he do this on?

Messiah.;)

[pjh]

Messiah.;)

Yea right, if that's cold reading then my name's Derren Brown and so's my wife's.

I think this is part of the skeptic-woo about cold reading. If it's totally crap, guesswork, the letters 'R' and 'H' and plenty of stuff that applies to everyone or hasn't happened yet then that's cold reading.

Derren presented this as 'cold reading' yet it clearly isn't.

[DJM]

So that was stooges as well, pjh? Maybe even Derren himself is a stooge?

[Azrael 5]

So that was stooges as well, pjh? Maybe even Derren himself is a stooge?

I didn't read the username before I replied.Wouldn't have bothered had I.:rolleyes:

[DJM]

We always learn from our mistakes. ;)

[Alan Heap]

Apart from yourself, I'm not aware of anyone doing what you say.

What's your date of birth?

M.


of course you wouldn't

my date of birth is irrelevant.

[Moochie]

Derren Brown usually gives viewers a pretty good indication that what they're watching is entertainment. What else do you suggest is done to further make that point?

M.

[Azrael 5]

Derren Brown usually gives viewers a pretty good indication that what they're watching is entertainment. What else do you suggest is done to further make that point?

M.

Stone him.Burn him at the stake.Providing he's made of wood.

*Like Churches* :p

[pjh]

I think it's a great example of how skeptics like to think they're clever.

They've head of cold reading, read something by Ian Rowland, and when Derren says "Here's some cold reading" they're prepared to accept that at face value because they're so clever and knowledgeable.

There is no other cold reader on the planet that could recreate the 'cold reading' session shown on Derren's Messiah program. So that leaves us with the possibility that DB's really psychic, or he did something else and told us it was cold reading. But either way, it's not cold reading.

[DJM]

pjh, do you even listen to yourself? They showed about 5 mintues from the whole session, it was most likely much longer than that. Derren did show some classic cold reading stuff, like talking about dreams, clothes, and some general issues.

He wanted to show how mediums do their things, and that's exactly how it is. Even if there was some hot reading involved, that's also part of what mediums do in their sessions.

But there was also cold reading and shotgunning involved. Maybe you should watch it again. They could have edited some things, but that's exactly what people like John Edward also do on their shows anyway. The women at Derren's session seemed pretty upset at the end, so he must have been pretty believable most of the time. I remember that one of them couldn't stop crying.

Say, did Derren hit you when you were a kid or something? It's starting to sound like there's something personal between both of you..

[Azrael 5]

It isn't cold reading
He uses stooges
You can't tell anything via body language
Bla blah blah.....

Boring pjh.Very boring.

[pjh]

It isn't cold reading
He uses stooges
You can't tell anything via body language
Bla blah blah.....

Boring pjh.Very boring.

He's psychic, he has paranormal powers ... NO WAY could these be tricks cos I can't figure out how they're done, and I'm like super special ya know.

Boring Azrael, very boring.

[JonWhite]

Derren presented this as 'cold reading' yet it clearly isn't.

Hi PJH. I've read Rowland, etc and saw the DB show. Taking the idea that like all such TV it was obviously edited to present the "readings" hits and highlights, I saw no problem accepting it as cold reading even though I'm fully aware of how DB likes to leave his methods as mis-directed and ambiguous as possible.

Simply, I'm curious. If it wasn't done by cold (& hot) reading then what alternative methods do you offer instead?

[Azrael 5]

He's psychic, he has paranormal powers ... NO WAY could these be tricks cos I can't figure out how they're done, and I'm like super special ya know.

Boring Azrael, very boring.

Point me to my posts where I state any of the above.I know he's a magician. :rolleyes:

[DJM]

He's psychic, he has paranormal powers ... NO WAY could these be tricks cos I can't figure out how they're done, and I'm like super special ya know.
Boring Azrael, very boring.

Who was talking about Derren being a real psychic and having paranormal powers? Do you even read what people try to tell you? The whole point is about him using techcnics that those mediums use in those kind of sessions, including cold reading. I'm sure that Derren has read some books on this subject and it's obvious he has the showmenship for that, so why wouldn't he use it on people?

By the way, I think cold reading could be considered a trick, as it's something people use to make them seem like they have psychic abilities. So if you think Derren was using tricks, then you are right. The same goes for Jonn Edward and his friends.

[pjh]

Point me to my posts where I state any of the above.I know he's a magician. :rolleyes:

Point me to my posts where I say he uses stooges then.

[boyjohn]

Hi, newbie here.

I had never even heard of this guy until I read about him in this thread.

I watched the "heist" video as well as the compilation dvd, and they were very entertaining. I was going back and forth in my mind whether the people were acting or that he was just damn good at trickery. I still have not decided lol.

Has anyone come out and said that they were acting in any of his shows? I mean acting as being paid for it, not just pretending on their own to play along.

[DJM]

Point me to my posts where I say he uses stooges then.

So how could he do the things you see in the video without some cold reading or stooges? Would love to read your explanation.

[pjh]

So how could he do the things you see in the video without some cold reading or stooges? Would love to read your explanation.
Ahh yes, I "say he uses stooges" because you and Azrael say that's what I must be saying even though I've stated countless times : he doesn't use stooges.

Derren Brown is a magician, in the same way as magicians create the illusion that they saw a woman in half (they don't really you know?) Derren creates the illusion that he can subconsciously influence people's choices or read their body language and tell when they're lying etc. He doesn't actually *really* do any of these things, he's a magician, and the trick has worked if he can make it look like he did. It's called an illusion, you are tricked into believing you saw something that didn't in reality happen - it's the basis for all magic.

The simplest explanation for what we see in the medium scene in Messiah is a hot reading, no matter how you edit it no cold-reader could achieve what Derren managed through cold reading alone.

[Big Al]

I saw a Derren Brown stage show in its entirety on TV recently. It was as impressive as I've come to expect, and if the mumbling, shrugging, monosyllabic audience marks were actors, they deserve Oscars.

What really impressed me is that the final part of the show involved video clips where he showed in great detail exactly the forcing cues he had given his "subjects", as Penn and Teller have often done. I had detected one of them - he used a slightly odd form of words which struck me at the time, but he covered it well by looking as if he'd become a little tongue-tied.

However, Derren showed every single cue he used, and the whole audience went "Aaah!" in comprehension.

What he's using isn't generally cold reading, it's forced choice, another magician's technique. Derren was a stage magician before he became a TV personality, and I think it shows in his slick patter. It's smooth fast-talking; he doesn't give you a moment to think.

I remember many years ago seeing a magic trick where the magician made a crumpled paper ball disappear. He was sitting opposite the mark, quite close. He screwed up the paper, raised and lowered his hand one-two-three, and on the third raise, he let go of the ball at the top of the arc, so that it flew backwards out of his hand. The mark looked amazed, and the magician advised her to look a little closer - of course, the opposite of wat she should have done.

He must have done this six or seven times, by which time the girl looked a little scared and quite confused. The fact that the audience were laughing their heads off can't have helped. She staggered off the stage alomost as if she were drunk, and she didn't even seem to notice the screwed up balls of paper littering the stage. The magician drew her in with similar smooth fast-talking patter to Derren Brown's, never letting her think for herself.

[pjh]

What really impressed me is that the final part of the show involved video clips where he showed in great detail exactly the forcing cues he had given his "subjects", as Penn and Teller have often done. I had detected one of them - he used a slightly odd form of words which struck me at the time, but he covered it well by looking as if he'd become a little tongue-tied.
You see this is exactly what I mean about folks believing Derren's spiel about "forcing cues". Derren does straight magic tricks and presents them as being achieved using some form of suggestion, which people like Big Al accept on face value.

The explanation given at the end of the show is a false one. It's a magician's lie designed to make the show more magical and special, not a true explanation of how the effects were really done.

[DJM]

Ahh yes, I "say he uses stooges" because you and Azrael say that's what I must be saying even though I've stated countless times : he doesn't use stooges.

Derren Brown is a magician, in the same way as magicians create the illusion that they saw a woman in half (they don't really you know?) Derren creates the illusion that he can subconsciously influence people's choices or read their body language and tell when they're lying etc. He doesn't actually *really* do any of these things, he's a magician, and the trick has worked if he can make it look like he did. It's called an illusion, you are tricked into believing you saw something that didn't in reality happen - it's the basis for all magic.

The simplest explanation for what we see in the medium scene in Messiah is a hot reading, no matter how you edit it no cold-reader could achieve what Derren managed through cold reading alone.

First of all, I didn't say that you say he uses stooges. I asked how it's possible to do that without the use of stooges. Read the posts more clearly next time.

Second of all, I think you should watch the video again.You keep saying how Derren is a magician and uses tricks for his effects.. but you need to understand that many magicians do cold readings at times, for them it's some magic trick. If all the mediums were honest about themselves, then you could call them magicians without a problem.

Cold reading is a trick, and that's what Derren was doing. If you watch the video again then you would see that he said a few things that are pretty impossible to get through hot reading. He must have tried a few guesses like any other medium and they showed us the hits.

"It's called an illusion, you are tricked into believing you saw something that didn't in reality happen - it's the basis for all magic."

That's right, cold reading is an illusion of a real psychic reading. What Jon Edward does is an illusion. What Derren did was also an illusion. He used cold reading and probably also some hot reading to make him seem like a real psychic.

Looks like you love to argue even if there's no reason to, as your explanations don't really make any sense.

[Azrael 5]

*edit*

The simplest explanation for what we see in the medium scene in Messiah is a hot reading, no matter how you edit it no cold-reader could achieve what Derren managed through cold reading alone.

Though not from Messiah it's still impressive cold reading;pjh watch this clip then get a knife and fork and be prepared to eat your words :p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuOL5QQGzjQ

[tkingdoll]

You see this is exactly what I mean about folks believing Derren's spiel about "forcing cues". Derren does straight magic tricks and presents them as being achieved using some form of suggestion, which people like Big Al accept on face value.

The explanation given at the end of the show is a false one. It's a magician's lie designed to make the show more magical and special, not a true explanation of how the effects were really done.

You are quite right. His methods are mundane. Hidden cameras, microphones, pre-vetting, editing, etc. But the packaging is very good.

[monoman]

You see this is exactly what I mean about folks believing Derren's spiel about "forcing cues". Derren does straight magic tricks and presents them as being achieved using some form of suggestion, which people like Big Al accept on face value.

The explanation given at the end of the show is a false one. It's a magician's lie designed to make the show more magical and special, not a true explanation of how the effects were really done.

I'm sure you're right for the most part but Derren can and does use cues. I've seen him do it on his DVD that's called something like Devil's Handbook. On the DVD he reveals how he used to do many of his card tricks, which are mainly classic tricks (and performed amazingly. Even after seeing how they're done I still struggle to understand it!).

However I remember there was at least one where he used suggestion to manipulate the end result. Anyone could do this but you'd need a lot of practice, charm and guts.

[QueigBladecaster]

The Messiah sequence shown on television is quite obviously edited so I dont understand how that proves he wasn't using cold reading.

The effect shown sits perfectly with the theory of cold reading as long as you assume that we do not get to see all the 'misses' and the prep work involved in producing the hits.

The explanation at the end of the 'something wicked...' stage show is not how he actually does the trick but I think is far more entertaining for it. especially as I had spotted most of the 'forced' numbers and words throughout the performance and was wondering where he was going with it. True or not the explanation put a huge smile on my face which is the point at the end of the day.

[Professor Yaffle]

Though not from Messiah it's still impressive cold reading;pjh watch this clip then get a knife and fork and be prepared to eat your words :p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuOL5QQGzjQ

That is SO NOT an example of cold reading! He used the knowledge he already had of the fact she had horses as a kid - he could easily have found out probably from other interviews at which birthday she was given a horse. He set up the Sarah Cox question to be something to do with horses, so that it was primed in her mind. He then chose to "read" a memorable event from her childhood. Of course she is going to choose that particular memory. Especially since she was put on the spot to come up with the memory under a high pressure interview situation, so is more likely to be led by cues and not have time to think about it. I'm sure he is pretty good at cold reading too, but that wasn't an example of it.

[monoman]

That is SO NOT an example of cold reading! He used the knowledge he already had of the fact she had horses as a kid - he could easily have found out probably from other interviews at which birthday she was given a horse. He set up the Sarah Cox question to be something to do with horses, so that it was primed in her mind. He then chose to "read" a memorable event from her childhood. Of course she is going to choose that particular memory. Especially since she was put on the spot to come up with the memory under a high pressure interview situation, so is more likely to be led by cues and not have time to think about it. I'm sure he is pretty good at cold reading too, but that wasn't an example of it.

Exactly!

You write that like it's simple. I'd like to see you do it live on TV.

[Professor Yaffle]

Oh I am not saying it is simple. It takes a lot of skill to do stuff like that. I am pretty good at seeing how to do stuff, absolutely awful at doing it myself!

[monoman]

....I am pretty good at seeing how to do stuff, absolutely awful at doing it myself!

Well i'd definitely like to see you attempt it on live TV then ;)

[Moochie]

<snip>That's right, cold reading is an illusion of a real psychic reading. What Jon Edward does is an illusion. What Derren did was also an illusion. He used cold reading and probably also some hot reading to make him seem like a real psychic.

Um, er, you're a believer then, DJM?

M.

[DJM]

What I meant is that cold readers make some people believe that they are real psychics, while in fact it's all an illusion.

I don't believe that psychics exist for real, l'll need to see some proof for that..

[maatorc]

I don't believe that psychics exist for real, l'll need to see some proof for that..
How would you know if anyone is a psychic? How would anyone on this site know? What would 'proof' be?

[DJM]

Proof would be pretty simple. If a psychic can can give specific information that no one could possibly know, without using cold reading or any misses, then it means that he is the real thing.

So far all the readings I've seen are way to general and way too many questions asked.. A real psychic should tell you information, not ask you for them.

[NeilC]

I'm sure you're right for the most part but Derren can and does use cues. I've seen him do it on his DVD that's called something like Devil's Handbook. On the DVD he reveals how he used to do many of his card tricks, which are mainly classic tricks (and performed amazingly. Even after seeing how they're done I still struggle to understand it!).

However I remember there was at least one where he used suggestion to manipulate the end result. Anyone could do this but you'd need a lot of practice, charm and guts.

I have that video and it's excellent. Some of the "suggestion" effects do work on individuals in controlled circumstances but as you know from watching the rest of it, some of the other so called suggestive effects use very bold but straightforward magic dressed up. It would seem that such techniques are not reliable enough for his live shows. That live show on TV over Xmas used entirely standard mentalism/amgic effects and all "suggestion" elements were entirely window dressing.

As much as it pains me to agree with him (due to his way of discussing things), PJH is largely right. I have some inside information into a couple of the TV effects and I gather that what is presented to us is often not what is happening to the victims involved. On stage he can't manage dual reality thing to quite the same degree so his stage shows are far more tame.

[DJM]

It's pretty obvious that sometimes his effects are not what they appear to be, but I still think he was using cold reading in that Messiah video. I guess we can't know for sure what was really going on there..

[Jekyll]

It's pretty obvious that sometimes his effects are not what they appear to be, but I still think he was using cold reading in that Messiah video. I guess we can't know for sure what was really going on there..

"I'm getting a Charlie or maybe a Tom...*guess misses*... It's not the name of the person, but it's a name they're telling me..."

And then he uses similar patter with the name Charlie again. If it's not cold reading then he did a very good job of making it look like it was.

[NeilC]

"I'm getting a Charlie or maybe a Tom...*guess misses*... It's not the name of the person, but it's a name they're telling me..."

And then he uses similar patter with the name Charlie again. If it's not cold reading then he did a very good job of making it look like it was.

Could be but then his entire act depends upon him convincing people he's using techniques that he's not. So he wouldn't be a slouch at pretend cold reading.

If I had to decide I'd say it wasn't pure cold reading.

[pmckean]

I agree with Splossy. It smacks of something a little warmer than your typical cold reading. Yes, it's edited, but it seems just a little too good.

As for the Born Sloppy clip; utterly masterful, but not impossible. Jodie Kidd is well-known for being very into horses, polo etc.

If you're Derren Brown and want to research the guests you'll be appearing with, links like these would help:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/onlyfoolsonhorses/about/jodie.shtml

Obviously, the happy childhood event she's likely to pick is receiving her horse - and it would have been around the age Derren guesses.

Based on her reaction, I don't think she was acting. Too genuine.

[Azrael 5]

I agree with Splossy. It smacks of something a little warmer than your typical cold reading. Yes, it's edited, but it seems just a little too good.

As for the Born Sloppy clip; utterly masterful, but not impossible. Jodie Kidd is well-known for being very into horses, polo etc.

If you're Derren Brown and want to research the guests you'll be appearing with, links like these would help:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/onlyfoolsonhorses/about/jodie.shtml

Obviously, the happy childhood event she's likely to pick is receiving her horse - and it would have been around the age Derren guesses.

Based on her reaction, I don't think she was acting. Too genuine.

She could have chosen anything though.If you were Derren would you risk falling on your ar*e by taking a gamble on it being a horse.If you were Jodie Kidd would you go for horse without thinking "its too obvious I just said that"
:confused:

[Azrael 5]

pmckean here is Born Sloppy again,same clip but with a freaky drawing effect at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCACF-EUFPo

[Garrette]

She could have chosen anything though.If you were Derren would you risk falling on your ar*e by taking a gamble on it being a horse.If you were Jodie Kidd would you go for horse without thinking "its too obvious I just said that"
:confused:I might, but I'm not DB and haven't done this kind of thing to anywhere near that extent.

My first reaction on seeing the clip was "pre-show work."

Further thought led me to exactly what pmckean said. Not being in the UK, I'd never heard of Jodie Kidd, but I gather she is well known. I also surmise that it is not unlikely that DB knew before appearing on the show who his fellow guest would be. Further, I suppose DB could have easily managed some pre-show time with Jodie just to chat.

I would now guess it to be a combination of research, pre-show, verbal manipulation, and bold guessing.

[Professor Yaffle]

And I'm sure he prompted Sarah Cox in that opening question that included horses. Whether he did it by suggestion, or if she was in on it, I'm not sure.

[maatorc]

Proof would be pretty simple. If a psychic can can give specific information that no one could possibly know, without using cold reading or any misses, then it means that he is the real thing.
How, exactly, does that 'prove' someone is psychic?

[DJM]

maactorc, I have no idea what you mean by that. If a psychic can give specific details about someone without being able to use cold reading or get information in advance, than it probably means that it's the real thing. What more proof do you need?

[maatorc]

maactorc, I have no idea what you mean by that. If a psychic can give specific details about someone without being able to use cold reading or get information in advance, than it probably means that it's the real thing. What more proof do you need?
A 'psychic' giving specific details, etc, would infer but not, as is required by the JREF MDC protocol, demonstrate a 'psychic event'. This leads directly to the problem inherent in the MDC: The protocol can infer but not demonstrate psychic ability or power.

[DJM]

I don't know what exactly the protocol says, I was talking about what for me would be proof for psychic abilities.

If someone does a reading with me and gives me specific details about my life and my past, then that would be proof for me that it's real. After all, that should be the whole point of mind reading.

[maatorc]

If someone does a reading with me and gives me specific details about my life and my past, then that would be proof for me that it's real. After all, that should be the whole point of mind reading.
It would be proof that someone gave you the correct information, not a proof of psychic ability of the reader.

[DJM]

What is that supposed to mean?

Someone gives me a reading. He tells me exactly what the 4 digit number I'm thinking at the moment, the full name of the first girl I had a crash on, what exactly I ate for breakfast, and other things that only I could possibly know. And all in great details without the chance of luck.

That's not just giving information, that's being psychic. Why wouldn't it be proof for you?

[DJM]

Here is Derren teaching someone a lesson.. :D

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2001320029-2007110301,00.html

[tkingdoll]

What is that supposed to mean?

Someone gives me a reading. He tells me exactly what the 4 digit number I'm thinking at the moment, the full name of the first girl I had a crash on, what exactly I ate for breakfast, and other things that only I could possibly know. And all in great details without the chance of luck.

That's not just giving information, that's being psychic. Why wouldn't it be proof for you?

Actually, there are other ways of getting that information, with the exception of the 4 digit number but it's also possible that you misremember the number you are thinking of, or use a number you are familiar with (like your PIN or phone number) etc.

[DJM]

Well with my first crush even the girl herself didn't know anything, so how could anyone else? ;)

Also, I usually eat weird stuff in the morning, so that would also be pretty impossible to know..

[Garrette]

The quibbling about proof merely reinforces the Challenge requirement that the claimant specifically outline the claim.

To ask "what would prove psychic abilities" is near enough to meaningless to make no difference.

It's like asking "what would prove maths?"

[Garrette]

Here is Derren teaching someone a lesson.. :D

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2001320029-2007110301,00.html My first reaction is that this is needlessly cruel. But I will withhold judgment until I get a fuller report.

[Moochie]

My first reaction is that this is needlessly cruel. But I will withhold judgment until I get a fuller report.

Looks like a gently brutal way to make erstwhile morons snap out of it. :D

We have more than our fair share of believers in the ridiculous and untenable right here in these forums. How do you propose to educate them?

M.

[Garrette]

Looks like a gently brutal way to make erstwhile morons snap out of it. :D

We have more than our fair share of believers in the ridiculous and untenable right here in these forums. How do you propose to educate them?

M.Different ways for different people. Not at all for some. Never in this way.

[Moochie]

Different ways for different people. Not at all for some. Never in this way.

Fair enough. I understand where you're ("your" for the illiterate and moronic majority of posters here) coming from. Ways and means, I say.

Cheers,

M.

[Azrael 5]

What is that supposed to mean?

Someone gives me a reading. He tells me exactly what the 4 digit number I'm thinking at the moment, the full name of the first girl I had a crash on,

Not Sophia was it? Is that why she is in hospital?! :D *



*Cross forum in joke from Magic Cafe.

[DJM]

Let's hear your Hebrew, Mr Azrael!! :mad:

[maatorc]

[QUOTE=Garrette;2411068]
1... The quibbling about proof merely reinforces the Challenge requirement that the claimant specifically outline the claim.
2... To ask "what would prove psychic abilities" is near enough to meaningless to make no difference. /QUOTE]

1... This is getting close to the problem. The Challenge arbitrarily classifies certain actions and events as "... psychic, supernatural or occult powers ...", when in fact there is no agreement in any scholarly discipline on a repeatable general proof or demonstration of just what this is.
2... There is NO known materially measurable proof that any action or event that meets the Challenge rules is or is not 'psychic'.
It must, however, be said that the Challenge, by requiring claimants to demonstrate what actually cannot be proven to be "... psychic, supernatural or occult powers ..." has effectively lowered the bar, and if claimants cannot demonstrate what cannot be proven to be "... psychic, supernatural or occult powers ..." then they are thereby shown to be unable to demonstrate something which is.
No-one will succeed in meeting the Challenge because it is undecideable.

[Jekyll]

It must, however, be said that the Challenge, by requiring claimants to demonstrate what actually cannot be proven to be "... psychic, supernatural or occult powers ..." has effectively lowered the bar, and if claimants cannot demonstrate what cannot be proven to be "... psychic, supernatural or occult powers ..." then they are thereby shown to be unable to demonstrate something which is.
No-one will succeed in meeting the Challenge because it is undecideable.

Not this again.

You have been repeatedly told that the point of the challenge is for the claiment to demonstrate the apparently inexplicable phenomena that they claim to produce.

The point of the challenge is not and never has been 'convince James Randi/scientists/a priest, a rabbi, and an Irishman that you're psychic'. By it's nature the challenge is very decidable.

[JoeTheJuggler]

2... There is NO known materially measurable proof that any action or event that meets the Challenge rules is or is not 'psychic'.
It must, however, be said that the Challenge, by requiring claimants to demonstrate what actually cannot be proven to be "... psychic, supernatural or occult powers ..." has effectively lowered the bar, and if claimants cannot demonstrate what cannot be proven to be "... psychic, supernatural or occult powers ..." then they are thereby shown to be unable to demonstrate something which is.
No-one will succeed in meeting the Challenge because it is undecideable.

That's not at all how I read the Challenge rules. In the rules, the applicant makes a claim and suggests a protocol. The rules don't define any testing protocol at all. JREF only accepts the applicant when there is a mutually agreed upon protocol (usually after negotiations back and forth but starting with the protocol that the applicant has put forth as part of the application). Then there's a screening test. (So far no one has gone beyond that stage, I think.) Success or failure is defined by the protocol and is not in the least bit "undecideable". Before the test, for example, the claimant thinks he or she can get 10 out of 10 of whatever correct. The protocol says that success is defined as say 8 correct out of 10. 7 correct would be a failure. 9 would be a success. There's the decision.

Whether or not, ultimately, you have proven something supernatural is another question. That's a matter for science, and the JREF challenge does not claim to be science. Science, in fact, never proves things (the way you're talking about proof), but can disprove claims or add a bit more support.

[maatorc]

.......the point of the challenge is for the claiment to demonstrate the apparently inexplicable phenomena that they claim to produce.
If you carefully re-read what you quoted, you will see that is exactly what I said. If they cannot demonstrate what is apparently inexplicable but not proven to be psychic how can they demonstrate what is actually inexplicable and possibly psychic?

[maatorc]

That's not at all how I read the Challenge rules. ......Success or failure is defined by the protocol and is not in the least bit "undecideable"......
The Challenge cannot definitively determine that a demonstration deemed successfull under the protocols is or is not a demonstration of "... psychic, supernatural or occult power ...".
The Challenge is not testing claims for proven psychic power but is testing claims for demonstrations of power claimed or accepted but not proven to be psychic.
In this sense the Challenge is being somewhat less demanding and strict on claimants than would be the case were claimants required to successfully demonstrate a universally proven and accepted psychic power.
This is probably not the right place to get deeply into questions on the Challenge.

[pjh]

Though not from Messiah it's still impressive cold reading;pjh watch this clip then get a knife and fork and be prepared to eat your words :p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuOL5QQGzjQ

I'M to eat MY words?

I never said he didn't use cold-reading, I said I hadn't seen it and asked where you thought you'd seen him do cold reading :
I'm not sure I've seen him do cold reading, which show does he do this on?

You then attribute the medium scene in Messiah to cold reading

So that everyone can watch :

G18NfN76bAs

Just the first 1:30 is enough to watch ... once he's got the target (old woman/black hair tied back) he then hits her name in one go (yes he throws in another to make it look colder) and then hits her ex-husbands name. This just isn't cold-reading no matter how they have edited it.

So now I'm to eat my words because you dig up a clip where he 'cold-reads' a well known celeb? Do you even understand the what cold reading is and how it differs from hot readings?

[Senex]

This is my first post! Hi everyone. It is a coincidence that I signed up for this forum the day after I commented on a Derren Brown video on Youtube. (And us skeptics do believe in coincidences, many psychics use them to explain their "powers.") I can't post the URL for everyone to look at because I'm now allowed to post URL's until my 50th post. I'd appreciate anyone ambitious enough to follow my train of thought to put "Derren Brown - BMX Bike (explained)" Youtube in any web searchengine and look on page 2 (this is in early March 2007, I'll be pushed back into even less low numbers in the future.) I'm an amateur magician and am loathe to give away methods, but Derren Brown Is pushing the woo woo so hard that I felt a need to offer my opinion on a possible method contrary to what he states.

Notice on the Youtube comment section how I can post here to a magic/skeptic forum yet still am able to flirt with the girls who believe in woo on the Internet. I would be obliged to any experienced member of the forum who would be kind enough to post the URL I speak of on Youtube because I can't.

I look forward to posting more on a site of likeminded skeptics :)

[DJM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=befugtgikMg


He doesn't claim to be using NLP, the title is wrong about that.

[tkingdoll]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=befugtgikMg


He doesn't claim to be using NLP, the title is wrong about that.

Hmm, he used to be a lot more subtle about the 'clues' but this was just silly, you could hear him saying 'BMX' and bike-related words, plus the reel-to-reel in the background, all the red furniture etc. Very naff, it's like winking at the audience.

And of course, as an explanation that's complete rot. Simon Pegg wrote 'BMX bike' on the paper beforehand, the leather jacket paper was switch. Stupid trick. It would have been more feasible if he'd at some point remembered writing 'leather jacket' but the fact that he didn't shows the trick up for what it is, a plain old switcheroo. Boring.

[Jekyll]

If you carefully re-read what you quoted, you will see that is exactly what I said. If they cannot demonstrate what is apparently inexplicable but not proven to be psychic how can they demonstrate what is actually inexplicable and possibly psychic?

Why can't they demonstrate inexplicable events?

This is completely evading the point that any given challenge that moves to actual testing is incredibly well defined and makes it very easy to decide if a challenger has passed or failed.

Your last sentence:
No-one will succeed in meeting the Challenge because it is undecideable.
was complete hogwash.

[DJM]

Hmm, he used to be a lot more subtle about the 'clues' but this was just silly, you could hear him saying 'BMX' and bike-related words, plus the reel-to-reel in the background, all the red furniture etc. Very naff, it's like winking at the audience.

And of course, as an explanation that's complete rot. Simon Pegg wrote 'BMX bike' on the paper beforehand, the leather jacket paper was switch. Stupid trick. It would have been more feasible if he'd at some point remembered writing 'leather jacket' but the fact that he didn't shows the trick up for what it is, a plain old switcheroo. Boring.


Yes, the trick is so stupid and boring that he fooled Simon and most of the Youtube viewers.. You need to remember that not everyone are magic experts.

[Senex]

Thanks DJM!

If anyone wants to see the flirting with the girls who believe in woo business they must look to the right of this video and click on "BMX Bike (explained)" video posted by the same member.

tkingdoll, that "spoiler:show" icon is perfect :D

[DJM]

Senex, you didn't edit fast enough! I saw you wrote BJM in your post, probably because you thought of a BMX bike!!

So maybe NLP works after all.. ;)

[Senex]

Senex, you didn't edit fast enough! I saw you wrote BJM in your post, probably because you thought of a BMX bike!!

So maybe NLP works after all.. ;)

Yes, BMX bike or something else :rolleyes:

This is a good a place as any to admit that I'm going over to the dark side. Well, not going over, but I am practicing a mentalism act. I've purchased some material from Banachek and I've secured other information fom nafarious means. One pamphlet I have is called "7 deceptions." It explains a method of making an audience member hesitant to say what card they had picked. I saw a Youtube video in which Derren Brown makes commuters on a train (subway to god's chosen) forget what stop they were going to get off for a couple of seconds. It appears he uses the same method.

I believe Derren Brown uses 99.99% woo and .01% or less suggestion and psychology. Can this technique be the .01% or has a rascal named Luke Jermay set me up to practice something terribly silly.

Again I ask someone to post the URL to this "experiment" on Youtube because I can't.

[pmckean]

Senex,

Your explanation on YouTube perfectly sums up Derren's approach; expertly performed conjuring tarted up with ludicrous but highly entertaining psychobabble.

[DJM]

But why to expose his methods on Youtube? Everyone can read it there. Derren always says that he combines magic and misdirections in his effects, there's no reason to "expose" him.

[pjh]

But why to expose his methods on Youtube? Everyone can read it there. Derren always says that he combines magic and misdirections in his effects, there's no reason to "expose" him.

Because people like you and Azrael insist that he's not doing magic tricks and that he's actually demonstrating suggestion and psychology in some of his tricks (10% of the time according to Az 5, it's just which 10% changes all the time). When challenged you'll fall back on "What about this trick ...., well then this one?"

And that's the best of it, lots of people are taking him at face value on all his tricks, and accepting that for example the BMX trick is a demonstration of the power of NLP (read the YT comments).

Derren does magic tricks and part of his "magician's patter" is that he's using psychology/NLP/suggestion etc. He's not. Whether he's to blame for people taking his 'explanations' seriously is a matter of opinion.

If you want to post a link to a trick that you are certain demonstrates a "non traditional mentalist magic trick" then be my guest.

[Senex]

But why to expose his methods on Youtube? Everyone can read it there. Derren always says that he combines magic and misdirections in his effects, there's no reason to "expose" him.

If you look at the comments on Youtube of people regarding his "performance" you will see that they believe in the woo woo that he spouts. These people believe in "Ericsonian hypnotic handshakes," suggestion on an entirely improbable scale. He pushes ********. These people may spend a fortune on some bulloney NLP or hypnotism class. Misinformation is misinformation. David Copperfield is just as entertaining (actually a bit more entertaining in my opinion) and he doesn't encourage anyone to buy into misinformation.

I used to teach English to early teens. I did magic and mentalism in order to keep my class fun. I always explained at the end of any performance that there is no such thing as magic. Everything I did was trickery. Trickery is fun -- but in the end, it is just trickery.

Derren Brown pushes the woo woo. Woo woo is ********. ******** should be exposed.

[DJM]

Because people like you and Azrael insist that he's not doing magic tricks and that he's actually demonstrating suggestion and psychology in some of his tricks (10% of the time according to Az 5, it's just which 10% changes all the time). When challenged you'll fall back on "What about this trick ...., well then this one?"


When did you hear me say that he's not doing any magic tricks?! I've been telling you that so many times that most of his stuff are tricks. Stop being so annoying and read what people tell you for a change.

Saying that, I do believe there have been a few effects that he used something else, like this one. Especially the part with the kids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL3wnbZcCyc


And also the muscle reading effect which is not Youtubed. We already talked about that in another thread.

And I never say that I know for sure how it's all done, only he knows that. I can only speculate, and you should do the same.

[DJM]

If you look at the comments on Youtube of people regarding his "performance" you will see that they believe in the woo woo that he spouts. These people believe in "Ericsonian hypnotic handshakes," suggestion on an entirely improbable scale. He pushes ********. These people may spend a fortune on some bulloney NLP or hypnotism class. Misinformation is misinformation. David Copperfield is just as entertaining (actually a bit more entertaining in my opinion) and he doesn't encourage anyone to buy into misinformation.

I used to teach English to early teens. I did magic and mentalism in order to keep my class fun. I always explained at the end of any performance that there is no such thing as magic. Everything I did was trickery. Trickery is fun -- but in the end, it is just trickery.

Derren Brown pushes the woo woo. Woo woo is ********. ******** should be exposed.

Come on, you should read people's comments about David Blaine and other regular magicians. Some of them are sure they are real wizards who practice real magic. Most of the mentalists say that they can read minds during shows and other supernatural stuff, does it mean we are going to expose all their methods?

Magicians always lie about stuff during shows, that's what they do. It's not their fault some people believe that stuff. Derren and his staff work very hard on these effects and he says every show that he combines magic tricks, misdirection and showmenship. Like he always says: "I'm always honest about my dishonesty." He works very hard on his shows, don't ruin it.

If you want to expose frauds, go after John Edward and his friends instead.

[Senex]

David Blaine did one piece of dishonesty on a TV special he will never -- never ever -- live down. He performed a Balducci levitation to his street audience and edited a levitation using a crane for the TV audience. David Blaine performed dishonesty and many people will always heckle him for that.

Why hold Derren Brown to any different standards. Yes, John Edwards and Sylvia Brown certainly hold lower places on anyones ethical scale than Derren Brown, but Derren Brown does offer pseudo-scientific methods instead of his bulloney to his viewing audience. When you "explain" your methods using woo, you open yourself up to people who are against woo to expose you.

I may be a little hostile to woo because of Kreskin. My dad used to take me to any show he also wanted to see himself. Broadway or Kreskin. He enjoyed them both and would take me. When I was 11 I was bamboozled by Kreskin. When I was 15 I started to figure out his methods, like having an audience member on stage and he would count down in some manner numbers or playing cards and he would "squeeze" the audience member's hand at the appropriate time. I could tell by looking at their eyes that they received the squeeze. I learned even my hero Kreskin engaged in woo woo.

I later learned all psychic phenomenon is woo woo. People who had led me to believe that woo woo was possible when I was young now piss me off when I remember them. Maybe I am an old not fun atheist, but I am an atheist who has a bedroom full of magic tricks, and an atheist who can perform magic tricks at a moments notice and I am indeed fun. I just don't promote woo.

[DJM]

Well, Derren doesn't promote that stuff either, he's a skeptic himself and does his best to make everyone know that. He hates frauds and all the other paranormal stuff.

He doesn't promote NLP and all that is related to that, either. He even said a few times how how thinks it's all nonsense and he doesn't think it works. He doesn't tell people to go read any of those books or other suggestion stuff. He admits that he's a magician, and calls himself a psychological illusionist. All his explanations are mostly for entertainment and shouldn't be taken seriously. Just like when 99% of the other magicians shouldn't be taken seriously when they explain how the hat is empty or they don't have antything in their sleeves.

Magic is mosty a profession that involves "lies." And since Derren describes himself as a magician and illusionist, then he can give whatever explanations he wants. Because he's out there to TRICK the audience, that's his job.

If he said that he doesn't do magic and it's all pychology then I could agree with you. But it's just not the case!

[tkingdoll]

Come on, you should read people's comments about David Blaine and other regular magicians. Some of them are sure they are real wizards who practice real magic. Most of the mentalists say that they can read minds during shows and other supernatural stuff, does it mean we are going to expose all their methods?

Magicians always lie about stuff during shows, that's what they do. It's not their fault some people believe that stuff. Derren and his staff work very hard on these effects and he says every show that he combines magic tricks, misdirection and showmenship. Like he always says: "I'm always honest about my dishonesty." He works very hard on his shows, don't ruin it.

If you want to expose frauds, go after John Edward and his friends instead.

This conflicts with what you said in your reply to my assessment of how the BMX trick is done (by the way, I am so far from being an 'expert' on magic it's not funny). In your reply, you said that people were fooled by the psychological explanation. Now you are saying that he's honest about it. He's not. The show gives a point-by-point breakdown of how the trick was done which is completely false.

Here's another example which contradicts your claim that he's honest about his methods. At his live show in Birmingham, he stated quite clearly that he had memorised the Birmingham telephone directory using his amazing memory techniques. He then did a lengthy segment involving the audience picking numbers 'at random' from the directory and him naming the number above and below it, etc. The audience went away thinking that not only is it possible to memorise a phone directory overnight, but that he had in fact done exactly that.

He had done no such thing, of course. That trick is no more sophisticated than smoke and mirrors (or the modern equivalents, hidden cameras and microphones).

That's actually not much different to what John Edward does. He presents his 'abilities' as one thing when they are in fact something else entirely.

I like Derren Brown, he's a good showman and a handsome fellow. But he and his show are not honest about his methods by a long way. He makes claims of psychology in the same way John Edward makes claims of psychic ability. Neither are being honest.

[DJM]

David Blaine did one piece of dishonesty on a TV special he will never -- never ever -- live down. He performed a Balducci levitation to his street audience and edited a levitation using a crane for the TV audience. David Blaine performed dishonesty and many people will always heckle him for that..

BTW, what do you mean dishonesty? For using edits? David Copperfield has also used camera tricks and edits a few times, so what?

I think you are taking the magic thing a bit too seriously..

[DJM]

This conflicts with what you said in your reply to my assessment of how the BMX trick is done (by the way, I am so far from being an 'expert' on magic it's not funny). In your reply, you said that people were fooled by the psychological explanation. Now you are saying that he's honest about it. He's not. The show gives a point-by-point breakdown of how the trick was done which is completely false.

Here's another example which contradicts your claim that he's honest about his methods. At his live show in Birmingham, he stated quite clearly that he had memorised the Birmingham telephone directory using his amazing memory techniques. He then did a lengthy segment involving the audience picking numbers 'at random' from the directory and him naming the number above and below it, etc. The audience went away thinking that not only is it possible to memorise a phone directory overnight, but that he had in fact done exactly that.

He had no no such thing, of course. That trick is no more sophisticated than smoke and mirrors (or the modern equivalents, hidden cameras and microphones).

That's actually not much different to what John Edward does. He presents his 'abilities' as one thing when they are in fact something else entirely.

I like Derren Brown, he's a good showman and a handsome fellow. But he and his show are not honest about his methods by a long way.

Have you seen other mentalism shows? The most popular thing is using a book test, where the audience can choose whatever page in a book or phonebook and the mentalist can know exactly what it says. So they are sure thet he has either read their minds, or he knows the books by heart. Some of them even claim they can "read minds." All the magicians trick their audience! They are not going to say that it's a trick after each effect. The audience should just know in advance that they are at a MAGIC show!

About the BMX effect, I meant that Simon and the audience were amazed by it, which is exactly the point of that. To be amazed! You said that the effect was boring and stupid, but most of the people seem to have enjoyed that so I disagreed with you.

[JonWhite]

Come on, you should read people's comments about David Blaine and other regular magicians. Some of them are sure they are real wizards who practice real magic. Most of the mentalists say that they can read minds during shows and other supernatural stuff, does it mean we are going to expose all their methods?

Magicians always lie about stuff during shows, that's what they do. It's not their fault some people believe that stuff. Derren and his staff work very hard on these effects and he says every show that he combines magic tricks, misdirection and showmenship. Like he always says: "I'm always honest about my dishonesty." He works very hard on his shows, don't ruin it.

If you want to expose frauds, go after John Edward and his friends instead.

Exactly.

If someone's daft enough to see (ie) Blaine do a Balducci levitation on TV and then go off and spend silly money on a Transcendental Meditation Yogic Flying course thinking that's a way to learn to levitate, is it Blaines fault? Blaine never says he's actually not really levitating after all. Nor is it Browns fault if similarly daft/unquestioning people jump to all the wrong conclusions about his deliberately (by nature) ambiguous methods. He's a magician and says so!

Brown has not only publicly done more here in the UK to entertainingly debunk woo than anyone else but has also IMHO breathed new life into the whole magic/mentalism field, which had pretty much become stale rabbit-from-a-hat stuff.

His positives surely far outweigh the negatives. At the end of the day he's on our skeptical side and with idiocy such as "The Secret", Derek Acorah, etc about we need all the high profile help we can get!

[Azrael 5]

Teek you worry me.I What Derren says as his "explanations" is just presentation.He can't very well say "I am reciting info I accquired by simple boring means and that is it."

Like saying"abracadabra" or all the posturing Copeprfield does with his arms to make a lear jet vanish,has no effect on the illusion but it gives the audience something to latch onto.

How boring would his act be if he got someone to pick a newspaper and he just said "it's the word cheese,thank you!"
Presentation presentation presentation.

[Senex]

Originally Posted by Senex
David Blaine did one piece of dishonesty on a TV special he will never -- never ever -- live down. He performed a Balducci levitation to his street audience and edited a levitation using a crane for the TV audience. David Blaine performed dishonesty and many people will always heckle him for that..

[BJM oops DJM said:]
BTW, what do you mean dishonesty? For using edits? David Copperfield has also used camera tricks and edits a few times, so what?

I think you are taking the magic thing a bit too seriously..

Perhaps I am. Any website with the name James Randi out front may have members who take the magic thing too seriously. I admit to not being terribly familiar with David Copperfield methods. I do know that no one I have ever met or corresponded with believed David Copperfield actually possessed knowledge of an occult nature. I do know that a couple of Copperfield's tricks are complicated and expensive. Good for him. I wish I could perform magic tricks and go home to a supermodel. I am jealous of Copperfield but he does nothing to encourage me to state he misleads people.

Jonwhite said:
If someone's daft enough to see (ie) Blaine do a Balducci levitation on TV and then go off and spend silly money on a Transcendental Meditation Yogic Flying course thinking that's a way to learn to levitate, is it Blaines fault? Blaine never says he's actually not really levitating after all. Nor is it Browns fault if similarly daft/unquestioning people jump to all the wrong conclusions about his deliberately (by nature) ambiguous methods. He's a magician and says so!

Brown has not only publicly done more here in the UK to entertainingly debunk woo than anyone else but has also IMHO breathed new life into the whole magic/mentalism field, which had pretty much become stale rabbit-from-a-hat stuff.

His positives surely far outweigh the negatives. At the end of the day he's on our skeptical side and with idiocy such as "The Secret", Derek Acorah, etc about we need all the high profile help we can get!

Getting people to exchange one type of thinking about woo with another type of thinking about woo doesn't really educate people does it? .

Speaking of a book test, I am now in possession of a Banachek book test that fooled a sophisticated audience member like myself when I first witnessed it. Some tricks are very hard to see through if done correctly. But they are tricks and everyone should go home at the end of the evening knowing they are tricks.

[DJM]

This is what it says on his official website:

Derren Brown is a unique force in the world of illusion - he can seemingly predict and control human behaviour.
He doesn't claim to be a mind-reader, instead he describes his craft as a mixture of magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship.
Whatever you choose to call it, his unparalleled performances amaze and unsettle all those who watch him. This is a powerful and provocative form of entertainment, unlikely to be imitated for a long while.

Seemingly, Illusion, Magic, Showmenship, Misdirection. I really don't know how he can be more honest than that. Maybe he should just post there all his secrets and everyone would be happy!

[Moochie]

Hmm, he used to be a lot more subtle about the 'clues' but this was just silly, you could hear him saying 'BMX' and bike-related words, plus the reel-to-reel in the background, all the red furniture etc. Very naff, it's like winking at the audience.

And of course, as an explanation that's complete rot. Simon Pegg wrote 'BMX bike' on the paper beforehand, the leather jacket paper was switch. Stupid trick. It would have been more feasible if he'd at some point remembered writing 'leather jacket' but the fact that he didn't shows the trick up for what it is, a plain old switcheroo. Boring.

For some reason, I think that's really quite funny.

M.

[tkingdoll]

Teek you worry me.I What Derren says as his "explanations" is just presentation.He can't very well say "I am reciting info I accquired by simple boring means and that is it."

Like saying"abracadabra" or all the posturing Copeprfield does with his arms to make a lear jet vanish,has no effect on the illusion but it gives the audience something to latch onto.

How boring would his act be if he got someone to pick a newspaper and he just said "it's the word cheese,thank you!"
Presentation presentation presentation.

Sorry, you've misunderstood. I like Derren greatly, he's a great showman. I was responding to DJM's claim that he's honest about his methods where someone like John Edwards isn't.

[Moochie]

If you look at the comments on Youtube of people regarding his "performance" you will see that they believe in the woo woo that he spouts. These people believe in "Ericsonian hypnotic handshakes," suggestion on an entirely improbable scale. He pushes ********. These people may spend a fortune on some bulloney NLP or hypnotism class. Misinformation is misinformation. David Copperfield is just as entertaining (actually a bit more entertaining in my opinion) and he doesn't encourage anyone to buy into misinformation.

I used to teach English to early teens. I did magic and mentalism in order to keep my class fun. I always explained at the end of any performance that there is no such thing as magic. Everything I did was trickery. Trickery is fun -- but in the end, it is just trickery.

Derren Brown pushes the woo woo. Woo woo is ********. ******** should be exposed.

Dang it man, he's just so much better than you. Get over it. :D

M.

[DJM]

Sorry, you've misunderstood. I like Derren greatly, he's a great showman. I was responding to DJM's claim that he's honest about his methods where someone like John Edwards isn't.

You really don't see any difference between a magician/illusionist/showman and a psychic who claims to be talking with dead people?

You got to be kidding me.

[tkingdoll]

You really don't see any difference between a magician/illusionist/showman and a psychic who claims to be talking with dead people?

You got to be kidding me.

We are talking about claims versus ability, yes? And in that BMX clip, Derren claims (with on-screen captions to back him up) that he influenced Simon Pegg into believing he chose a BMX bike. Then he shows the audience how he did it, with a range of verbal and visual prompts, even though that explanation is false. The audience goes away believing Derren Brown possesses the ability to make Simon Pegg think he chose a BMX when he did not.

John Edward tells his audience that the information he is passing along is from dead people and that he can communicate with them. The audience go away believing that claim.

Derren claims he can do something that he cannot. People believe him.
John claims he can do something that he cannot. People believe him.

On the level of claims versus ability, they are the same.

But Derren actually takes that a step further and offers a seemingly plausible scientific explanation for the trick. Most magicians do not take you through a step-by-step explanation of how the trick is done, this is what differentiates Derren from other TV mentalists. The trouble is, the explanation is untrue. However, interest in pseudoscience like NLP has risen dramatically as a result of people believing his false explanations.

If John Edward presented an explanation for his ability involving quantum foam and string theory, then they'd be about equal in terms of presentation.

[Azrael 5]

Surely people believing in a little verbal persuasion from a magician is a far cry from believing someone can contact the dead who isn't a magician!

[tkingdoll]

Surely people believing in a little verbal persuasion from a magician is a far cry from believing someone can contact the dead who isn't a magician!

Why? Morally, yes, possibly there is a difference. But if you break down their actual actions there is little difference in terms of the claims they make versus their actual ability. And both take home a paycheck for making those claims.

What is the difference between telling someone I can manipulate their actions with psychology and telling them I can contact the dead? In both cases, neither claim is true. In both cases, it is done for a TV show. In both cases, the claimant gets paid for his services.

[BanalTitter]

I have just finished his book "tricks of the mind" which I'd strongly recommend.

In it he discusses some of his problems with NLP. One problem invloved him attending an NLP course, after which he was entitled to call himself an "NLP practictioner" for a year *without* any testing; they then ssent him another certificate despite him not asking for it.

meaningless piece of paper.

Ho yus! I know someone that's just done this - a real bundle of neurosis and insecurities - yet she's been let loose to delve with people's minds.

[pjh]

Surely people believing in a little verbal persuasion from a magician is a far cry from believing someone can contact the dead who isn't a magician!

And a number of Psychic TV shows (at least where I live) have a brief on screen message to the effect that "this is entertainment". Does that excuse the deception we've just witnessed?

[tkingdoll]

And a number of Psychic TV shows (at least where I live) have a brief on screen message to the effect that "this is entertainment". Does that excuse the deception we've just witnessed?

Actually, I think it makes the psychic show just as valid as the magician's show. If all psychic TV shows had 'this is entertainment' at the start, I wouldn't have a problem with them. I would avoid taking some moral high ground where we declare that deception cannot be part of television, not least because there wouldn't be any television. Most of what you see is faked in some way, that includes shows like Big Brother (scripted) Pop Idol (block voting) etc. TV is the most fradulent medium imaginable. If you object to deception, the best you can do is switch off, because deception is what modern television is.

[maatorc]

1... Why can't they demonstrate inexplicable events?
2... This is completely evading the point that any given challenge that moves to actual testing is incredibly well defined and makes it very easy to decide if a challenger has passed or failed.
3... Your last sentence: was complete hogwash.
1... It is possible someone will eventually demonstrate a currently 'inexplicable' event, but this will not demonstrate it is "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power...".
2... You are correct, but the Challenge by definition is not testing for proven "p-s-o" powers because it is driven by the presumption such powers cannot and do not exist. It is testing for demonstrations of events or powers which are listed in the Rules as accepted but unproven "p-s-o" events or powers.
3... If a claimant succeeds in performing one of the listed events or powers under the Rules this will not prove it is a demonstration of an actual "p-s-o" power because the Challenge has no way of distinguishing between the list in the Rules and any actual "p-s-o" because there is no existing repeatable and measurable proof within or outside the JREF that such a power actually does or can operate.
What is possible and may eventually happen is a claimant will succeed in demontrating one of the events or powers listed in the Rules to the satisfaction of the JREF and on this basis the "p-s-o" power will be so strongly inferred, even though there are no known means of measuring its operation, that the "p-s-o" power did operate in the demonstration.
There is no problem with this as long as it is remembered that it will not actually be proof of a real "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power..." which is undecideable by the JREF Challenge because it is unmeasurable.
The positive and constructive aspect of the Challenge is that the JREF is effectively saying to any claimant: You do not have to prove you possess actual psychic, supernatural, or occult powers, it is only necessary that you successfully demonstrate a currently inexplicable power behind an action or event listed in the Challenge Rules.

[Moochie]

Why? Morally, yes, possibly there is a difference. But if you break down their actual actions there is little difference in terms of the claims they make versus their actual ability. And both take home a paycheck for making those claims.

What is the difference between telling someone I can manipulate their actions with psychology and telling them I can contact the dead? In both cases, neither claim is true. In both cases, it is done for a TV show. In both cases, the claimant gets paid for his services.

I doubt you have absorbed and understood anything DB has said in his TV programs.

M.

[tkingdoll]

I doubt you have absorbed and understood anything DB has said in his TV programs.

M.

How funny and patronising! I doubt you are correct. Oh, and I've seen him live, too, are you including that? Like I said, I'm a fan. I'm just not a rabid one.

While we are doubting, I suggest you watch the BMX clip and tell me what it claims versus what the reality is.

[Moochie]

And a number of Psychic TV shows (at least where I live) have a brief on screen message to the effect that "this is entertainment". Does that excuse the deception we've just witnessed?

You be the judge.

M.

[Moochie]

Actually, I think it makes the psychic show just as valid as the magician's show. If all psychic TV shows had 'this is entertainment' at the start, I wouldn't have a problem with them. I would avoid taking some moral high ground where we declare that deception cannot be part of television, not least because there wouldn't be any television. Most of what you see is faked in some way, that includes shows like Big Brother (scripted) Pop Idol (block voting) etc. TV is the most fradulent medium imaginable. If you object to deception, the best you can do is switch off, because deception is what modern television is.

You've only figured that out now?

M.

[Moochie]

How funny and patronising! I doubt you are correct. Oh, and I've seen him live, too, are you including that? Like I said, I'm a fan. I'm just not a rabid one.

While we are doubting, I suggest you watch the BMX clip and tell me what it claims versus what the reality is.

Sorry, not biting today.

I've seen some, but not all of DBs output, and I'm satisfied that he's ridgy-dink.

(Don't ask.)

If you have a problem with him, then you have a problem with him. Have fun.

M.

[Senex]

I'm a newbie just trying to get to my 50th post so I can post URL's because you rascals won't post my simple request! (DJM did post my first request, and for that kindness he will always be my friend; don't screw with DJM :( !)

My second Derren Brown request involves his making people on a train forget what stop they intended to get off at. youtube dot com backslash watch?v=6bkleuxpvxY will get you to the video if you add the http and www and have no spaces in between. You know what to do.

Unlike the BMX bike video which we all agree is woo woo (some of us think it is wholesome woo, some like myself and tkingdoll think it may not be all that wholesome) I believe that this video can possibly be devoid of woo. I believe Brown tried dozens of people for every one that was televised. As I've written before, I have a small book called "7 deceptions" and confusing a spectator in the exact manner Brown does is described in detail.

Believe me, I'm as skeptical as they come, but I think this may (perhaps) be the .o1% of Brown's act that is psychological or suggestion. It certainly doesn't hurt him that he has a camera crew behind him.

Any opinions?

[tkingdoll]

You've only figured that out now?

M.

No, I've always know it. It's my job :)

[DJM]

Tkingdoll, you need to understand that Derren's claims are not the ones you see during his shows, but before the shows starts. His claims are that he's a magician/illusionist who also combines magic tricks and misdirection in his effects. That are his claims! All the stuff you see on the show are part of his showmanship, part of the presentaion. Edward's claim are that he's a real psychic who can really talk to ghosts. That's the big difference.

David Copperfield at a lot of his stage shows, takes a person and "Teleports" him to another country in the matter of seconds to meet a friend he hasn't meet in a long time. That could lead people to think he really teleoprts him because it looks very real, and he really makes it seem like they are now in a different country. Would that also be to promote woo?

Derren Brown says at his stage shows that he's going to trick the audience and that they shouldn't believe everything he says. He says very clearly that he might lie to him and makes them know it could all be just part of his showmanship. He doesn't want people to think he's all for real, but that he's only a good mentalist. Well maybe just a little real.. we all have ego.


Senex, here's some help! :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bkleuxpvxY

[polkablues]

Something that might be clouding the issue a bit is that we're not taking into account at what stage in his career each of the examples we're using are taken from. It's certainly true that in his earliest TV specials he was very blatant in his false explanations, which led to a great number of people falling very hard for his claims, in ways which I'm sure he never intended (especially after having read some interviews he's given since). That's why the little disclaimer ("Everything I do is a combination of magic, misdirection, etc., etc....") was added at the beginning of all the later seasons.

Clearly, if you follow the progression of the man's works, he has evolved a great deal in terms of how he presents his material, how he presents the presentation of his material, and even to what end he performs the material in the first place. Sure, someone seeing his early shows and taking them at face value could be very badly fooled into believing some very ludicrous things, but everything he's done more recently, while still maintaining a great deal of amazement and entertainment value, has been done from a skeptical point of view. Just watch "Messiah" or "Seance" and tell me this is a performer who is contributing to the spread of woo in the world.

[DJM]

Not to mention that in "The Heist" he kept saying how hypnotism is usually not what it appears to be.

[Klaymore]

Actually, I think it makes the psychic show just as valid as the magician's show. If all psychic TV shows had 'this is entertainment' at the start, I wouldn't have a problem with them. I would avoid taking some moral high ground where we declare that deception cannot be part of television, not least because there wouldn't be any television. Most of what you see is faked in some way, that includes shows like Big Brother (scripted) Pop Idol (block voting) etc. TV is the most fradulent medium imaginable. If you object to deception, the best you can do is switch off, because deception is what modern television is.

Except cable, right? I mean, everything on CABLE is true... isn't it? Please tell me that hot young college sluts really ARE waiting for my call...:confused:

[Azrael 5]

As I said Teek,Derren sets out his stall from the beginning-as a magician.John Edward doesn't.Whatever Derren tells you,there is the fact he has already stated he is a magician!

[DJM]

I think some people on Youtube could be confused because they don't know how Derren describes himself. If they saw the whole show, it would be more clear for them.

You should check some of Derren's regular boards, most of the people there know what he's really about.

[NeilC]

Speaking of a book test, I am now in possession of a Banachek book test that fooled a sophisticated audience member like myself when I first witnessed it. Some tricks are very hard to see through if done correctly. But they are tricks and everyone should go home at the end of the evening knowing they are tricks.

Well that's your opinion and you should feel free to expose any effects that are entirely original to you.

But if all you do is buy or purloin other magicians' work and perform it and then go on to expose other magicians methods then I'm not so sure you are holding any moral high-ground at all.

[DJM]

"Some tricks are very hard to see through if done correctly. But they are tricks and everyone should go home at the end of the evening knowing they are tricks."

Everyone should go to the show knowing they are tricks before the evening even starts.

[tkingdoll]

Tkingdoll, you need to understand that Derren's claims are not the ones you see during his shows, but before the shows starts. His claims are that he's a magician/illusionist who also combines magic tricks and misdirection in his effects. That are his claims! All the stuff you see on the show are part of his showmanship, part of the presentaion. Edward's claim are that he's a real psychic who can really talk to ghosts. That's the big difference.

David Copperfield at a lot of his stage shows, takes a person and "Teleports" him to another country in the matter of seconds to meet a friend he hasn't meet in a long time. That could lead people to think he really teleoprts him because it looks very real, and he really makes it seem like they are now in a different country. Would that also be to promote woo?

Derren Brown says at his stage shows that he's going to trick the audience and that they shouldn't believe everything he says. He says very clearly that he might lie to him and makes them know it could all be just part of his showmanship. He doesn't want people to think he's all for real, but that he's only a good mentalist. Well maybe just a little real.. we all have ego.


Senex, here's some help! :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bkleuxpvxY

I know exactly what Derren claims. I know he claims to be magician. I also know he claims to have abilities which he does not possess.

Yes, Copperfield is in the same category.

I think what you are confused about is whether or not I think it's a bad thing. I don't, I think it's fine for the purposes of TV entertainment. I also think that John Edward is fine for the purposes of TV entertainment with a suitable (this is entertainment) disclaimer up front.

[DJM]

What category is that? Of magicians? They all do the same kind of stuff, that's what magic is about. I've seen a lot of magicians give false explanation to make their effects better, that's part of the show.

If Edward said before each show that it's all just for entertainment and nothing more, then I wouldn't see much problem either. But we all know he would never do that, because he wants people to think he's 100% real. Misdrection and showmenship is not something we are ever going to hear him say out loud..

[tkingdoll]

What category is that? Of magicians? They all do the same kind of stuff, that's what magic is about. I've seen a lot of magicians give false explanation to make their effects better, that's part of the show.

If Edward said before each show that it's all just for entertainment and nothing more, then I wouldn't see much problem either. But we all know he would never do that, because he wants people to think he's 100% real. Misdrection and showmenship is not something we are ever going to hear him say out loud..

The category of "people who make claims about abilities they don't possess in order to get paid for being on TV" I guess.

And we are never going to hear Derren say "I can't guess which hand the coin is in by using clever psychological second-guessing, even though that's what I claim. How it actually works is that there's a hidden camera behind you so the operator can see which hand you put the coin in each time, then I have a hidden earpiece and he simply tells me".

[Garrette]

1... This is getting close to the problem. The Challenge arbitrarily classifies certain actions and events as "... psychic, supernatural or occult powers ...", when in fact there is no agreement in any scholarly discipline on a repeatable general proof or demonstration of just what this is.

2... There is NO known materially measurable proof that any action or event that meets the Challenge rules is or is not 'psychic'.
It must, however, be said that the Challenge, by requiring claimants to demonstrate what actually cannot be proven to be "... psychic, supernatural or occult powers ..." has effectively lowered the bar, and if claimants cannot demonstrate what cannot be proven to be "... psychic, supernatural or occult powers ..." then they are thereby shown to be unable to demonstrate something which is.
No-one will succeed in meeting the Challenge because it is undecideable.Others have responded to this, maatorc, but as it was my post you were responding to, I will chime in: This is just plain rot.

The point of my post was that the claimant needs to define the claim.

The point of your post is that the JREF has not defined the claim.

It's as simple as that.

Without the legalese, the JREF Challenge rules simply state this (totally my own paraphrase, not the JREF's at all):

Specify what you can do. If it falls outside the bounds of what is normally accepted as scientific or within the bounds of what is normally considered paranormal, your claim is eligible for testing. Devise a test (with our input) to test your claim. We will test it.

That's it. There's nothing underhanded about it, nothing deceitful, nothing inherently unwinnable. Unless you contend that those things normally considered paranormal are inherently untrue.

[Bob Klase]

What is the difference between telling someone I can manipulate their actions with psychology and telling them I can contact the dead?

Here's one difference- After the show is over, Darren Brown doesn't solicit or get hired to go out and really influence people to make choices that the person paying him wants them to make. David Copperfield doesn't get hired to actually take people to their destination by teleporting them, or flying them. They get hired to entertain.

John Edward does solicit work and get hired to really pass messages between the person paying him and dead people.

[tkingdoll]

Here's one difference- After the show is over, Darren Brown doesn't solicit or get hired to go out and really influence people to make choices that the person paying him wants them to make. David Copperfield doesn't get hired to actually take people to their destination by teleporting them, or flying them. They get hired to entertain.

John Edward does solicit work and get hired to really pass messages between the person paying him and dead people.

Yes, although both magicians do private events. You can hire Derren to attend your party and do 'psychological' tricks.

Your point is taken, but I'm more concerned with what is presented on television as there is little or no difference between Brown and Edward in that regard.

[DJM]

Since when magicians have become so harmful to the audience? Aren't they all should be for fun? This thread is getting a bit weird.. :confused:

[Ivor the Engineer]

The category of "people who make claims about abilities they don't possess in order to get paid for being on TV" I guess.

And we are never going to hear Derren say "I can't guess which hand the coin is in by using clever psychological second-guessing, even though that's what I claim. How it actually works is that there's a hidden camera behind you so the operator can see which hand you put the coin in each time, then I have a hidden earpiece and he simply tells me".

I haven't tried it myself, but I have heard of people who do use body language to guess which hand the coin is in. Would a performer risk it for a live show? Probably not. But a recorded performance would allow failures to be edited out.

Have you read his book, 'Tricks of the Mind'?

[tkingdoll]

Since when magicians have become so harmful to the audience? Aren't they all should be for fun? This thread is getting a bit weird.. :confused:

They aren't. That's my point. TV mentalists, psychics, it's all the same.

Although Derren has been responsible for an increase in the popularity in NLP, something I believe he is unhappy about. Nonetheless, people see his psych explanations and believe them, and follow suit.

[tkingdoll]

I haven't tried it myself, but I have heard of people who do use body language to guess which hand the coin is in. Would a performer risk it for a live show? Probably not. But a recorded performance would allow failures to be edited out.

Have you read his book, 'Tricks of the Mind'?

Those people are lying to you :) Maybe you could do it once, but Derren's act (which I'm seen him do live) involves guessing again and again with the same person. But yes, the show is edited to remove failures with other tricks like the paper scissors stone game.

Yes, I have read his book.

ETA: your editing comment illustrates my point: John Edward etc employs editing techniques to make himself appear more able than he is. Same thing.

[Garrette]

Those people are lying to you :) Maybe you could do it once, but Derren's act (which I'm seen him do live) involves guessing again and again with the same person.Not via body language, per se, but I use a method which has never failed me. It is dependent on choosing fair-skinned helpers, though.

[tkingdoll]

Not via body language, per se, but I use a method which has never failed me. It is dependent on choosing fair-skinned helpers, though.

I know the method of which you speak :)

[Garrette]

I know the method of which you speak :)But you will never reveal it on telly? Promise?

[DJM]

They aren't. That's my point. TV mentalists, psychics, it's all the same.

Although Derren has been responsible for an increase in the popularity in NLP, something I believe he is unhappy about. Nonetheless, people see his psych explanations and believe them, and follow suit.

So you think people believe Copperfield sometimes does real magic and that mentalists can really read minds?

Not everyone is 4 years old, you know. People usually know the difference between magic and reality.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Those people are lying to you :) Maybe you could do it once, but Derren's act (which I'm seen him do live) involves guessing again and again with the same person. But yes, the show is edited to remove failures with other tricks like the paper scissors stone game.

Yes, I have read his book.

ETA: your editing comment illustrates my point: John Edward etc employs editing techniques to make himself appear more able than he is. Same thing.

So you don't believe that (some more than other) people have 'tells'?

[Senex]

It isn't a coincidence that my finding this website and discovering Derren Brown videos on Youtube occured during the same week. I have recently decided to perform a mentalist act. I have my first gig lined up. It is in early May. I'm performing for a Pagan group during their holiday called Beltaine. I''m now obligated to do one half hour of mentalism. I'm going to be waist deep in woo before I even get out of my car in the parking lot. I've researched pagans and these people believe in spells. I'm doing it because I want to be a more rounded individual (and it doesn't hurt that the woman running the show who I correspond with is drop dead gorgeous in her witch outfit, trust me).

Banachek is now $40 richer because I wanted to perform one of his tricks he demonstrated on a CD. Not only will I perform the book test which motivated me to buy his CD, I will also perform another trick he demonstrated. It's funny how you judge money -- one trick for $40 was expensive in my universe, now that I have two tricks I believe that was $40 well spent.

Since this is a skeptic site and I believe in full disclosure I will disclose that this isn't a paid gig. I'm being reinbursed for "costs'. Since I could practically walk to this four day event from my house I will just eat their expensive vegetarian food for free to the best of my ability. The beautiful woman who runs the event asked me if I could entertain children. I thought about this for a moment and realized that all the families who attend this event will wish to take classes and learn about woo woo while their children are holed up in some god-forsaken place. I was able to entertain children with magic when I was a child myself. Entertaining children requires no practice for me. I volunteered to entertain the children. I possess, own and am experienced with magic tricks for children.

This entire event revolves around one issue: will I get laid when the day is done. I'll send Banachek another $40 if I do.

[Jekyll]

1... It is possible someone will eventually demonstrate a currently 'inexplicable' event, but this will not demonstrate it is "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power...".
2... You are correct, but the Challenge by definition is not testing for proven "p-s-o" powers because it is driven by the presumption such powers cannot and do not exist. It is testing for demonstrations of events or powers which are listed in the Rules as accepted but unproven "p-s-o" events or powers.
3... If a claimant succeeds in performing one of the listed events or powers under the Rules this will not prove it is a demonstration of an actual "p-s-o" power because the Challenge has no way of distinguishing between the list in the Rules and any actual "p-s-o" because there is no existing repeatable and measurable proof within or outside the JREF that such a power actually does or can operate.
What is possible and may eventually happen is a claimant will succeed in demontrating one of the events or powers listed in the Rules to the satisfaction of the JREF and on this basis the "p-s-o" power will be so strongly inferred, even though there are no known means of measuring its operation, that the "p-s-o" power did operate in the demonstration.
There is no problem with this as long as it is remembered that it will not actually be proof of a real "...psychic, supernatural, or occult power..." which is undecideable by the JREF Challenge because it is unmeasurable.
The positive and constructive aspect of the Challenge is that the JREF is effectively saying to any claimant: You do not have to prove you possess actual psychic, supernatural, or occult powers, it is only necessary that you successfully demonstrate a currently inexplicable power behind an action or event listed in the Challenge Rules.
And we're in agreement now. Excellent :D .

[Garrette]

It isn't a coincidence that my finding this website and discovering Derren Brown videos on Youtube occured during the same week. I have recently decided to perform a mentalist act. I have my first gig lined up. It is in early May. I'm performing for a Pagan group during their holiday called Beltaine. I''m now obligated to do one half hour of mentalism. I'm going to be waist deep in woo before I even get out of my car in the parking lot. I've researched pagans and these people believe in spells. I'm doing it because I want to be a more rounded individual (and it doesn't hurt that the woman running the show who I correspond with is drop dead gorgeous in her witch outfit, trust me).

Banachek is now $40 richer because I wanted to perform one of his tricks he demonstrated on a CD. Not only will I perform the book test which motivated me to buy his CD, I will also perform another trick he demonstrated. It's funny how you judge money -- one trick for $40 was expensive in my universe, now that I have two tricks I believe that was $40 well spent.

Since this is a skeptic site and I believe in full disclosure I will disclose that this isn't a paid gig. I'm being reinbursed for "costs'. Since I could practically walk to this four day event from my house I will just eat their expensive vegetarian food for free to the best of my ability. The beautiful woman who runs the event asked me if I could entertain children. I thought about this for a moment and realized that all the families who attend this event will wish to take classes and learn about woo woo while their children are holed up in some god-forsaken place. I was able to entertain children with magic when I was a child myself. Entertaining children requires no practice for me. I volunteered to entertain the children. I possess, own and am experienced with magic tricks for children.

This entire event revolves around one issue: will I get laid when the day is done. I'll send Banachek another $40 if I do.Very cool. Best wishes with that.

I do, however, hope you were more specific in your arrangements regarding entertaining the children than you have indicated here. It is very easy to become the de facto babysitter for an extended time.

Then again, maybe it will be a really really good lay.

[tkingdoll]

So you think people believe Copperfield sometimes does real magic and that mentalists can really read minds?

Not everyone is 4 years old, you know. People usually know the difference between magic and reality.

Some people do, yes, but that's not the point. The point is, they believe the explanation that Derren offers, which is that he uses psychological tricks. That BMX clip is a prime example of that. Most people who watch that will believe that explanation as plausible. I have stood in theatre foyers and listened to people marvel that Derren Brown can memorise a phone directory. But those explanations are no more true and no more honest than claiming you can read minds. There is no difference! A lie for entertainment is a lie for entertainment.

Please explain to me why it's not OK to tell someone you can read their mind, but it is OK to say you can read their subconscious thoughts via their actions. Neither is true, but the mentalists of old use the first explanation where Derren uses the latter for the modern audience.

At least Copperfield and Edward don't offer any explanation of how their tricks are done rather than a false one.

[Moochie]

Those people are lying to you :) Maybe you could do it once, but Derren's act (which I'm seen him do live) involves guessing again and again with the same person. But yes, the show is edited to remove failures with other tricks like the paper scissors stone game.

Yes, I have read his book.

ETA: your editing comment illustrates my point: John Edward etc employs editing techniques to make himself appear more able than he is. Same thing.

And Edward is just out to entertain the public, isn't he?

M.

[Moochie]

Since when magicians have become so harmful to the audience? Aren't they all should be for fun? This thread is getting a bit weird.. :confused:

Indeed, there are some right dingbats here.

M.

[tkingdoll]

And Edward is just out to entertain the public, isn't he?

M.

No, he's out to make shed loads of money and be a celebrity, just like Derren Brown.

[Moochie]

They aren't. That's my point. TV mentalists, psychics, it's all the same.

Although Derren has been responsible for an increase in the popularity in NLP, something I believe he is unhappy about. Nonetheless, people see his psych explanations and believe them, and follow suit.

I think you are dead wrong. How do you know of this NLP connection? I've seen a bunch of his TV output, plus an interview or two on the Web, and I do not get that NLP is an issue with DB. But it is an issue with you, isn't it?

Take it up with those responsible. DB is an entertainer. The sooner you understand that, the better.

M.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Some people do, yes, but that's not the point. The point is, they believe the explanation that Derren offers, which is that he uses psychological tricks. That BMX clip is a prime example of that. Most people who watch that will believe that explanation as plausible. I have stood in theatre foyers and listened to people marvel that Derren Brown can memorise a phone directory. But those explanations are no more true and no more honest than claiming you can read minds. There is no difference! A lie for entertainment is a lie for entertainment.

Please explain to me why it's not OK to tell someone you can read their mind, but it is OK to say you can read their subconscious thoughts via their actions. Neither is true, but the mentalists of old use the first explanation where Derren uses the latter for the modern audience.

At least Copperfield and Edward don't offer any explanation of how their tricks are done rather than a false one.

I think you mean reading conscious thoughts from (sub-)conscious behaviour.

It's ok with me when it's done during the act. I get uneasy when Derren starts giving explanations after the trick's performed.

[Moochie]

No, he's out to make shed loads of money and be a celebrity, just like Derren Brown.

And of course, being the complete sleuth that you are, you will have shedloads of evidence, won't you?

M.

[tkingdoll]

I think you are dead wrong. How do you know of this NLP connection? I've seen a bunch of his TV output, plus an interview or two on the Web, and I do not get that NLP is an issue with DB. But it is an issue with you, isn't it?

Take it up with those responsible. DB is an entertainer. The sooner you understand that, the better.

M.

He acknowledges it himself. And the objections I have raised in this thread are objections which have been put to him, believe me.

[tkingdoll]

And of course, being the complete sleuth that you are, you will have shedloads of evidence, won't you?

M.

It's in the same place you got your evidence about John Edwards' motivations.

[tkingdoll]

It's ok with me when it's done during the act. I get uneasy when Derren starts giving explanations after the trick's performed.

Yes. That's exactly the crux of it.

I think you mean reading conscious thoughts from (sub-)conscious behaviour.

No, he claims that he can second-guess which hand you will put the coin in because of certain thought-processes you go through whether you know it or not.

[Moochie]

... believe me.


:dl:

M.

[Moochie]

It's in the same place you got your evidence about John Edwards' motivations.

All right. Now that I understand where you're coming from, I'll give you a little latitude.








































No I won't, moron. :D

M.

I'm hoping the grinning face smilie means you are joking, because calling someone a moron is really against the rules.

[tkingdoll]

DB is an entertainer. The sooner you understand that, the better.

M.

Actually, this comment from you is a bit weird. I've stated at every turn that DB is an entertainer, in fact one of my most recent posts used the phrase "a lie for entertainment is a lie for entertainment".

Comprehension issues, perhaps?

[Moochie]

Actually, this comment from you is a bit weird. I've stated at every turn that DB is an entertainer, in fact one of my most recent posts used the phrase "a lie for entertainment is a lie for entertainment".

Comprehension issues, perhaps?

Yes. You evidently haven't a clue.

M.

[tkingdoll]

Yes. You evidently haven't a clue.

M.

Evidently, seeing as I am "a moron". Interesting debating tactic you have there. Any actual counter-claims to my assertions that Derren Brown lies for the purposes of entertainment just like John Edward does?

[Moochie]

Evidently, seeing as I am "a moron". Interesting debating tactic you have there. Any actual counter-claims to my assertions that Derren Brown lies for the purposes of entertainment just like John Edward does?

Brown doesn't make fanciful claims about his "abilities." I don't know if Edward does, but certainly he trades on his perceived "ability" to communicate with the dead.

There is a difference.

M.

[tkingdoll]

Brown doesn't make fanciful claims about his "abilities."

I disagree with you 100%.

[Moochie]

I disagree with you 100%.

Your burden.

M.

[Azrael 5]

I disagree with you 100%.

You're on your own Teek.Didn't I explain this earlier.Derren states his act combines this that the other(you know what)which it does.The BMX effect,ok so it wasn't via the method shown,but then how rubbish would it be if Simon Pegg was asked what his toy was and Derren said "Look at your wallet" just like that,within 30 seconds of the clip?

It's presentation,not woo or NLP.Dual reality at the most,showing the audience it's achieved one way whilst it's actually done another.I don't see the problem.
He makes magic exciting,in Pure Effect he talks about how it should look if you were really reading minds.
This is what it would look like.
Way back in the 1800's Robert Houdin would waft a small bottle of "ether" under a child's nose to put them in a trance and make them light enough to levitate.The bottle was empty,the boy was a stooge.Presentation,again.

And Senex I think you are on the wrong forum.Dateline.com is what you need,maybe?

[tim]

I've seen DB on TV a fair bit, and also IRL. As far as I can recall, I've never heard him make any claim to paranormal abilities - indeed, he seems to go out of his way to say the opposite, stating his act is based on, IIRC, psychology, misdirection and sleight of hand.

[Garrette]

I think the discussion might turn to a more constructive route (I know, I know; damned presumptuous of me) if we switch from a discussion of DB specifically and move to a hypothetical performer.

For these purposes, let's postulate the existence of Mr. X.

Mr. X performs an act which strait-laced magicians recognize as a series of standard mentalist tricks, albeit dressed up in an original manner.

What can Mr. X say/do/imply within the confines of his show and still remain ethical? Are disclaimers required?

What can Mr. X say/do/imply outside the confines of his show, within the magical (i.e., knowledgeable) community and remain ethical? Are disclaimers required?

What can Mr. X say/do/imply outside the confines of his show, when dealing with the non-magical (i.e., non-knowledgeable) community and remain ethical? Are disclaimers required?

How do we define what is "in-show" and what is "out-of-show"?

[DJM]

I love Derren's explanations, even if they are not true. Check out his explanation at the end of his last stage show to see what I mean, that's what showmenship is all about. I'd rather have that then the same old magic tricks we've seen a thousand times.

Magicians are liars, that's their jobs. If you don't like it then don't watch!

[Garrette]

I love Derren's explanations, even if they are not true. Check out his explanation at the end of his last stage show to see what I mean, that's what showmenship is all about. I'd rather have that then the same old magic tricks we've seen a thousand times.This is why I think it needs to switch to hypothetical for a bit.

I suspect Tkingdoll would place the boundaries between "in-show" and "out-of-show" differently than you have.


Magicians are liars, that's their jobs. If you don't like it then don't watch!On rare occasion I have been very explicit about this.

"Everything I'm telling you now is the truth, but you have to suspect everything I tell you during the show is a lie, even when I swear it's not."

"Okay, the show has started so I'm probably lying now. But I'm not."

"Show's over. You can believe me again."

[DJM]

Magicians should be seen like actors in theatre, never believe a word that they ever say. I already knew that when I was like 6 years old!

[Garrette]

Magicians should be seen like actors in theatre, never believe a word that they ever say. I already knew that when I was like 6 years old!I've done a lot of theatre and never came across the idea (or reason) to disbelieve actors anymore than I disbelieve anyone else.

[Azrael 5]

Just one last word on Derren,in one of his stage show tours he said at the end of the night"Everything you see is real but has nothing to do with reality"

What more do you want..?

[Garrette]

Just one last word on Derren,in one of his stage show tours he said at the end of the night"Everything you see is real but has nothing to do with reality"

What more do you want..?Good wine, that redhead, and a weekend in St. Croix?

[DJM]

I've done a lot of theatre and never came across the idea (or reason) to disbelieve actors anymore than I disbelieve anyone else.

Not sure I understand. Actors play a role, just like magicians do. When I go see a movie or a play, I don't leave the place thinking it was real.. That should be the same with any magic show.

[Garrette]

Not sure I understand. Actors play a role, just like magicians do. When I go see a movie or a play, I don't leave the place thinking it was real.. That should be the same with any magic show.Of course, within the show, I don't consider what the actors to be doing as anything real (there are people who do, though).

I thought your original post to which I was responding indicated that you don't believe what magicians say even when they are not performing.

[DJM]

Of course within a show, sorry if I wasn't clear.

And there would always be people who believe in anything, no matter if it's movies, theatre, soap operas, magic shows, or anything else. I don't think we can do much about it..

[Ivor the Engineer]

I love Derren's explanations, even if they are not true. Check out his explanation at the end of his last stage show to see what I mean, that's what showmenship is all about. I'd rather have that then the same old magic tricks we've seen a thousand times.

Magicians are liars, that's their jobs. If you don't like it then don't watch!

I disagree with you. I thought that pseudo-psychology explanation (with supporting video evidence) pushed the boundary too far.

Mr Randi writes a web page every week highlighting liars, frauds and deluded believers, presumably in an effort to educate people that the products and ideas that they sell or convey are - to put it bluntly - unsubstantiated nonsense.

Is it therefore ok (i.e. ethical) for a self proclaimed sceptic to be using unsubstantiated nonsense explanations when he is performing an act? I’d say yes, but only up until the effect is over. In my opinion, giving a pseudo-psychological explanation of how the effect was achieved after that point is counterproductive to scepticism.

Does him saying ‘I’m always honest about my dishonesty’ with a boyish grin on his face make everything he says after that ok? I’m not sure it does.

[tkingdoll]

I disagree with you. I thought that pseudo-psychology explanation (with supporting video evidence) pushed the boundary too far.

Mr Randi writes a web page every week highlighting liars, frauds and deluded believers, presumably in an effort to educate people that the products and ideas that they sell or convey are - to put it bluntly - unsubstantiated nonsense.

Is it therefore ok (i.e. ethical) for a self proclaimed sceptic to be using unsubstantiated nonsense explanations when he is performing an act? I’d say yes, but only up until the effect is over. In my opinion, giving a pseudo-psychological explanation of how the effect was achieved after that point is counterproductive to scepticism.

Does him saying ‘I’m always honest about my dishonesty’ with a boyish grin on his face make everything he says after that ok? I’m not sure it does.

I agree. And there are millions of people who believe the psychological explanation even though such manipulation is not possible. I don't have a problem with that necessarily, but I don't put it in a separate camp to TV psychics who also provide false explanations for their tricks.

I've talked to a lot of people about Derren Brown and all of them believe the psychobabble explanations, the memory feats etc. And furthermore, they don't like it if I tell them it's actually hidden cameras or simple envelope-switching. It's in his best interests to promote the pseudoscience. And he's good at it. It's good TV. But if skeptics are against the spread of pseudoscience, then he's just as guilty as Edwards.

[Garrette]

I disagree with you. I thought that pseudo-psychology explanation (with supporting video evidence) pushed the boundary too far.

Mr Randi writes a web page every week highlighting liars, frauds and deluded believers, presumably in an effort to educate people that the products and ideas that they sell or convey are - to put it bluntly - unsubstantiated nonsense.

Is it therefore ok (i.e. ethical) for a self proclaimed sceptic to be using unsubstantiated nonsense explanations when he is performing an act? I’d say yes, but only up until the effect is over. In my opinion, giving a pseudo-psychological explanation of how the effect was achieved after that point is counterproductive to scepticism.

Does him saying ‘I’m always honest about my dishonesty’ with a boyish grin on his face make everything he says after that ok? I’m not sure it does.Which all gets back to where you place the boundary between "in show" and "out of show."

With DB, obviously, some people (perhaps most here) place his explanations "in show."

[DJM]

With DB, obviously, some people (perhaps most here) place his explanations "in show."

As everyone should.

[Garrette]

As everyone should.I lean strongly in that direction, but my exposure to him is more limited than those in the UK.

I have his first two books and Azrael 5 has been kind enough to send me CD recordings of most of his specials. But I don't have access to his non-special television appearances or talk show interviews and such.

[tkingdoll]

As everyone should.

So you don't think it matters that people walk away believing he has abilities he doesn't? Abilities that don't even exist?

[Garrette]

So you don't think it matters that people walk away believing he has abilities he doesn't? Abilities that don't even exist?The question is too simple.

As both DJM and I have pointed out, there will be irrational believers regardless of how a magician presents himself. If we tailor our presentations to cater to them, then we will have no presentations at all.

The question is where the reasonable line is drawn and if DB has drawn the line in a manner which unreasonably causes some to believe who otherwise wouldn't.

[DJM]

Derren does his best to let everyone know that he's a magician and he uses magic tricks and illusions in his effects. He says that on his website, during his stage shows, before his TV programs and also in interviews.

He admits that he is what he is. So not only he hasn't crossed the line, but he's very honest about what he does. Not all magicians are like that.

[tkingdoll]

The question is too simple.

As both DJM and I have pointed out, there will be irrational believers regardless of how a magician presents himself. If we tailor our presentations to cater to them, then we will have no presentations at all.

The question is where the reasonable line is drawn and if DB has drawn the line in a manner which unreasonably causes some to believe who otherwise wouldn't.

Yes, I made the same point, that some people will believe anything, even that David Copperfield can fly. But DB is outside of that because (or so it seems to me from conversations with friends, seeing his show, reading his fan sites and sources a little more...shall we say close to the horse) that the majority of his viewers believe the psychological explanations. I've known plenty of people in this very forum who believed them, too. That's because they are presented in such a way as to be plausible science rather than the more impossible skill of mind-reading. I believe most people who watch will come away thinking that the explanation offered on screen is the true one, which is why his popularity continues to grow.

Excellent article summing up Derren's false claims of psychology by Simon Singh here:

http://www.simonsingh.com/Derren_Brown_Article.html

I surveyed sixteen people leaving Derren's recent stage show. Eleven people believed that the entire show was based on psychology, as opposed to magic tricks. They had been deceived, because it was nearly all magic. When asked how they would feel if, say, the synchronising minds demonstration turned out to be a trivial trick rather than deep psychology, they all said that they would be annoyed.

[tkingdoll]

More from that article. I'd like to know how some of the folks in this thread think this differs from what John Edwards does:

And the problem goes beyond Channel 4. Derren performs his mind reading on numerous chat shows, but again the audience often don't get the full story. In these sorts of demonstrations, the participants are often asked to write down their thoughts before the show starts. Viewers rightly assume that they can trust programme makers to be fair. Not telling viewers about such preparation is an abuse of this trust.



Derren recently appeared on ITV's Good Morning. He was allowed to do a couple of mind reading stunts and explained them by saying, "People have patterns of behaviour that you can identify, and once you've identified them you can manipulate and predict them." In particular, Derren could tell that Philip Schofield was thinking about the death of his childhood pet hamster because he could see, "How you're responding and how you're agreeing and disagreeing and pupil dilation and so on." Presumably if Schofield had been thinking about the death of a goldfish then the pupil dilation would have been different.

[DJM]

"How you're responding and how you're agreeing and disagreeing and pupil dilation and so on." Presumably if Schofield had been thinking about the death of a goldfish then the pupil dilation would have been different."

Haha, now that's great presentation! ;)

[tkingdoll]

"How you're responding and how you're agreeing and disagreeing and pupil dilation and so on." Presumably if Schofield had been thinking about the death of a goldfish then the pupil dilation would have been different."

Haha, now that's great presentation! ;)

Yes, it's great presentation when John Edward does the same thing, too.

[Azrael 5]

I wondered ho wlong before Simon Singh was mentioned.Teek you worry me,he's a magician end of story.I don't see the problem,at no point does he claim any powers.Enough people believe actors from their favourite soap are real,nothing you can do about what people want to believe!

[DJM]

Wasn't Simon's article published before Derren started putting a disclaimer on his show? That was like 4 years ago.. :rolleyes:

[Azrael 5]

Scroll down in this article to sub-heading "What's in a claim"
http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html


DERREN: My position at the moment is, again, having my cake and eating it. At the beginning of the first special it was important to stake a claim and set myself apart from things. Artistically perhaps it wasn't a great decision, but nonetheless it was there and it probably didn't work in my favor. Now I don't want to be in a position of having to defend myself. This is what I tell people in interviews: I wanted to come up with a form of magic that was more thought provoking, involving, and a bit more challenging and difficult to dismiss than a lot of magic can be. And this psychological form of magic is what I've come up with. But I absolutely tie it back to that. I don't say that what you see is documentary footage of me using my superior psychological techniques.
JAMY: But the fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, when you talk about people calling up the station and wanting to take a course in photo reading, that certainly seems unarguable evidence that they are drawing education and information about the world from your work.
DERREN: Exactly. And it think it's a question of fine tuning that and taking responsibility. But also allowing for the fact that people will do that anyway. People will watch soap operas and make life decisions based on that, and mistake the characters for being real.
JAMY: Well, my response to that would be that in considering the bell curve of possible responses, it's very easy to acknowledge--it should be stipulated, if you will--that we cannot do much about the ends of the curve. There will be people who will never believe, and there will be people who will always believe. And when we have these discussions in magic, I get very tired very quickly when I'm faced with the so-called argument that someone will always believe, because that's actually not an argument. It's just a very obvious observation with no other information attached to it. So what? What I'm interested in is the big honking hulk of the center swell of the bell curve.
DERREN: Absolutely! But I think with my shows in this country, where the show is also surrounded by a lot of press and TV interviews and so on, I think people ... that the bell curve, if you like, the people in the middle, do get that.
JAMY: You think?
DERREN: The vast majority of people do. I do think it is an issue, and that as I do this I'm going to get different waves of reaction, and possibly have an eventual wave now when I have to pay a lot more attention to the line that I take. But when people do take a line of saying that it's not hard science, my reaction is, I've always said that. And I've always said that it's born out of magic and that it is a form of magic, but hopefully a more interesting and thought-provoking one. And that's it. And I've always had my tongue in my cheek in interviews. So it's absolutely something that I have to think about, and I have to take responsibility for, but I've been fairly good with it. I don't want to be Uri Geller. I don't want to have to create and defend something to that extent, that's not what life's about. I do it because I find it fun and entertaining, and that's what I would like people to get out of it. And part of making it as fun and entertaining as possible is creating ambiguity, plausibility, and all the rest of it.
JAMY: So you think ambiguity is part of the point?
DERREN: If it wasn't ambiguous, it wouldn't be challenging.


And in same chapter

JAMY: But today it's become almost standard practice for mentalists to couch their work in claims like it's body language, it's lie detection, it's this, it's that, it's yadda yadda yadda, and really, it's all nonsense. It's a mentalism show. We can go down the list, it's a nail writer and a book test and so on and so forth. And isn't it just substituting one lie for another lie? Is he really doing any better than a guy who says, "I'm actually psychic?" Is he doing any better service to his audience? Or to the truth?
DERREN: I think there is a difference. I don't think you can just substitute one for the other. I think if somebody goes off and learns photo reading or goes off and learns to be a hypnotherapist or whatever, they can actually do that and get something out of it.
JAMY: Let's say they don't go off and do that. Let's say they just go off assuming they've learned something about it from his magic tricks.
DERREN: Oh, I see. Well, what you're saying there is there's this amazing guy who could tell what drawing someone had drawn just by their body language or whatever.
JAMY: Uh-huh.
DERREN: And you're talking about that one amazing guy who was able to do that. It's not the same as saying, "Oh, I know that psychic powers are real because this person told me about my relationship."
JAMY: But you enlarge from the one person. When you see a Uri Geller, you therefore perhaps learn from that, draw the conclusion from that, that there is such a thing as ESP, this guy has it, maybe I can learn it, or I can go pay someone to help guide my life using the same tools, since they exist. And it's the same thing you enlarge from this guy. Gee, there is such a thing as lie detection from body language, there is such a thing as ... I mean, it's not just limited to the one guy. If it was limited to the one guy they wouldn't be asking you about a course.
DERREN: But I kind of think it is. If you go and then look into lie detection through body language, you find out actually it's quite a complex and interesting and valid. It's a real subject, it's just a complex and interesting one. And if you hear me talking about it on television, I will say, "I'm using all sorts of techniques to control the situation, and be in charge of it, and create an effect at the end of the day. What I do there on television, it's not that simple in real life. It couldn't be. It's a huge area of research, and it's actually very complex. And don't mistake what I'm doing, which is entertainment, for the real thing." I am quite open about that. And if somebody goes away and says "That that guy is great because he can just memorize an entire book like that in 20 minutes," well, great, that's kind of like saying, "Well, that guy is great, he can take a shuffled deck of cards and pull out a poker hand from it." You're just attributing it to the performer and his skills. But unlike saying "He is psychic and therefore I'm going to go pay some money to this psychic now and have him tell me to break up a relationship, or that my parents don't trust me," or whatever, I think it's a very different thing. Because you look into that world and you just get duped, and you get told to make decisions based on false information. If you look into the world of interpersonal psychology and body reading and all of those things, you come up with a real world of real research, and then you're either going to find out that, oh, well, okay, it's not as easy as I thought, or you're going to discover that actually this is quite interesting, I'm going to learn about these things. You know what I mean? You're not getting people into the same shark pool at all. I really don't believe that.

[tkingdoll]

Derren says this: If you go and then look into lie detection through body language, you find out actually it's quite a complex and interesting and valid. It's a real subject, it's just a complex and interesting one.

as a way of differentiating between what he does and what a psychic does. Can you see the problem with that? Parapsychology is also a real subject. There is probably more research on psychic ability then body language. I don't accept his defence, although he states it well. At the end of the day he will do whatever it takes to get the ratings and the next series commissioned.

[tkingdoll]

Wasn't Simon's article published before Derren started putting a disclaimer on his show? That was like 4 years ago.. :rolleyes:

And why was the disclaimer put there? Why do psychics have disclaimers as well, if there is such a huge difference?

ETA: although I will add that if he's taking steps to improve the public's understanding of his techniques, then good for him.

[JamesM]

Scroll down in this article to sub-heading "What's in a claim"
http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html
I have to say, I agree with everything Teek has said in this thread, although she's managed to articulate it better than I've ever managed.

IMO, Brown is being deeply optimistic at best, in his response to Jamy Ian Swiss. If people are phoning up asking about photoreading and NLP, then while they might end up researching genuine psychology, they're more likely to end up reading books on... er, photoreading, NLP and other pseudoscience. Such books do not, by and large, contain pointers to genuine research.

It's obviously impossible to come to any firm conclusions, absent in depth surveys of the British public, but from conversations with friends and colleagues (none of whom have any interest in the supernatural), plus overhearing the conversations of strangers, people really do believe the explanations that Brown puts in his shows. On that level, while stuff like Messiah may have had a skeptical slant, he has helped contribute to an increased acceptance of pseudopsychology in the general public.

[Azrael 5]

What is the problem? Is he saying he is psychic? No.
Is he saying he is a magician? Yes.
Is he making a claim of any paranormal ability? NO.

So can we move this to conjurors corner or just get a grip Teek.:rolleyes:

[tkingdoll]

What is the problem? Is he saying he is psychic? No.
Is he saying he is a magician? Yes.
Is he making a claim of any paranormal ability? NO.

So can we move this to conjurors corner or just get a grip Teek.:rolleyes:

Actually, he does make claims of paranormal ability, he just doesn't acknowledge it. What do you call claiming to memorise a telephone directory overnight? Or the poker claim as Simon points out.

Comments like "get a grip" are patronising and do nothing to further the debate. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, why bother saying anything at all?

[Azrael 5]

Actually, he does make claims of paranormal ability, he just doesn't acknowledge it. What do you call claiming to memorise a telephone directory overnight? Or the poker claim as Simon points out.

Comments like "get a grip" are patronising and do nothing to further the debate. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, why bother saying anything at all?

What do you call claiming to walk through the Great wall of China? Teleporting someone to a beach from a theatre?

I call it magician's patter.:rolleyes:

[DJM]

I think for her all magicians who lie are the same as John Edward. Even those at kids parties who claim they can make a rabbit disappear. After all, the hat isn't really empty... is it?

It's all one big woo promotion!

[tkingdoll]

What do you call claiming to walk through the Great wall of China? Teleporting someone to a beach from a theatre?

I call it magician's patter.:rolleyes:

No, that's the trick. I'm talking about the explanation. If Copperfield said "I did this via quantum fluctuations in the nebulous cortex of the geomatrix of the stones in the wall" then that would be the same as saying "I did this via reading body language, pupil dilation etc" as Brown does. And we'd all yell at him for promoting impossible science.

Traditionally, magicians don't offer scientific explanations for their tricks at all.

[DJM]

Magicians give false explantions all the time, who cares if it's scientific or not.. A lie is a lie.

I don't see any difference between Copperfield's tricks and Derren's.

[tkingdoll]

Magicians give false explantions all the time, who cares if it's scienfitic or not.. A lie is a lie.

.

So no-one is allowed to promote pseudoscience...except magicians?

Interesting.

[DJM]

Magicians promote fun, you should try it out sometime! ;)

[maatorc]

Others have responded to this, maatorc, but as it was my post you were responding to, I will chime in: This is just plain rot.
The point of my post was that the claimant needs to define the claim.
The point of your post is that the JREF has not defined the claim.
It's as simple as that.
Without the legalese, the JREF Challenge rules simply state this (totally my own paraphrase, not the JREF's at all):
Specify what you can do. If it falls outside the bounds of what is normally accepted as scientific or within the bounds of what is normally considered paranormal, your claim is eligible for testing. Devise a test (with our input) to test your claim. We will test it.
That's it. There's nothing underhanded about it, nothing deceitful, nothing inherently unwinnable. Unless you contend that those things normally considered paranormal are inherently untrue.
See posts 124 and 156.

[tkingdoll]

Magicians promote fun, you should try it out sometime! ;)

How is that an answer to my question? Weird.

[Azrael 5]

No, that's the trick. I'm talking about the explanation. If Copperfield said "I did this via quantum fluctuations in the nebulous cortex of the geomatrix of the stones in the wall" then that would be the same as saying "I did this via reading body language, pupil dilation etc" as Brown does. And we'd all yell at him for promoting impossible science.

Traditionally, magicians don't offer scientific explanations for their tricks at all.

Maybe the audience think Copperfield did do as you suggest.Some probably do,just like some think Derren memorized a phone book.Some people are dumb.
Traditionally magic was getting boring so Derren(and Blaine before him)reframed it and livened it up.
They are not promoting pseudo science because they are magicians!! Even Dunninger had this spiel in the 60's:
He never even claimed to be a mind-reader. In performance, Dunninger referred to his ability as "telesthesia", an impression received by a sense organ, but not a usual sense organ, and sometimes received from a distance. He described the process simply: "You pick up a vivid impression from another mind and others follow or suggest themselves. But it isn't mind-reading; it is thought reading. When a series of such thought impressions come in fairly close in succession, it takes on the semblance of mind reading, though if you check back, you may find that you have added links of your own making, just as you might piece together the fragments of a dream to form a waking continuity"

http://www.cometamagico.com.ar/dunninger2.htm

[DJM]

How is that an answer to my question? Weird.

It answers very well. Because magicians don't want to promote anything serious and scientific.. they just want to entertain the audience! To have fun!

They are not fraud or evil people.. they do exactly what they claim to do. Trick people, fool them! That's their job, to fool people.

Like I said before, magicians should be seen like theatre/movie actors. They play a role for the audience.. no one should believe a word they say. Especially when they tell everyone not to believe it!

It's a role play, showmenship.. ACTING. MAGIC!

FUN!

[tkingdoll]

By the logic in this thread, if long as Milli Vanilli declare during their gigs that they are singing live, it's OK if they mime.

Well, I had heard that DB was a bit of a sacred cow (I heard Simon Singh got hate mail after his article was published), and now I realise just how true that is. It's a pity that some people can't put their liking of something aside in order to appraise it critically. "It's just a bit of fun" is exactly the defense of the people Randi goes after, and the "it doesn't do any harm" mantra is usually one heard in woo communities. It's amusing to hear it here. Mind you, as I've said several times, I don't have a problem with DB, I like his stuff a lot, but I don't put it in a different category to, say Most Haunted. If we're going to expose pseudoscience, we should at least be consistent about it. It doesn't mean it's not still good entertainment, as long as we know that we're accepting, basically, misinformation.

I'm out of this thread because no-one is offering any responses of substance to my points, but I have learned a lot about DB fans!

[Azrael 5]

Teek you are acting like a woo.Magicians don't promote pseudoscience! It's an act,pretend,something to give the audience an inkling into how a trick is achieved.Makes them believe in it more.

Trick 1. Pick a card.Dont let me see it.
Spec:"OK"
Mag"Four of hearts"
Spec"Yeah"

Trick 2. Mag"Pick a card.Dont let me see it"
Spec"OK"
Mag"concentrate,see the colour in your mind scream it to me,ah in your eyes I see its red.Now the value say it in your mind,over and over.Almost see it forming in your throat the words..its a..its a four of hearts!"
Spec" Aaagggh "

Best example I can give.See ya Teek! ;)

[Moochie]

I've seen DB on TV a fair bit, and also IRL. As far as I can recall, I've never heard him make any claim to paranormal abilities - indeed, he seems to go out of his way to say the opposite, stating his act is based on, IIRC, psychology, misdirection and sleight of hand.

Evidently a few of the posters here skip that part.

M.

[Moochie]

Just one last word on Derren,in one of his stage show tours he said at the end of the night"Everything you see is real but has nothing to do with reality"

What more do you want..?

Nowt. :)

It keeps the kids' mouths agape, and oldies nodding in agreement.

I truly don't know what it does for the moronic.

Oh yes I do! :D

M.

[Moochie]

The question is too simple.

As both DJM and I have pointed out, there will be irrational believers regardless of how a magician presents himself. If we tailor our presentations to cater to them, then we will have no presentations at all.

The question is where the reasonable line is drawn and if DB has drawn the line in a manner which unreasonably causes some to believe who otherwise wouldn't.

How one regards this reflects one's intelligence, or lack of same.

M.

[Moochie]

Derren says this:

as a way of differentiating between what he does and what a psychic does. Can you see the problem with that? Parapsychology is also a real subject. There is probably more research on psychic ability then body language. I don't accept his defence, although he states it well. At the end of the day he will do whatever it takes to get the ratings and the next series commissioned.

Sorry, tkingdoll, for some reason I thought you were a skeptic. This post explains everything. I shan't bother you again. Sorry.

M.

[Moochie]

Actually, he does make claims of paranormal ability, he just doesn't acknowledge it. What do you call claiming to memorise a telephone directory overnight? Or the poker claim as Simon points out.

And if you believe such nonsense aren't you deserving of certain banned epithets?

M.

[Moochie]

No, that's the trick. I'm talking about the explanation. If Copperfield said "I did this via quantum fluctuations in the nebulous cortex of the geomatrix of the stones in the wall" then that would be the same as saying "I did this via reading body language, pupil dilation etc" as Brown does. And we'd all yell at him for promoting impossible science.


And, of course, you have done prodigious amounts of research into just these matters, haven't you?

Body language and pupil dilation tell you nothing, do they?

M.

[Moochie]

I still reckon DB's a marvelous entertainer, in ways that Edward and Browne will never, ever be.

M.

[DJM]

And he doesn't charge 750 dollars for his shows, that's another plus! ;)

[DJM]

"It's just a bit of fun" is exactly the defense of the people Randi goes after, and the "it doesn't do any harm" mantra is usually one heard in woo communities.

Just to remind you, Randi was also a magician for many many years, and I'm sure he also said a few lies during his shows and gave false explanations about things.

According to this seems like he thinks he is a fantastic mentalist:

http://www.randi.org/jr/012105the.html#3


Here's a quote from there: "Paul, Derren and I are in touch, and I've seen these wonders. He compares well with our Banachek, and I can't wait to see these two together! I hope to make a much closer relationship with Mr. Brown, and perhaps work a plot or two with him. Stay tuned!"

Sorry Teek, but I don't think Randi agrees with you much.. :blush:

[Azrael 5]

*edit*

Sorry Teek, but I don't think Randi agrees with you much.. :blush:

I don't think anyone agrees with her! Moochie are you trying to get your post count up? :p

Derren Brown makes paranormal claims! :jaw-dropp

[Moochie]

Moochie are you trying to get your post count up? :p


No. No advantage in that. I just think some here are grossly mistaken about DB.

M.

[Garrette]

See posts 124 and 156.Now done. Apologies for missing them. My disagreement is retracted.

[maatorc]

Now done. Apologies for missing them. My disagreement is retracted.
Thanks. I am not insisting my position is right; it is simply my take on things.
It is a big subject.