FREE TAPATALK APP

John Albert · 10th December 2011, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by banquetbear

...dude: anyone thats read the thread will know that you have not backed anything up. You cited Corinda, someone else provided the actual cite. You've claimed "tens of thousands of people of people using Derren Brown as an example of the "amazing powers of NLP" then cited a google search result that showed the opposite.

The Google search did not show the opposite. If you'd actually looked through those results, you'd have seen that an overwhelming number were people discussing Derren Brown's work in NLP terms, people talking about how he uses NLP techniques, and people using his shows to sell their own NLP books and seminars.

You simply claimed that all the results you saw showed the opposite, because you could. Even if I did go to all the trouble of posting a hundred examples of people who believed Derren Brown exploits arcane tricks of psychology to extraordinary effect, you'd simply dismiss it under some other pretense.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

You claim that Brown probably uses stooges: your evidence is a single (now deleted) IMDB entry, the fact that other Mentalists (not Brown) claim to use stooges, and your own personal gut feelings. Thats it.

I've said it before, I really don't care if he uses stooges. My enjoyment of a performance is not necessarily contingent upon some purism of the magician's art. I consider stooges part of the game, because whether you (or he) want to admit it, it really is. Honestly. Your production company invites people to be on TV, chooses the participants through a careful screening process, sets up the expectation (spoken or not) that they're supposed to behave a certain way and do everything you ask them to do: that's a stooge. If you really think the things Derren Brown is showing you on TV do not require the participants' willingness to act the part, then I'm sorry you're so gullible. Just like Derren refuses to call his fake hypnosis "NLP," he might not consider them stooges under his own definition, but let's be honest here. They're stooges.

That's all I've been saying. If you look at it rationally, discounting all the BS about hypnosis and suggestion, the whole trick is just convincing people to play along. I said basically that in so many words, and suddenly I've got a whole bunch of people all up in arms, calling me names, insulting my intelligence, and claiming I know nothing of magic. But not a single person offered anything by the way of reasonable alternate explanations. It's weird. I've noticed some amazing bouts of credulity, especially for individuals supposedly so interested in critical thinking.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

And yet somehow this thread still keeps going and going and going...

The original post in this thread expressed concern over the direction that Derren Brown has been taking his performances lately. At first, I figured it was all just hyperbole. Derren Brown is just an entertainer, so why would anyone get all upset about anything he says?

But then I watched a few of his shows where he debunks various supernatural woo, and then some of his more recent shows where he blatantly claims to be manipulating peoples' minds through these bogus "techniques" touted by the NLP charlatans. I had no idea he'd actually gone beyond simply mimicking the NLPers' techniques, but actually explaining himself in those terms. That kind of surprised me because I'd always thought the NLP garbage was just sort of an "inside joke" with him or something.

Of course, voicing these concerns brought the wrath of the Brownites down on me twice as hard. Now I've got even more people calling me a liar, totally misrepresenting everything I've said. I've got people misquoting me, quoting offhand statements (which I later clarified) totally out of context as proof of something or other, even blatantly putting words into my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I said.

Why are some people so irrational about this? I mean maniacally defensive to the point of lividity, ranting complete nonsense over a trivial conversation about a stage magician. Are you guys obsessed or what?

Like I said, I don't hate Derren Brown. He seems like a nice, personable guy on the surface, if a little full of himself. Some of his work is absolutely awesome, easily some of the best mentalism I've ever seen. I don't even give a crap if he uses stooges, as long as he hides it well and doesn't do it all the time. For me, it's all about the outward effect. If it's really convincing magic, then I don't even care. Of course I'm not holding out any fantasies about him having psychological superpowers or anything like that, but if he's successful in pulling off the illusion, then the suspension of disbelief will remain.

But lately I've been seeing more and more of this total crap where he's obviously and unapologetically playing straight to the woo crowd. He appears to be taking more and more shortcuts, relying more on these staged stunts and less on traditional magic, and making more and more ridiculous claims about psychology with no disclaimer. I really don't like this new direction he's going. The worst part is, he's placing the woo-woo BS explanations ahead of the craft, and it's unconvincing.

That whole "acid throwing in the face" thing from the "Assassin" episode was just cringeworthy. Talking out of his ass with the stock NLP "instant induction" explanations, the weak performances of the participants... It's so obviously staged, but even worse, it was just lame. The "Voodoo Doll" trick was also obviously staged, but at least that was kind of somewhat intriguing in a creepy sort of way. This new stuff is just as hard for me to sit through as John Edward, because I can tell it's all crap. Hardcore Derren Brown true-believers might be willingly taken in by this garbage, but I find it laughable. I just wish he would go back to doing straight magic instead of this pseudoscience nonsense.

I imagine he might feel he needs to keep topping himself with more and more challenging material, so he does whatever the TV people come up with. But I think he's pushing the "concept" angle way too hard with not enough emphasis on originality, so he's losing his edge.

Azrael 5 · 11th December 2011, 06:34 AM

John Albert I notice you sidestepped my previous posts,this quote from a month ago sums up your problem.

Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox

I think the problem here is lack of knowledge of the man. As I've said many times. Read his blogs or Twitter. The guy is clearly a sceptic and always admits what he does is trickery. He might not do so in the one magic TV show you have chosen to watch. But he will. Somewhere.

And he is always extremely careful in his wording. I suggest you rewatch this show and listen to what he's saying. Not what his hands are doing. This was not promoted as a genuine scientific experiment. It was promoted as an entertainment show.
*snip*

If you're interested to know more about him, check out his blogs & Twitter. If you're not bothered, stop making claims you can't substantiate.
.

In a nutshell.

JFrankA · 11th December 2011, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by John Albert

In most cases, yes. In cases when a seemingly conscious person says "I can't get out of my chair! I'm stuck!" that person is acting. When guy falls on the floor after Derren grabs his hand and yells, "Sleep!" That guy is acting. When a girl closes her eyes and pretends to choke while Derren winds a rope around a doll, that woman is acting.

OK I concede it's not always in play. Sometimes it might be a trick, like PK touch or whatever, but certainly those people in The Experiments: The Assassin were acting.

Ah. This is obviously some strange usage of the word "acting" I wasn't previously aware of.

The people are not acting. Acting means that they are consciously and with full knowledge doing what they are told to do to be in on act. And although these people genuinely believe what is happening to them IS happening to them, they are not acting.

Now, since you concede that hypnosis shows aren't always acting, so what is happening when, in a hypnosis show, a person isn't acting....?

Quote:

Nice ad hominem there.

That's not even an insult! While I enjoy magic, I have no interest in performing magic on stage.

What I said was neither meant to be an ad hominem, nor an insult. Merely an observation. It's good you don't pursue stage magic. You would be terrible.

Quote:

Um, no. What I said is accurate. There's no evidence that anybody can be hypnotized against their will, and substantial proof that they cannot. The Stanford Scale does not measure susceptibility to hypnosis; it purports to measure suggestibility while under hypnosis, but the whole thing is based on pseudoscience anyway.

Uhm, no. What you said was double talk with a straw man thrown in.

Who said anything about it being "against their will"? There was no "against their will" going on here. None. Hypnosis, the basics of it, is a very real and true and measurable psychological phenomenon that we all humans do everyday, usually to ourselves.

To say that hypnosis can do things, like, breasts growing, is pseudoscience, yes. However, like so many pseudosciences out there, there are basics, very tiny little things that do work, that does happen quite often that pseudoscience takes and blows up into "miracle" proportions in order to make a quick buck on people trying to improve their lives. This is true of NLP too.

Quote:

Wow what a bombastic strawman that one is. You'd better put him down quick, before he makes you look real foolish!

Oops, too late...

Pot calling kettle black.

Besides, that's no straw man, it's true. You obviously don't like Derren Brown because you believe he's selling woo. Where's the straw man?

Quote:

I already said I read it. You do realize that Tricks of the Mind is not a magic book, in that it does not reveal any methods beyond a few basic, throwaway effects. It's a book targeted at the general public, part autobiography, part skeptical debunking, part elaboration on the woo DB claims to use in his acts. All in all, it's a fan book for people who like his shows and want to read more about the "mystery."

I challenge that you didn't read it carefully. Or maybe skipped to the pages you wanted to. Page ten of the book he teaches a coin trick. Then he teaches how to make it better by using a bit of misdirection. Then he teaches you how to make it even better by more direct misdirection.

If that isn't a lesson in magic then what is?????

Read pages 153 to 174. Twenty-one pages. That's all the instruction you need to do hypnosis. That's it. That's all it is. No other book, no other course, no other techniques, nothing else needed. You have all the info you need to do stage hypnosis to some audience. All you need now is stage experience, (i.e. learning how to handle an audience with no hypnosis involved, how to misdirect, how to have an out, how to improv, etc). Other than that, you have everything you need to know to prove hypnosis because hypnosis is nothing else more than that.

That looks like a magic lesson to me.

Quote:

I never said there weren't. But those people will play along anyway, or else we'll never see them on TV because they'll end up on the cutting-room floor.

Another strawman. I never, ever said that.

You have said that Derren Brown must use stooges because there's no other explanation. Are you going back on that claim now? Are you saying now that some of the people who are included in the show are not stooges? If not, where's the straw man?

What you have been doing throughout this discussion, and others I've had with you about DB, is a complete straw man. Oh, and since you are so fond of disclaimers,

The following statements are an observation and a conclusion, not an ad hominem nor an insult. If you choose to take it as such, then that is your fault.

You are the type of audience who has no stage magic experience, no idea of techniques and yet states you know how some trick is done, be completely and totally wrong, yet brags about how knowledgeable you are about knowing the "secret to the trick".

Evidence? You've been doing that this entire thread. You're whole argument about what hypnosis and NLP really are is a straw man.

To use your own analogy, you sir, are holding a nuclear bomb straw man.

Quote:

Not on The Experiments, he doesn't.

Not on The Experiments, he doesn't. He presents it as an "experiment," an honest attempt to learn the truth. You have to go to a computer and browse the website to see the disclaimer.

Because in "The Experiments" he is actually giving you the secret of what he is doing. He actually tells you why he doing what he is doing while hypnotizing the audience. Further, even after it happens, he doesn't come out and say "See? This happened here." He presented the show and kept his own findings in question. The whole show keeps you guessing if what is happening is real.

Quote:

I know. I read it. He basically admits that all it is is imagination and role playing. The hypnotist uses language to set an emotional tone and present suggestions, which they voluntarily act on. How is that fundamentally different from acting?

Because it is. Acting is consciously choosing to play along. The person acting knows what they are doing and consciously choosing to do it, willing to stop at any time and say, "I'm playing along. Ha ha."

What acting isn't is when the person does what s/he is doing without a conscious decision on it. Look at the woman with the clasped hands at the start of the first experiment show. She isn't acting, in fact, Derren tells, quite accurately and truthfully what is going on.

That is NOT acting.

Quote:

The "subject" makes a decision whether to either play along or not. The better they play along, the more successful is the effect.

And sometimes the subject doesn't know s/he made the decision. Sometimes the subject is fooled into making the decision. Do you think that every decision one makes is conscious and that person can list why in detail? They may decide to be there, be open to whatever happens, but that does not mean that they are consciously playing along with the thought of "Ho ho! I'm going to be on the telly if I do this". That's just wrong.

This is why I say you don't know the meaning of "instant stooge". In fact, I'm going to add the meaning of the word "acting" to the list of words you don't know.

Someone acting and someone following suggestions are two very different psychological things.

Quote:

I was referring specifically to his TV shows, not what he does on the side.

What he does "on the side" matters just as much, if not more than what his shows are.

What you are doing is cherry picking.

Quote:

Yes, he does. He just attributes his to "psychology" instead of the supernatural.

...and "psychology," which he misrepresents in such a way as to make it sound nearly indistinguishable from something supernatural.

He does use psychology in his tricks. Every mentalist (and magician) does. But "indistinguishable from something supernatural"? That's a stretch, especially since you cherry pick only the parts that make you seem right, and misuse words such as "acting" and "instant stooge".

Quote:

Granted, he does not do that. But Uri Geller has stopped doing that also.

Derren has NEVER done that. NEVER. John Edwards continues to do that.

So stop comparing them.

Quote:

But he mimics it in his performances, so people see that and hear his explanations that invoke NLP language and claims, and that's almost as good an endorsement as running ads.

Cherry picking is fun you get to make a point that is very dull and not well thought out.

Once again, every mentalist, every magician uses these same tricks. Further, Derren never, ever, uses the word NLP in his performances. And "almost as good as an endorsement" is not good enough. Not even close to what Geller and Edwards do. You are stretching.

Speaking of logical fallicies...

Watch out:
That straw man nuclear bomb your holding is going to go off in three...two....one......

Quote:

Then why are so many people unable to do that? Why do we have guys like LondonJohn and yourself swearing that people can be hypnotized into doing things against their will?

KA BOOOOOOOM!

Quote:

Then you're talking crap.

Okay. So, I'm confused. I thought your point is that Derren Brown is exactly like John Edwards and Uri Geller because you think he promotes woo and makes people believe and promotes NLP and hypnosis (the overblown, pseudo-stuff side of it) as real. And since he's doing that, he's making people buy into the woo side of it, spending their money on said woo-side of hypnosis and NLP.

Is this your stance or not?

Azrael 5 · 11th December 2011, 09:33 AM

JFrankA

Quote:

I challenge that you didn't read it carefully. Or maybe skipped to the pages you wanted to. Page ten of the book he teaches a coin trick. Then he teaches how to make it better by using a bit of misdirection. Then he teaches you how to make it even better by more direct misdirection.

He wouldnt know as he only "skimmed" the book and read one chapter he thinks supports his argument.But he 's "read" the other books apparently despute claiming he hadnt only two weeks ago

Considering he only skimmed ToTM I dont take his claims of reading with much merit.

Azrael 5 · 11th December 2011, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by John Albert

He's a good enough magician that he needn't rely on that kind of garbage. As far as I'm concerned, it's every bit as bad as what John Edward does and what Uri Geller used to do.

Originally Posted by John Albert

Derren Brown is not a bad skeptic, his stage act just invokes a lot of "woo" concepts, as most good magic acts do to some extent. Doesn't mean he really endorses it in real life. Audiences ought to be responsible enough to know the difference.

He's not somebody like John Edward who, even offstage, goes around trying to convince people that he can relay messages to and from their dead relatives.

LMAO every post a contradiction John Albert.

John Albert · 11th December 2011, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Ah. This is obviously some strange usage of the word "acting" I wasn't previously aware of.

Well you learn something new every day, if you can be bothered to try.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

The people are not acting. Acting means that they are consciously and with full knowledge doing what they are told to do to be in on act. And although these people genuinely believe what is happening to them IS happening to them, they are not acting.

Is that what you really think? That these stage hypnotism subjects don't know it's an act? That they really think the stuff Derren Brown says is what's really happening to them?

Have you ever been under hypnosis?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Derren Brown gives the impression that he can control people with hypnosis, and a lot of people actually believe him, even though it's complete and total BS.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Now, since you concede that hypnosis shows aren't always acting, so what is happening when, in a hypnosis show, a person isn't acting....?

A trick. A person is fooled by means of a false pretense, like a dual-reality trick for example.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

What I said was neither meant to be an ad hominem, nor an insult. Merely an observation. It's good you don't pursue stage magic. You would be terrible.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that, having never even met me, seen me, or what I can and cannot do.

You're trying to belittle me in the view of readers of this thread, but all you're doing is making yourself look immature. A person who is unable to properly judge how their words and actions come off to strangers would make a poor magician indeed.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Uhm, no. What you said was double talk with a straw man thrown in.

Why don't you explain what you're talking about, instead of just throwing accusations around?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Who said anything about it being "against their will"? There was no "against their will" going on here. None. Hypnosis, the basics of it, is a very real and true and measurable psychological phenomenon that we all humans do everyday, usually to ourselves.

I'm talking about the "instant induction" techniques. That kind of thing is complete and utter BS. You can't just approach a random stranger on the street and suddenly "hypnotize" them without their own knowledge and willing participation. You cannot suddenly "force" somebody into hypnosis like that. It's a stage act, nothing more. If you really believe that kind of "NLP" nonsense is real, then we have another example right here in this thread, of somebody who's been misled by Derren Brown's misrepresentations of "psychology."

Originally Posted by JFrankA

To say that hypnosis can do things, like, breasts growing, is pseudoscience, yes.

Who ever said anything about hypnosis making breasts grow? I certainly didn't. That's a patently ridiculous example. A claim does not have to be that absurd to be recognizable as pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

However, like so many pseudosciences out there, there are basics, very tiny little things that do work, that does happen quite often that pseudoscience takes and blows up into "miracle" proportions in order to make a quick buck on people trying to improve their lives. This is true of NLP too.

Dunno about the "improve their lives" part, but exploiting the public's misconceptions about hypnosis is exactly what Derren Brown does in his pseudo-explanations of what he's doing when he purports to "hypnotize" people.

Hypnosis is nothing more than a willful concentration and relaxation, that allows the subject to willingly let his or her imagination go. It requires some degree of effort on the part of the subject. It is not something that a person can be "snapped" into without any control of one's own, the way stage hypnotists present it.

You apparently don't understand that. You certainly appear to be waffling about it.

You just said:

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Who said anything about it being "against their will"? There was no "against their will" going on here. None.

And then later on in the same post, you said:

Originally Posted by JFrankA

[...] the person does what s/he is doing without a conscious decision on it.

You appear confused about what hypnosis actually is.

I wonder if the pseudoscientific claims of people like Richard Bandler, John Grinder, and Derren Brown might have anything to do with that.

The entire premise of Derren Brown's "Assassin experiment" was to prove the notion that people can be hypnotized into doing things against their own will, without any post hoc memory of what they'd done, like Sirhan Sirhan claims happened to him when he shot Bobby Kennedy.

Hypnosis cannot do that; that claim is pure pseudoscience.

Derren Brown used willing stooges and TV trickery to present the impression of having done exactly that.

Derren Brown blatantly promoted pseudoscience beliefs as fact, with no disclaimer.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

You obviously don't like Derren Brown because you believe he's selling woo. Where's the straw man?

You lied, and misrepresented my position in this debate. I never said I "hate" him. I don't dislike him either. I've said many times in this thread that I think he's extremely talented and an excellent performer.

I'm just really dismayed by these newer shows of his, where he pitches this total pseudoscience nonsense with very few magic tricks except a bunch of "instant stooges" playing along in dumb, boring roles just because they want to be on TV.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I challenge that you didn't read it carefully. Or maybe skipped to the pages you wanted to. Page ten of the book he teaches a coin trick. Then he teaches how to make it better by using a bit of misdirection. Then he teaches you how to make it even better by more direct misdirection.

If that isn't a lesson in magic then what is?????

You didn't read what I said. He threw in a couple extremely basic tricks here and there to make the audience think they're getting let in on some secrets, but most of the book is self-aggrandizing drivel aimed at fanboys. The tricks he presents are nothing you couldn't get in a "magic for beginners" text written for 12-year-olds. He explains the wording of stage hypnotist patter, presents some rudiments of NLP and then waffles about using it onstage without calling it as such, and generally tells a lot of stories. Calling it a "magic text" is quite a stretch.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Read pages 153 to 174. Twenty-one pages. That's all the instruction you need to do hypnosis. That's it. That's all it is.

I know, dude. I read it!

Originally Posted by JFrankA

You have said that Derren Brown must use stooges because there's no other explanation.

That's not what I said. I said he probably uses stooges, because they're a known method for certain kinds of effects, and I haven't seen any alternate explanations that make sense to me. I merely consider explanations on a priority basis according to what I know. I have heard absolutely no convincing explanations—apart from stooges—for how certain effects were achievable. "Instant hypnosis," for example, is total bunkum.

In some of these acts, like the "Russian Gypsy Scam," what he's presenting is so patently absurd from a common sense viewpoint that the use of stooges (or at least willing participants) is the only reasonable option. We know he's not out there taking actual tourists' wallets and walking away with them. If it's not random strangers on the street whom he's scamming, then what are the alternatives? Stooges, or unwitting "extras" planted on that street by the production company for the express purpose of Derren Brown approaching them to do his trick. Anybody applying for such a TV role is going to have expectations and a different "comfort level" than some random person on the street being approached by a stranger.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Are you going back on that claim now? Are you saying now that some of the people who are included in the show are not stooges? If not, where's the straw man?

Of course some of the people Derren Brown uses are not stooges. I never said every trick he's ever done requires stooges, only that it's most probable that at least some of them use stooges, or "instant stooges," or willing participants planted into the audience, or what have you.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

What you have been doing throughout this discussion, and others I've had with you about DB, is a complete straw man. Oh, and since you are so fond of disclaimers,

The following statements are an observation and a conclusion, not an ad hominem nor an insult. If you choose to take it as such, then that is your fault.

You are the type of audience who has no stage magic experience, no idea of techniques and yet states you know how some trick is done, be completely and totally wrong, yet brags about how knowledgeable you are about knowing the "secret to the trick".

Evidence? You've been doing that this entire thread. You're whole argument about what hypnosis and NLP really are is a straw man.

To use your own analogy, you sir, are holding a nuclear bomb straw man.

You're talking out of your ass. That doesn't even make sense.

If you're accusing everything I say of being a strawman, then I accuse YOU of being a strawman yourself!

See? I win. So there.

Resorting to nonsense is never a good look in a debate. You are so bad at this. Why don't you just give it up?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Because in "The Experiments" he is actually giving you the secret of what he is doing. He actually tells you why he doing what he is doing while hypnotizing the audience. Further, even after it happens, he doesn't come out and say "See? This happened here." He presented the show and kept his own findings in question. The whole show keeps you guessing if what is happening is real.

No, he's not letting anybody in on any secret. He's using typical stage hypnotist patter and BS pseudo-explanations. Are you alleging that "instant induction" and all that other NLP nonsense is actually real?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Acting is consciously choosing to play along. The person acting knows what they are doing and consciously choosing to do it, willing to stop at any time and say, "I'm playing along. Ha ha."

Yep, and that's what all those participants are doing. Research has proven that people cannot be hypnotized to do anything against their own will and intent. If you think otherwise, then you're being misled.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

What acting isn't is when the person does what s/he is doing without a conscious decision on it. Look at the woman with the clasped hands at the start of the first experiment show. She isn't acting, in fact, Derren tells, quite accurately and truthfully what is going on.

That is NOT acting.

Nonsense. She's chosen to play along because she's a willing participant who wants to be on TV. If she hadn't played along, that scene would have been cut and we would never have seen it. She's a stooge, basically.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

And sometimes the subject doesn't know s/he made the decision. Sometimes the subject is fooled into making the decision.

Playing a trick on somebody is not hypnosis, though of course the pretense of hypnosis can be used to trick somebody. The two situations are not one and the same.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Do you think that every decision one makes is conscious and that person can list why in detail? They may decide to be there, be open to whatever happens, but that does not mean that they are consciously playing along with the thought of "Ho ho! I'm going to be on the telly if I do this". That's just wrong.

I don't doubt that people become engrossed in the role they're playing, but no, I don't believe for a minute that any one of those people could not just choose to stop and say "forget this. I'm not doing this." if they wanted to. You're being misled if you think otherwise.

Have you ever actually been under hypnosis? It's nothing more than a game, like role playing. It only exerts as much control over you as you're willing to give it.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

This is why I say you don't know the meaning of "instant stooge". In fact, I'm going to add the meaning of the word "acting" to the list of words you don't know.

Then why don't you explain precisely where I'm wrong, instead of just making hollow accusations?

What ever difference there may be is purely semantic.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Someone acting and someone following suggestions are two very different psychological things.

Tell that to a "Method" actor. Your own ignorance is showing.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

What he does "on the side" matters just as much, if not more than what his shows are.

What you are doing is cherry picking.

OK, then in that sense he's not as bad as what John Edward does or what Uri Geller used to do, unless of course he really did use NLP to ostensibly "help people to stop smoking" as he claimed in his book. If he received any sort of payment for that kind of "therapy," then I classify him likewise.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

He does use psychology in his tricks. Every mentalist (and magician) does.

Every magician worth his salt does, whether he realizes it or not.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

But "indistinguishable from something supernatural"? That's a stretch...

You're being misled by DB's disingenuous pseudo-explanations. He misrepresents what he's doing as some form of mind control, with claims that it's all backed up by real psychology, which is a lie. Most of what he's doing (lately, anyway) is not mind control—it's not done against anyone's will without their active participation—and it's not backed up by science. It's pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Cherry picking is fun you get to make a point that is very dull and not well thought out.

I think you need to do a little research into the meaning of the phrase, "cherry-picking."

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Once again, every mentalist, every magician uses these same tricks. Further, Derren never, ever, uses the word NLP in his performances. And "almost as good as an endorsement" is not good enough. Not even close to what Geller and Edwards do. You are stretching.

I never said he ever utters the acronym "NLP" in his performances. Of course he doesn't. But he has, on at least two occasions, publicly stated that he uses parts of NLP without calling it as such.

If you really believe all that tripe about "instant induction" and "hypnotic suggestion," then you're pretty credulous for a skeptic.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I thought your point is that Derren Brown is exactly like John Edwards and Uri Geller because you think he promotes woo and makes people believe and promotes NLP and hypnosis (the overblown, pseudo-stuff side of it) as real. And since he's doing that, he's making people buy into the woo side of it, spending their money on said woo-side of hypnosis and NLP.

Is this your stance or not?

He's not exactly like them, no. But there is absolutely no doubt that he promotes woo whenever it suits him, and that an awful lot of people seem to believe his woo (even yourself!), yet he never makes an outright disclaimer that doesn't leave him an "out" to claim that psychology is allowing him some elaborate control over other peoples' thoughts and actions.

Originally Posted by Azrael

He wouldnt know as he only "skimmed" the book and read one chapter he thinks supports his argument.But he 's "read" the other books apparently despute claiming he hadnt only two weeks ago
Considering he only skimmed ToTM I dont take his claims of reading with much merit.

That's another lie to add to your voluminous collection.

I've done more than "skim" the book. When I first came into this discussion, I had only read select chapters of Tricks of the Mind several years prior (specifically, the ones pertaining to "hypnosis," "NLP," and "critical thinking"), but no longer had the book in my possession.

Since then, I've reacquired Tricks of the Mind and read nearly every word. In the past month or so, I have also read large portions of Absolute Magic and am currently reading Pure Effect.

I'm also reading The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, Fiasco by Stanislaw Lem, and working my way through the Sun Microsystems Press course on Core Java. Oh yeah, and also reading a pulp novel my friend wrote about a zombie attack in Bangkok, Thailand. That one's called Dead Bangkok, and it's a lot of fun.

What can I say? I like books. Would you like any more details on my reading habits?

Azrael 5 · 11th December 2011, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by John Albert

That's another lie to add to your voluminous collection.

I've done more than "skim" the book. When I first came into this discussion, I had only read select chapters of Tricks of the Mind several years prior (specifically, the ones pertaining to "hypnosis," "NLP," and "critical thinking"), but no longer had the book in my possession.

Your quotes dude,would you like me to fetch them again?

Quote:

Other than that, I sort of skimmed through the book and read a few other passages here and there that looked intriguing. It was a few years ago and I fully intended to read the whole thing, but nowadays my interest in Derren Brown isn't all that great.

Quote:

What can I say? I like books. Do you need any more details on my reading habits?

Your reading habits dont stretch to reading my posts where i point out your contradictions.
Face it you stopped making sense pages ago.

John Albert · 11th December 2011, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Your quotes dude,would you like me to fetch them again?

Why don't you "fetch" the entire quote instead of cherry-picking?

Why didn't you link to the actual post, or present it in its full context, where I said the part referenced by the words "Other than that"?

Originally Posted by John Albert

I only fully read the NLP part, because his take on that was the information I was most interested in learning about Derren Brown at the time. Other than that, I sort of skimmed through the book and read a few other passages here and there that looked intriguing.

That post was made over a month ago.

Since then, I have made other posts in this thread wherein I stated that I have reread large portions of the Tricks of the Mind and other DB books besides. Of course you completely ignore all that information and cherry-pick a single statement from a month ago and present it totally out of context.

You're a dishonest liar, Azrael. I'm finished with you. Go pester somebody else with your sleazy idiocy.

Azrael 5 · 11th December 2011, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by John Albert

I've read parts of his books, and a lot of what I read is garbage. You seem to have been taken in by it regardless.

Garbage? You obviously havent read anything.As important books for magic as 13 steps were.
Taken in by nothing,he's magican that uses a mixture of hypnosis magic techniques and psychology.
I notice no reply to my previous posts interestingly.You know the ones where you contradict yourself?

Quote:

You're a dishonest liar, Azrael. I'm finished with you. Go pester somebody else with your sleazy idiocy.

As dishonest as this from first couple of pages?

Quote:

DerrenBrown has been caught out numerous times using stooges

And dishonest as this(paraphrasing but exact quote isnt far away)

Quote:

I happen to know many mentalists have used stooges in their career

Which still is without proof.
"Sleazy idiocy?" Oh the irony.

Checkmite · 11th December 2011, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Okay. So, I'm confused. I thought your point is that Derren Brown is exactly like John Edwards and Uri Geller because you think he promotes woo and makes people believe and promotes NLP and hypnosis (the overblown, pseudo-stuff side of it) as real. And since he's doing that, he's making people buy into the woo side of it, spending their money on said woo-side of hypnosis and NLP.

Is this your stance or not?

I can't speak for John Albert, but my stance is that Derren Brown is performing a disservice to the public, because even if his pseudo psychobabble patter is fully intended to be benign, it happens to look and sound like very strong support for ideas that are flimflam, off which scammers and slicksters make a profit, which makes Derren Brown responsible for providing them with at least some demand to supply. Individuals testifying that they personally aren't fooled, or implying that only stupid people would "believe his words", or ignoring repeated visits to this thread from individuals who just know Brown is "really" hypnotizing people, are not sufficient arguments to clear him of this complicity (be it willing or accidental).

banquetbear · 11th December 2011, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by John Albert

The Google search did not show the opposite.

...so you say.

Quote:

If you'd actually looked through those results, you'd have seen that an overwhelming number were people discussing Derren Brown's work in NLP terms, people talking about how he uses NLP techniques, and people using his shows to sell their own NLP books and seminars.

No they didn't.

Quote:

You simply claimed that all the results you saw showed the opposite, because you could.

Well, I did see the opposite, so thats what I said.

I didn't do it just because I could.

You were so confident with your original assertion: then I saw that you linked to the snarky LMGTFY site, that in turn linked to a google search which showed the opposite of what you claimed. Did you think that people wouldn't check?

Quote:

Even if I did go to all the trouble of posting a hundred examples of people who believed Derren Brown exploits arcane tricks of psychology to extraordinary effect, you'd simply dismiss it under some other pretense.

I didn't make the assertion: you did. I eventually checked out the first two pages of google hits: arguably only one out of twenty links came even close to matching your assertion.

You don't seem to have a handle on how this internet debate thing works. You make an assertion: then when challenged on it you provide proof to back it up. If you can't back it up, then you concede.

Its been nearly a month since you first posted the tens of thousands of people claim. In that month you haven't cited ONE example to back up your assertion. Not a single one. Yet in the time it took you to type your last post you could have gone to google and posted several links to back up your claim. Maybe instead of complaining about how much trouble it is to link to evidence to back up your assertions, you could simply back up your assertions?

I really don't know why you expect other people to do your work for you.

Quote:

I've said it before, I really don't care if he uses stooges. My enjoyment of a performance is not necessarily contingent upon some purism of the magician's art. I consider stooges part of the game, because whether you (or he) want to admit it, it really is. Honestly. Your production company invites people to be on TV, chooses the participants through a careful screening process, sets up the expectation (spoken or not) that they're supposed to behave a certain way and do everything you ask them to do: that's a stooge.

You can redefine stooge to mean whatever you want. However if you are discussing it with other people, you should use the definition that is more commonly understood. What you are describing is not the common understanding of the word stooge.

Quote:

If you really think the things Derren Brown is showing you on TV do not require the participants' willingness to act the part, then I'm sorry you're so gullible.

I'm willing to be convinced. How about some evidence? Yeah, we've seen the IMDB link, we've know about Corinda, and we know what your gut says. So rather than bringing those up again: what evidence do you have you got?

Quote:

Just like Derren refuses to call his fake hypnosis "NLP," he might not consider them stooges under his own definition, but let's be honest here. They're stooges.

He doesn't use NLP and Brown's definition is the same as the one that everyone else in this thread is usings...with the exception of you.

Quote:

That's all I've been saying. If you look at it rationally, discounting all the BS about hypnosis and suggestion, the whole trick is just convincing people to play along. I said basically that in so many words, and suddenly I've got a whole bunch of people all up in arms, calling me names, insulting my intelligence, and claiming I know nothing of magic.

You've contributed a significant amount of the name calling, snide remarks, getting up and arms and insulting peoples intelligence in this thread. You, after all, are responsible for the following post:

Quote:

Arguing with you feels like I'm picking on the handicapped. It's actually rather depressing.

I think you need to stop complaining and admit that people are only giving you back what you dish out. Please don't pretend that you are a shining angel in this thread and that everyone else is just being mean.

Quote:

But not a single person offered anything by the way of reasonable alternate explanations. It's weird. I've noticed some amazing bouts of credulity, especially for individuals supposedly so interested in critical thinking.

I don't have a clue how Brown does any of his tricks. I've made that admission already.

You don't have a clue how he does his tricks: you have admitted this. From that: you conclude he probably uses stooges.

I don't have a clue how you made that leap from a link to IMDB and a quote from a book. This is not critical thinking. This is why people are frustrated with you: you have come to the "probably uses stooges" conclusion based on literally nothing.

Quote:

Of course, voicing these concerns brought the wrath of the Brownites down on me twice as hard.

Firstly you call us fanatics: now you are labeling people that disagree with you as "Brownites." And you do that after complaining about how mean everyone else is being to you.

I am not a Brownite. I am not a Brown fanatic. I simply disagree with you. Labeling the people who hold opposing views to you is a weak debating tactic.

Quote:

Now I've got even more people calling me a liar, totally misrepresenting everything I've said. I've got people misquoting me, quoting offhand statements (which I later clarified) totally out of context as proof of something or other, even blatantly putting words into my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I said.

With all due respect: you have been the rudest person in this thread. You keep changing your story. You state that you can't believe that anyone would think that he doesn't use stooges, and when people confront you on this you say "I never said he always uses stooges!" You twist, you spin, you dance, but you can't hold one position. You misrepresent what other people write constantly.

Quote:

Why are some people so irrational about this? I mean maniacally defensive to the point of lividity, ranting complete nonsense over a trivial conversation about a stage magician. Are you guys obsessed or what?

You can pretend that everyone else is being irrational: and you can complain that everyone else is being defensive: but what you say really applies to you. Why are you so defensive? Why do you have to get the last word in on the thread every single time?

We are not being irrational about this. We aren't the ones who are comparing John Edward to Derren Brown. We aren't the ones who insist the results of a google search say one thing when one actually looks at the google search it says the complete opposite. We aren't the ones who can deduce that "he probably uses stooges" based on two extremely weak datapoints. We aren't the ones who insist on responding to each and every post in this thread. That would be you.

Unfortunately, unlike you I can't spend my life in this thread, so I'm sure you will do a point by point rebuttal which will completely twist what I've said (again). Instead of doing that: why don't you simply attempt to back up your assertions?

Azrael 5 · 11th December 2011, 03:32 PM

JohnAlbert divert your attention to #796 and #805.
No rush.

John Albert · 11th December 2011, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by banquetbear

You were so confident with your original assertion: then I saw that you linked to the snarky LMGTFY site, that in turn linked to a google search which showed the opposite of what you claimed. Did you think that people wouldn't check?

I didn't make the assertion: you did. I eventually checked out the first two pages of google hits: arguably only one out of twenty links came even close to matching your assertion.

You don't seem to have a handle on how this internet debate thing works. You make an assertion: then when challenged on it you provide proof to back it up. If you can't back it up, then you concede.

Its been nearly a month since you first posted the tens of thousands of people claim. In that month you haven't cited ONE example to back up your assertion. Not a single one. Yet in the time it took you to type your last post you could have gone to google and posted several links to back up your claim. Maybe instead of complaining about how much trouble it is to link to evidence to back up your assertions, you could simply back up your assertions?

I really don't know why you expect other people to do your work for you.

Alright, here's a partial rundown of the first 2 pages of results from this Google search: http://www.google.com/search?q="Derren+Brown"+NLP

The first 5 results on every page are video clips, and every single one of them was posted by a different user who believes DB uses NLP.

The original poster of this YouTube clip obviously thought DB was using NLP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=befugtgikMg
Another YouTube poster who believes DB uses NLP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-QtNE9k84
Yet another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HInA3N-M3gQ
Yet another: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/579884...ren_brown_nlp/
Yet another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4aB6vvVliE

More YouTube posters who believe DB uses NLP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6_Mr3BuDII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AZ6ZB58WIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKrh4OrTyj8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZp9sjrQ0k

Besides the videos, the majority of other links are from people claiming DB uses NLP.

Here we see that a Derren Brown fan blogger ran a poll asking how many people believe DB uses NLP, and the results were overwhelming: 77% said they believe he's using it: http://aboutderrenbrown.blogspot.com...p-results.html

Other links to pages wherein various people claim DB uses NLP:

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/...-other-people/
http://prsync.com/indyainfotech/nlp-...-style-349359/
http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=75000
http://www.punchkids.net/derren-brow...rn-interrupts/
http://morphcity.com/faves/70-derren-brown-and-nlp
http://www.myspace.com/video/maarten...-nlp/106379966

All those were taken from the first 2 pages of Google search results, and that doesn't even begin to touch on all the NLP and other pop-psych woo blogs, forums and other web pages that blatantly use Derren Brown's videos to promote NLP. Out of all those results in the first 2 pages, only 2 results pointedly challenged the notion that Derren Brown uses NLP. One of them was The Straight Dope.

So, do you still want to call me a liar for making the shocking statement that a lot of people seem to think Derren Brown uses NLP to achieve his effects?

Originally Posted by banquetbear

You can redefine stooge to mean whatever you want. However if you are discussing it with other people, you should use the definition that is more commonly understood. What you are describing is not the common understanding of the word stooge.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

Brown's definition is the same as the one that everyone else in this thread is usings...with the exception of you.

My definition of a "stooge" is a person who knows that a trick is being perpetrated, and willingly plays along with the magician to help fool the audience. How is that an incorrect definition?

Originally Posted by banquetbear

He doesn't use NLP

That's a strawman. I never alleged that he did.

He only pretends to, and then only half-denies it when asked.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

I don't have a clue how Brown does any of his tricks. I've made that admission already.

Then you are absolutely in no position to state that he doesn't use stooges, confederates, paid actors or anything else.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

You don't have a clue how he does his tricks: you have admitted this. From that: you conclude he probably uses stooges.

Post the exact quote wherein I said I don't have a clue how he does his tricks.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

I don't have a clue how you made that leap from a link to IMDB and a quote from a book.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about. It sounds like you're confusing and conflating several different points I've made.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

This is not critical thinking. This is why people are frustrated with you: you have come to the "probably uses stooges" conclusion based on literally nothing.

If this is what you really think, then you really need to reread this entire thread, and actually pay attention to what I said.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

Firstly you call us fanatics: now you are labeling people that disagree with you as "Brownites." And you do that after complaining about how mean everyone else is being to you.

[...]

I am not a Brownite. I am not a Brown fanatic. I simply disagree with you. Labeling the people who hold opposing views to you is a weak debating tactic.

You know what? You're absolutely right. I'll refrain from using ad hominem attacks from now on.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

With all due respect: you have been the rudest person in this thread.

I strongly disagree. Others have been just as rude as I, some have been quite a bit more so.

But this is not a rudeness contest or a victimization contest, so I'm totally willing to let all that slide and refrain from that kind of talk from now on.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

You keep changing your story.

I do?

I have already explained where I changed my mind about a couple points, but I think alleging that I "keep changing my story" is an unwarranted accusation.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

You state that you can't believe that anyone would think that he doesn't use stooges, and when people confront you on this you say "I never said he always uses stooges!"

That's because it's a strawman argument. The two things are not one and the same.

Please point out where I ever said he always uses stooges. I never, ever said that.

What I said was that I don't believe his claims that he never uses them.

Do you not understand the difference?

Originally Posted by banquetbear

You twist, you spin, you dance, but you can't hold one position. You misrepresent what other people write constantly.

Point out where I misrepresented your position and explain how I got it wrong, and I will gladly correct myself.

Originally Posted by banquetbear

We are not being irrational about this.

Who are "we"? Exactly whom are you referring to with that pronoun?

Originally Posted by banquetbear

We aren't the ones who are comparing John Edward to Derren Brown.

I made the comparison, because I see a similarity. Why are you taking it so personally?

Do you have some amazing revelation to make, right here in this thread? Are you Derren Brown?

If not, then what's the big deal? Why do you even care?

Originally Posted by banquetbear

We aren't the ones who insist on responding to each and every post in this thread. That would be you.

Responding to another person is a courtesy. I don't ignore other peoples' posts. Even though you might wish I'd ignore some of your arguments, I will always respond as long as I figure what you've said is even worthy of a response.

JFrankA · 11th December 2011, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by John Albert

Well you learn something new every day, if you can be bothered to try.

Well, I tend to learn something everyday that is correct and verified, rather than a twisting on subject or word that someone else claims.....

Quote:

Is that what you really think? That these stage hypnotism subjects don't know it's an act? That they really think the stuff Derren Brown says is what's really happening to them?

Twisting what I had said is not going to prove your point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you misunderstood completely what I said, considering I will admit to getting muddy in my meanings sometimes. However, given your track record of mis-defining word such as "acting" and terms such as "instant stooge", I could've been clear and you purposely misunderstood.

So, please re-read what I said and this time understand what I am saying. If you get it wrong on your reply, I will explain it.

Quote:

The people are not acting. Acting means that they are consciously and with full knowledge doing what they are told to do to be in on act. And although these people genuinely believe what is happening to them IS happening to them, they are not acting.

Quote:

Have you ever been under hypnosis?

I have said it before: we all are do it everyday, to a certain extent. Usually we do hypnosis (or, really, the basics of it) to ourselves all the time. So the answer, is yes.

Quote:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Derren Brown gives the impression that he can control people with hypnosis, and a lot of people actually believe him, even though it's complete and total BS.

Still carrying that straw man bomb, I see. Let's get this straight: I know he's doing a trick, and, what's more, I know how he's doing it, considering I have done it before onstage. I know, for a fact, that he's not using stooges, as you claimed, then withdrawn that he "always" does. I have said he doesn't need stooges as subjects.

Quote:

A trick. A person is fooled by means of a false pretense, like a dual-reality trick for example.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. However, you didn't answer the question. Yes. it's a trick. Yes, the subject is exposed to some kind of fooling going on. Now again, here's the question. Finish your answer:

So when in a hypnosis show, if it is a trick, if the subject is being fooled by means of a false pretense, if it is a dual reality trick (BTW, I'm terribly sorry, but you used the term "dual reality" wrong there, but we'll go along with it), and the a person isn't acting, what is happening?

Quote:

You have absolutely no way of knowing that, having never even met me, seen me, or what I can and cannot do.

You're trying to belittle me in the view of readers of this thread, but all you're doing is making yourself look immature. A person who is unable to properly judge how their words and actions come off to strangers would make a poor magician indeed.

I am terribly sorry you feel that way. However, I know quite a few things about the subject of performing stage magic and stage hypnosis.

And you are correct: a person unable to properly judge how their words and actions come off to strangers would make a poor magician. So judging by the way you have used words such as "acting" and phrases such as "instant stooge" and, most recently, "dual reality", and by the way you have acted on this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you would make a terrible magician.

I am sorry you are insulted. Not my intent. As I said it was merely an observation. You yourself just said that one can tell.

Quote:

Why don't you explain what you're talking about, instead of just throwing accusations around?

I did, to which you replied:

Quote:

I'm talking about the "instant induction" techniques. That kind of thing is complete and utter BS. You can't just approach a random stranger on the street and suddenly "hypnotize" them without their own knowledge and willing participation. You cannot suddenly "force" somebody into hypnosis like that. It's a stage act, nothing more. If you really believe that kind of "NLP" nonsense is real, then we have another example right here in this thread, of somebody who's been misled by Derren Brown's misrepresentations of "psychology."

Which is a completely different subject altogether. The straw man I was referring to, that you completely ignored, is the claim that I said that hypnosis can make someone doing something against their will. I never claimed that. Neither has DB. In fact, no one has. That's the straw man.

Now if you want to talk about instant inductions, that's a different story.

...and yes, they do work, but no, it is not "against their will". Again, it's a simple psychological parlor trick. Honestly, it's more show than anything else.

Quote:

Who ever said anything about hypnosis making breasts grow? I certainly didn't. That's a patently ridiculous example. A claim does not have to be that absurd to be recognizable as pseudoscience.

Sorry, I just pulled something that I thought would get a laugh and lighten the mood. I never meant to say that anyone said that. I have seen people try to advertise it as truth though. But honestly, I could've just as easily have said "get that raise" or "make that sale" or "make that person fall in love with you", etc. in place of "making breasts grow".

Just going for the laugh, that's all. Trying to lighten the mood a little.

Quote:

Dunno about the "improve their lives" part, but exploiting the public's misconceptions about hypnosis is exactly what Derren Brown does in his pseudo-explanations of what he's doing when he purports to "hypnotize" people.

It's his show. To me, the show is just a show. The magician will say what s/he needs to in order to create the illusion. What matters to me is after the stage lights go out. And maybe that's the difference between us.

IMHO, when someone is on stage performing whatever, it's just a show. The person is playing a part, nothing more. That goes for someone performing a part, to a magician, to a psychic, to a faith healer. It's make believe. It's a role, and I am watching entertainment.

The real difference is what that person does once they are off stage, the lights are off, the show is over. What do they do? How do they handle the "down time"?

When confronted, do they say "Nah, it's a trick. Here are some references on how to perform tricks, this is basically what I do." or do they say "Yes, I have powers and abilities that are supernatural. I can use NLP to make people do what I want. I use the power of God to heal. Here are the courses you can take that I offer to make your life better through the power of NLP/hypnosis/God/psychic abilities, etc, etc."

Does one see a play (or a movie) and actually believe that, for example, that Mark Hamill is Luke Skywalker or the Joker? Of course not. It's a role. When the movie is over, you go to his website and see that is just this guy. The same should be for anyone performing. A magician plays a part on the stage, and will lie and cheat to make these miraculous effects. However, once the show is over, they stop performing and become themselves. Their only claim to something supernatural or whatever is only onstage.

A person who is trying to scam people never stop performing. They never stop the lies. They never stop cheating even after the show is over and the lights are off.

That, to me, anyway, is the difference between a magician and a scammer. And, I'm sorry, IMHO that's the way it has to be seen.

You are free to disagree, of course. But as someone who has been onstage for a improv comedy, stage hypnosis, stage magic, etc, this is how I see it.

I sincerely hope that this explains my position clearly to you and you see why I disagree with you, but not, I'm assuming, in the way you think I'm disagreeing with you.

Quote:

Hypnosis is nothing more than a willful concentration and relaxation, that allows the subject to willingly let his or her imagination go.

Now we are getting somewhere. This is true and I completely agree with you.

However, I'm sorry you got this part wrong:

Quote:

It requires some degree of effort on the part of the subject.

Actually, it doesn't. In fact, the less effort someone puts into hypnosis, the better it works.

Quote:

It is not something that a person can be "snapped" into without any control of one's own, the way stage hypnotists present it.

Yes and no. In that order.

Quote:

You apparently don't understand that. You certainly appear to be waffling about it.

Quite honestly, I am not waffling. You just keep making wrong assumptions from correct facts.

Quote:

You just said:
And then later on in the same post, you said:

You appear confused about what hypnosis actually is.

I wonder if the pseudoscientific claims of people like Richard Bandler, John Grinder, and Derren Brown might have anything to do with that.

Don't know the first two people, quite honestly. I learned hypnosis from people like Oramond McGill and, quite frankly (err, quite me-ly

) from experimenting in college.

In fact, it was Derren Brown himself who finally drove home to me what hypnosis really is.

Quote:

The entire premise of Derren Brown's "Assassin experiment" was to prove the notion that people can be hypnotized into doing things against their own will,

Doesn't prove that at all. Nothing was done "against anyone's will". Not one thing. And, (I'm going by memory, now, I'm not sure of this, so if I'm wrong please correct me), I don't think anyone used the words "against his will" when talking about the shooter in the show.

At any rate, listen at the shooter at the end of the show. Listen to his idea of what he fired at. He was firing at a target in a gun range, not a human being.

Not against his will, he was fooled.

Quote:

without any post hoc memory of what they'd done, like Sirhan Sirhan claims happened to him when he shot Bobby Kennedy.

Hypnosis cannot do that; that claim is pure pseudoscience.

Here, you'r right. Hypnosis cannot do that. So there must be some kind of trick going on.

Quote:

Derren Brown used willing stooges and TV trickery to present the impression of having done exactly that.

Here we go: "I KNOW HOW THE TRICK WAS DONE!! STOOGES!!!!"

I thought you said you never claimed he used stooges. Which is it??????

[quote]Derren Brown blatantly promoted pseudoscience beliefs as fact, with no disclaimer. [quote]

Yes, there was no disclaimer, but he IS a magician. He is someone who does something and can't be trusted while performing.

Quote:

You lied, and misrepresented my position in this debate. I never said I "hate" him. I don't dislike him either. I've said many times in this thread that I think he's extremely talented and an excellent performer.

My apologies, then. I misunderstood your feelings towards him and made an assumption.

Quote:

I'm just really dismayed by these newer shows of his, where he pitches this total pseudoscience nonsense with very few magic tricks except a bunch of "instant stooges" playing along in dumb, boring roles just because they want to be on TV.

....just like how you're making an assumption on how the trick was done here.

Quote:

You didn't read what I said. He threw in a couple extremely basic tricks here and there to make the audience think they're getting let in on some secrets, but most of the book is self-aggrandizing drivel aimed at fanboys. The tricks he presents are nothing you couldn't get in a "magic for beginners" text written for 12-year-olds. He explains the wording of stage hypnotist patter, presents some rudiments of NLP and then waffles about using it onstage without calling it as such, and generally tells a lot of stories. Calling it a "magic text" is quite a stretch.

If that's your impression, then I was right: you didn't read it carefully. Or maybe skipped to the pages you wanted to.

It's true that there's a lot of back story. However, what he offers in the way of magic instruction is much more than what you can find in a text written for "magic beginners". He gives very good magic advice. The whole coin trick chapter and the card trick chapter is excellent stage magic performance (and creation) advice.

(And, by the way, since you consider this just a "text written for 12-year-olds" instead of seeing the very excellent magic performing advice he gives, once again shows me you'd make a terrible magician. Sorry. Again, observation.)

Quote:

I know, dude. I read it!

Oh. So you read this part right?

Originally Posted by "Tricks of the Mind" page 174

One final word of warning: I'd be wary of the large number of so-called 'hypnotic courses' sold in downloadable format on the net. Some of the individuals who sell these are utterly reprehensible, especially those who use my name to peddle their wares, of course. At the moment there are any number of e-books and so on supposedly teaching my techniques. They don't, regardless of what they claim. Don't waste your money.

That, to me, is the difference between DB and Geller or Edwards. And it's a big one.

Quote:

That's not what I said. I said he probably uses stooges, because they're a known method for certain kinds of effects, and I haven't seen any alternate explanations that make sense to me. I merely consider explanations on a priority basis according to what I know. I have heard absolutely no convincing explanations—apart from stooges—for how certain effects were achievable. "Instant hypnosis," for example, is total bunkum.

No. I'm sorry but you are lieing.

Quote:

Derren Brown used willing stooges and TV trickery to present the impression of having done exactly that.

There's no "probably" in that sentence.

Quote:

In some of these acts, like the "Russian Gypsy Scam," what he's presenting is so patently absurd from a common sense viewpoint that the use of stooges (or at least willing participants) is the only reasonable option. We know he's not out there taking actual tourists' wallets and walking away with them. If it's not random strangers on the street whom he's scamming, then what are the alternatives? Stooges, or unwitting "extras" planted on that street by the production company for the express purpose of Derren Brown approaching them to do his trick. Anybody applying for such a TV role is going to have expectations and a different "comfort level" than some random person on the street being approached by a stranger.

There's no "probably" in that tirade as well.

At any rate, he didn't use stooges for the "Russian Gypsy Scam". People are confused and can be fooled that easily. It's life. Get over it.

Quote:

Of course some of the people Derren Brown uses are not stooges. I never said every trick he's ever done requires stooges, only that it's most probable that at least some of them use stooges, or "instant stooges," or willing participants planted into the audience, or what have you.

No, that's true....

...you changed your mind when I called you out on your use of the word "always".

And I'll say it again: Derren doesn't need stooges, and your definition of the term "instant stooge" is incorrectly used.

Quote:

You're talking out of your ass. That doesn't even make sense.

If you're accusing everything I say of being a strawman, then I accuse YOU of being a strawman yourself!

See? I win. So there.

Resorting to nonsense is never a good look in a debate. You are so bad at this. Why don't you just give it up?

Hmm. Okay. Once again, my apologies. You're right. I wasn't clear. Admittingly, in my state of mind, I must of let my mind go faster than my fingers. What I meant to say was this:

[quote]The following statements are an observation and a conclusion, not an ad hominem nor an insult. If you choose to take it as such, then that is your fault.

You are the type of audience who has no stage magic experience, no idea of techniques and yet states you know how some trick is done, be completely and totally wrong, yet brags about how knowledgeable you are about knowing the "secret to the trick".

Evidence? You've been doing that this entire thread. You're whole argument about why Derren needs stooges, instead of understanding the basics of what hypnosis and NLP really are is a straw man.

In other words, you claims of "has to be stooges, I can't see it any other way so I'm right and your wrong" is a complete straw man because you don't understand that there are psychological tricks that do work, that hypnosis and NLP have blown out of proportion.

[quote]No, he's not letting anybody in on any secret. He's using typical stage hypnotist patter and BS pseudo-explanations. Are you alleging that "instant induction" and all that other NLP nonsense is actually real?

Not in the way you are asking it, it is. I've said it before. The very basic techniques that hypnosis and NLP are based upon are true, it's just that the there are people who have taken those basics of hypnosis and NLP (especially NLP) have greatly exaggerated it.

Quote:

Yep, and that's what all those participants are doing. Research has proven that people cannot be hypnotized to do anything against their own will and intent. If you think otherwise, then you're being misled.

Once again, you are building a straw man. I have never ever said that people can be hypnotized to do anything against their own will and intent. Never.

Stop with that straw man, please. It's getting annoying.

Quote:

Nonsense. She's chosen to play along because she's a willing participant who wants to be on TV. If she hadn't played along, that scene would have been cut and we would never have seen it. She's a stooge, basically.

Now you're misusing the word stooge.

Are you saying that she is playing along, fully aware that she is just role playing and that she performing, not against her will, but fooled into it (for lack of a better word)?

Quote:

Playing a trick on somebody is not hypnosis, though of course the pretense of hypnosis can be used to trick somebody. The two situations are not one and the same.

But that is the trick. There is a real psychological thing going on here. It involves tricking or fooling the person involved by playing on something that people do to themselves every day.

Quote:

I don't doubt that people become engrossed in the role they're playing, but no, I don't believe for a minute that any one of those people could not just choose to stop and say "forget this. I'm not doing this." if they wanted to. You're being misled if you think otherwise.

Have you ever actually been under hypnosis? It's nothing more than a game, like role playing. It only exerts as much control over you as you're willing to give it.

I've answered that question at the beginning. And your last statement is actually correct but you are still missing some very important things.

Quote:

Then why don't you explain precisely where I'm wrong, instead of just making hollow accusations?

What ever difference there may be is purely semantic.

I will and it's not "purely semantic". In fact, it's not semantic at all. But I don't think it will make a difference in your stance. I hope I'm wrong, but I get the feeling you'll just call me names.

Any stage hypnotist (and a lot of other people, too) would know the one thing you are missing in your analysis of what hypnosis is. In fact, DB gives the answer himself in the pages of the book I told you before.

And bare in mind I might be giving away a magician's secret. I'll leave it up to the mods to decide. My apologies to them if I am.

The final thing you're missing is the idea is that a stage hypnotist plays upon the same kind of suspension of disbelief just like a regular movie does. In fact since you read books, as you read, don't you, in your mind, see and hear what you are reading, forgetting everything else around you, engrossed in the plot, hearing the character's voices, seeing the settings? And how quickly does it take for you to get to that frame of mind? One page, two pages, four? Or is it less than one page if it's a good book? That is what hypnosis is. Exactly that. The only difference between stage and, for example, reading a book, is that on stage, the hypnotist guides the subject. The hypnotist becomes the subject's book.

Nothing magical, nothing NLP, no supernatural stuff going on. Just simple psychological tricks that relaxes or confuses or both the subject to open their mind to suggestion. And a mind open to suggestion is open to being fooled. Con artists, magicians, actors, etc use it all the time. It's very real and it happens all the time. In fact, we do it to ourselves a lot.

Quote:

Tell that to a "Method" actor. Your own ignorance is showing.

Read above. I'm afraid your ignorance is showing.

Quote:

OK, then in that sense he's not as bad as what John Edward does or what Uri Geller used to do, unless of course he really did use NLP to ostensibly "help people to stop smoking" as he claimed in his book. If he received any sort of payment for that kind of "therapy," then I classify him likewise.

I don't recall him saying he helped someone quit smoking. Please point that out to me.

Funny how you remember that quip in the book, but you don't see the magic and hypnosis lesson in the book.

Maybe we both are guilty of seeing what we want to see?

Quote:

Every magician worth his salt does, whether he realizes it or not.

True.

Quote:

You're being misled by DB's disingenuous pseudo-explanations. He misrepresents what he's doing as some form of mind control, with claims that it's all backed up by real psychology, which is a lie. Most of what he's doing (lately, anyway) is not mind control—it's not done against anyone's will without their active participation—and it's not backed up by science. It's pseudoscience.

Read above. Stop assuming. Your ignorance is showing.

Quote:

I think you need to do a little research into the meaning of the phrase, "cherry-picking."

No, I don't need to look it up. You've given beautiful examples on this thread. Thanks!

Quote:

I never said he ever utters the acronym "NLP" in his performances. Of course he doesn't. But he has, on at least two occasions, publicly stated that he uses parts of NLP without calling it as such.

You know what? He HAS. I have. Like I said: there are psychological tricks that really work on a lot of people that NLP has blown out of proportion. The basic stuff is what he is referring to. NLP took the same stuff and made it into something more.

Now do you see what "dual reality" means? You fell for it.

Quote:

If you really believe all that tripe about "instant induction" and "hypnotic suggestion," then you're pretty credulous for a skeptic.

Now who's doing the assuming without really knowing the person?

Quote:

He's not exactly like them, no.

He's not them at all. He is the one acting then dropping his act when the show is done. They do not. BIG MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

Quote:

But there is absolutely no doubt that he promotes woo whenever it suits him, and that an awful lot of people seem to believe his woo (even yourself!), yet he never makes an outright disclaimer that doesn't leave him an "out" to claim that psychology is allowing him some elaborate control over other peoples' thoughts and actions.

He is performing. If people are going to believe a magician, without seeing that it's just entertainment, without bothering to see the person after the lights are off make no claim to have any powers, then I'm sorry, they deserve what they have coming to them.

Further, you are the one who can't explain his trick other than claiming "stooges" and "instant stooges" (and again using that term incorrectly). And when you say that it could sometimes not be stooges, you have no answer.

I'm sorry, John. Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. You haven't read TotM carefully, you cherry-pick your views to suit you.

And you are flat out wrong.

Checkmite · 11th December 2011, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

...and yes, they do work, but no, it is not "against their will". Again, it's a simple psychological parlor trick. Honestly, it's more show than anything else.

It's called "playing along", and the so-called psychological "trick" behind it is peer pressure to participate and social pressure not to heckle.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Doesn't prove that at all. Nothing was done "against anyone's will". Not one thing. And, (I'm going by memory, now, I'm not sure of this, so if I'm wrong please correct me), I don't think anyone used the words "against his will" when talking about the shooter in the show.

At any rate, listen at the shooter at the end of the show. Listen to his idea of what he fired at. He was firing at a target in a gun range, not a human being.

Not against his will, he was fooled.

No he wasn't. There's no way to get a person to look down from a theater balcony into a crowd and "make him think" he's at target shooting range. Thats BS.

John Albert · 12th December 2011, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Twisting what I had said is not going to prove your point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you misunderstood completely what I said, considering I will admit to getting muddy in my meanings sometimes. However, given your track record of mis-defining word such as "acting" and terms such as "instant stooge", I could've been clear and you purposely misunderstood.

So, please re-read what I said and this time understand what I am saying. If you get it wrong on your reply, I will explain it.

I have not "twisted" anything.

Here's the thing you wrote, that I was responding to:

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Ah. This is obviously some strange usage of the word "acting" I wasn't previously aware of.

The people are not acting. Acting means that they are consciously and with full knowledge doing what they are told to do to be in on act. And although these people genuinely believe what is happening to them IS happening to them, they are not acting.

Clearly, you're expressing the idea that Derren Brown's powers of hypnosis are somehow strong enough to make a subject completely forget they're standing on a stage in front of an audience, contributing to a magic show. You seem to be saying that a few words and gestures from Derren are enough to make them think they're somewhere else entirely, or that the glass beaker they're holding is filled with acid, and that they have no power to resist the command to throw that acid into the face of the person in front of them.

I'm saying that's wrong.

I'm saying that the participants on Derren Brown's show are fully aware that they've been called onstage to take part in a magic performance. I'm saying they know full well it's a performance, that they have a role to play in this performance that is dictated by Derren Brown himself. I'm saying they know that as long as they do what Derren Brown tells them to do, they will get to continue taking part in this experience and possibly even get to appear on TV for their family and friends to see. I'm guessing that is the most popular motivation to cooperate and "act" the part to the best of their own ability. These subjects may be excited and nervous about the experience, maybe even to the point where it seems unreal or hyperreal, but a few reassuring words here and there from the famous magician is enough to inspire trust and encourage them to turn in the best performance they can.

That's all there is to it. They're complicit, willing accomplices by their own choice. They came to the show with the expectation that they might be asked onstage. Maybe they even applied to a talent firm which recommended them to the production company, which screened them and determined them to be camera-friendly personalities, good for TV. So they've got an expectation that if they are offered the opportunity, they're going to turn in a performance in the hopes of being used in the show.

If you doubt that there's any factual basis for this belief of mine, read the "Finding of the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust" on the investigation of The Real Hustle. Paragraph 3 of the report mentions the procedure by which Objective Productions solicits amateur talent to appear in its reality shows:

Quote:

Recruitment to take part in the series had included the use of web sites popular with people keen to appear on television. Applications to participate in the series had arisen from those sites and had included some people who also worked as actors/extras but none of them were hired to work as an actor on The Real Hustle and none of them knew the programme which they were applying to participate in was The Real Hustle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets...eal_hustle.txt

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I have said it before: we all are do it everyday, to a certain extent. Usually we do hypnosis (or, really, the basics of it) to ourselves all the time. So the answer, is yes.

Please clarify this. I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're merely talking about relaxing and concentrating on something, then yes I would agree that most people do it every single day whenever they're engaging in any complex task.

But I would say that hypnosis is a rather specialized form of focused attention that not everybody does every day.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Still carrying that straw man bomb, I see.

Please knock it off. You sound like an idiot when you say stuff like that.

I'm not misrepresenting or dumbing-down your arguments to make them appear foolish. I'm quoting exactly what you've said, and then replying to it. I've asked you before to quote the exact posts where I've misrepresented something you said, and to explain where I got it wrong, but you have declined to do so. So either put up or shut up about the strawman nonsense.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Let's get this straight: I know he's doing a trick, and, what's more, I know how he's doing it, considering I have done it before onstage.

What trick are you talking about, specifically, that you've done yourself?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I know, for a fact, that he's not using stooges, as you claimed, then withdrawn that he "always" does.

I never claimed that he always uses stooges.

That is a lie that you and Azrael seem peculiarly fond of repeating. It is a strawman argument, because you're putting words into my mouth that I never said.

I've asked you at least twice now to quote the post where I said that, but you haven't done so because you can't. I never said it.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I have said he doesn't need stooges as subjects.

I know you've said it, but not needing to use them and not actually using them are two different things.

I have pointed out where some of the tricks and scenarios he presents are very obviously staged. If the scenarios are staged, and the impression ostensibly being created is obviously fake, then what does that tell you about the people appearing in those scenarios?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. However, you didn't answer the question.

Yes, I did. You asked if a stooge or actor is not being used, then what other explanation could there be. I answered that it could be a situation where the person is being tricked.

Another possibility might be that the person arrived on the stage with a preconceived notion about how they're supposed to behave, and then the magician might exploit that to his advantage.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Yes. it's a trick. Yes, the subject is exposed to some kind of fooling going on. Now again, here's the question. Finish your answer:

So when in a hypnosis show, if it is a trick, if the subject is being fooled by means of a false pretense, if it is a dual reality trick (BTW, I'm terribly sorry, but you used the term "dual reality" wrong there, but we'll go along with it), and the a person isn't acting, what is happening?

First of all, I know what a "dual reality" gag is, and I did not use it the wrong way. "Dual reality" is where you play the same trick on two different people in such a way that they both derive different conclusions from it. Dual reality is one of the most common tricks of a magician. For example, making one statement that means something entirely different to the participant and the audience.

Another option is that the notion of "hypnosis" itself can be used as a pretense to play a trick. Some subjects might feel that it presents them with an excuse for acting a certain way that they might not normally do, or that it might lend credence to a belief, a feeling, or a story they want to express.

One thing hypnosis cannot do, however, is cause somebody to do things they don't want to do. It is not a means of controlling a person's mind or actions. It is merely a state of relaxation and concentration. A person cannot be "programmed" into hallucinating or acting against their will by means of hypnosis.

It just doesn't work that way, yet Derren Brown consistently misrepresents it in that way. in both his stage performances and in the book Tricks of the Mind.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I am terribly sorry you feel that way.

I am sorry you are insulted. Not my intent. As I said it was merely an observation. You yourself just said that one can tell.

I already told you, I am not insulted in the least. It's obvious that your intent was to make a dig, but the simple fact is that performing magic is just not something I've ever really aspired to do. In that sense, yeah, I agree I'd make a bad magician because I don't care enough to put in the practice.

But my aptitude for performing magic is also something you cannot possibly know without having ever met me.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

The straw man I was referring to, that you completely ignored, is the claim that I said that hypnosis can make someone doing something against their will. I never claimed that. Neither has DB. In fact, no one has. That's the straw man.

It is not a strawman. You might not have claimed it outright, but Derren Brown did. Then you alleged that Derren Brown was being honest in his representation of hypnosis in that show. So by backing up Derren Brown's lies, you opened yourself up to the same criticism as well.

Derren Brown not merely claimed, but purported to prove that hypnosis can make someone do something against their will. That was the entire premise of that TV show: a pretense of an "experiment" whereby it was ostensibly "proven" that a seemingly mild-mannered audience member could be made to fire a loaded firearm at another man, without any knowledge or post hoc memory of what he was doing. That is impossible. Hypnosis cannot do that. Derren Brown misrepresented hypnosis in a pseudoscientific, fantastic way that is completely untrue.

It is not a strawman argument to point that out.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Now if you want to talk about instant inductions, that's a different story.

...and yes, they do work, but no, it is not "against their will". Again, it's a simple psychological parlor trick. Honestly, it's more show than anything else.

And it also requires a willing participant who's game to put on a show for people.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Just going for the laugh, that's all. Trying to lighten the mood a little.

Nice "Poe job" then. You had me fooled. I laughed when I first read it, but to tell you the truth on second thought I couldn't tell if you were being serious or not. You never can tell around here.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

It's his show. To me, the show is just a show. The magician will say what s/he needs to in order to create the illusion. What matters to me is after the stage lights go out. And maybe that's the difference between us.

As I said, I don't care if he uses plants, stooges, or whatever, so long as it puts on a good show. But I don't think this recent trend he's on is good magic or good entertainment. It just comes off as a badly-contrived reality show giving credence to all kinds of lame woo beliefs.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

IMHO, when someone is on stage performing whatever, it's just a show. The person is playing a part, nothing more. That goes for someone performing a part, to a magician, to a psychic, to a faith healer. It's make believe. It's a role, and I am watching entertainment.

The real difference is what that person does once they are off stage, the lights are off, the show is over. What do they do? How do they handle the "down time"?

Yeah, that's a completely valid point. As I said before, Derren Brown is not so despicable as somebody like John Edward, who scams people out of money when off the stage.

But Derren Brown is quite slippery and disingenuous in some of his claims about psychology. I still refuse to cut him a break when he presents his shows in this mockumentary format wherein he mixes up real psychological trickery with stage magic and fake psychological pseudo-explanations. It's misleading. While I don't feel that all entertainers have a responsibility to educate, the least they can do is not actively promote total pseudoscience in such a way that the majority of their audience perceive it as fact.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

When confronted, do they say "Nah, it's a trick. Here are some references on how to perform tricks, this is basically what I do." or do they say "Yes, I have powers and abilities that are supernatural. I can use NLP to make people do what I want. I use the power of God to heal. Here are the courses you can take that I offer to make your life better through the power of NLP/hypnosis/God/psychic abilities, etc, etc."

Or they can say, "I do tricks that rely on magic and psychology. I'm not going to come out and endorse the NLPers, but admittedly it is part of what I do." To me that is disingenuous. He's deliberately misleading people into thinking that stuff has any credibility whatsoever, simply because it creates controversy and keeps people talking about him.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

A person who is trying to scam people never stop performing. They never stop the lies. They never stop cheating even after the show is over and the lights are off.

That, to me, anyway, is the difference between a magician and a scammer. And, I'm sorry, IMHO that's the way it has to be seen.

I agree. And by those standards, Derren Brown has always walked a fine, fine line, but lately has begun to overstep it quite often and quite far at times.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

In fact, the less effort someone puts into hypnosis, the better it works.

It's an altered state of awareness. Some people need practice and discipline to attain it. Once a person is accustomed to it, it's just a matter of "zoning out" or whatever; focusing one's attention enough to ignore outside distractions.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Quote:

It is not something that a person can be "snapped" into without any control of one's own, the way stage hypnotists present it.

Yes and no. In that order.

So you agree that it's not something that a person can be "snapped" into without any control of one's own, and stage hypnotists tend to misrepresent it for the purposes of an act?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Quite honestly, I am not waffling. You just keep making wrong assumptions from correct facts.

I'm sorry, but that's how it appeared. You agreed that a person cannot be hypnotized to act unwillingly, and then later you said that a hypnotized person has no conscious control over their decisions.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Don't know the first two people, quite honestly.

They're the founders of NLP, the guys Derren Brown "learned" from. Bandler is widely credited with having pioneered the "interrupted handshake" method of rapid induction.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

In fact, it was Derren Brown himself who finally drove home to me what hypnosis really is.

Well that's actually quite revealing, considering how Derren Brown likes to exaggerate the power of hypnosis.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

At any rate, listen at the shooter at the end of the show. Listen to his idea of what he fired at. He was firing at a target in a gun range, not a human being.

Not against his will, he was fooled.

According to how the show presents it, he was up there in the balcony hypnotized to think he was firing at a target, while actually shooting at a person. Obviously, Derren Brown is trying to make it look like the hypnosis fooled him into doing something against his will.

That's a lie. Hypnosis cannot do that. It's pseudoscience.

Derren Brown presented this totally bogus pseudo-psychology garbage as a factual "experiment" to millions of viewers worldwide.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I thought you said you never claimed he used stooges. Which is it??????

See, this is where you start to piss me off. You accuse me of "twisting" and "misrepresenting," when I have done no such thing. I have quoted you and replied to what you actually said in your quotes.

But in the statement above, this statement right here:

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I thought you said you never claimed he used stooges. Which is it??????

You are obviously twisting my words into something I never, ever said, yet you and Azrael have claimed several times that I have.

What do I have to do to get it through your thick skull? Hypnotize you?!?

Here it is, in bolded ALL CAPS. Please try to read and comprehend:

I NEVER SAID DERREN BROWN ALWAYS USES STOOGES.

I NEVER SAID HE NEVER DOES.

I SAID IT'S MOST LIKELY THAT HE SOMETIMES DOES.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Oh. So you read this part right?

Originally Posted by Tricks of the Mind" page 174

One final word of warning: I'd be wary of the large number of so-called 'hypnotic courses' sold in downloadable format on the net. Some of the individuals who sell these are utterly reprehensible, especially those who use my name to peddle their wares, of course. At the moment there are any number of e-books and so on supposedly teaching my techniques. They don't, regardless of what they claim. Don't waste your money.

That, to me, is the difference between DB and Geller or Edwards. And it's a big one.

Yes, I read it and I agree.

But Derren Brown still disingenuously treads that fine line, overstepping it more often and more egregiously as time goes on. While he may be vehement in debunking some woo, he actively promotes other woo. Remember, he has positioned himself as not only a magician, but a skeptical debunker as well. How is any audience to know the difference when he presents something like this "Assassin Experiment" wherein he "proves" some pseudoscience as fact?

As I said, I'm not going to give him a pass, just because he's not scamming people or raping babies on the side.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Quote:

That's not what I said. I said he probably uses stooges, because they're a known method for certain kinds of effects, and I haven't seen any alternate explanations that make sense to me. I merely consider explanations on a priority basis according to what I know. I have heard absolutely no convincing explanations—apart from stooges—for how certain effects were achievable. "Instant hypnosis," for example, is total bunkum.

No. I'm sorry but you are lieing.

If I ever said I know for absolutely 100% certain, then I definitely misspoke. Just because I didn't always say "probably" doesn't mean I was lying. I was expressing my opinion, based on my own consideration of the facts.

But since you're so keen on calling me a liar, suppose you back up your assertion with a quote of the post where I said I know for an absolute fact.

While you're at it, go ahead and quote the post where I said he always uses stooges.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

At any rate, he didn't use stooges for the "Russian Gypsy Scam". People are confused and can be fooled that easily. It's life. Get over it.

I think the whole thing looked like a set-up. I've already explained why, in pretty exhaustive detail.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Quote:

Of course some of the people Derren Brown uses are not stooges. I never said every trick he's ever done requires stooges, only that it's most probable that at least some of them use stooges, or "instant stooges," or willing participants planted into the audience, or what have you.

No, that's true....

...you changed your mind when I called you out on your use of the word "always".

Then you should have no trouble quoting the post where I said he always uses stooges. You've made that allegation multiple times now, and now you've even called me a liar about it. Either present proof, or man up and apologize.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

your definition of the term "instant stooge" is incorrectly used.

Perhaps you could explain what is incorrect about it, instead of just hurling accusations?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Quote:

No, he's not letting anybody in on any secret. He's using typical stage hypnotist patter and BS pseudo-explanations. Are you alleging that "instant induction" and all that other NLP nonsense is actually real?

Not in the way you are asking it, it is. I've said it before. The very basic techniques that hypnosis and NLP are based upon are true, it's just that the there are people who have taken those basics of hypnosis and NLP (especially NLP) have greatly exaggerated it.

Yes, and Derren Brown does the exact same thing, as evidenced by his TV show, The Experiments: The Assassin.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Now you're misusing the word stooge.

Are you saying that she is playing along, fully aware that she is just role playing and that she performing, not against her will, but fooled into it (for lack of a better word)?

I'm saying she showed up at the TV studio that day and was seated in the front row, probably hoping all the while for an opportunity to be called on by the famous magician and have a chance to play along with him on TV. She came with that expectation, and fulfilled the expectation when given the chance.

If she'd refused to play along, they simply would have edited it out and somebody else would have been shown on TV, pretending they couldn't separate their hands.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

The final thing you're missing is the idea is that a stage hypnotist plays upon the same kind of suspension of disbelief just like a regular movie does. In fact since you read books, as you read, don't you, in your mind, see and hear what you are reading, forgetting everything else around you, engrossed in the plot, hearing the character's voices, seeing the settings? And how quickly does it take for you to get to that frame of mind? One page, two pages, four? Or is it less than one page if it's a good book? That is what hypnosis is. Exactly that. The only difference between stage and, for example, reading a book, is that on stage, the hypnotist guides the subject. The hypnotist becomes the subject's book.

Don't worry, I think it's safe to say you haven't divulged any secrets.

That's a nice explanation, but there's one big difference it fails to address.

If I read a book that told me I'm a chicken, I wouldn't start clucking and flapping my arms and strutting around the room. If I read a book that tells me my hands are stuck together or I cannot get out of my chair, I do not suddenly become stuck. Those are participatory actions that are carried out by the subjects of their own free will, on some motive(s) of their own.

There may be positive, reward-based motives like the need for attention, and desire to impress a celebrity. There may be negative consequence-based motives like fear of failure, nervousness about being the center of attention, and the need for acceptance. It may be a combination of any number of motives.

But the participant does not give up their free will just because a stage magician says some words phrased in a certain way. There's nothing preventing the participant from refusing to play along. If they decide to do so, then they willingly play-act the role that has been laid out for them by the stage hypnotist. They might fall easy prey to tricks because they really have no vested interest in acting against the magician's will. If on the other hand they don't play along, they'll simply get passed by and ignored in favor of a more responsive participant.

Now compare that to some guy on the street who gets approached by a stranger and asked for directions, and "oh, by the way, gimme your wallet." Compare it to somebody willingly tossing a jar of hydrochloric acid in a girl's face. Compare it to a guy bemused into thinking a theater is a shooting range and a gay comedian is a target.

The reason I brought up The Method is because it involves a lot of the same kinds of imagination games as hypnosis, and requires unbroken concentration on the role at hand. It doesn't mean it isn't acting.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I don't recall him saying he helped someone quit smoking. Please point that out to me.

Certainly.

Quote:

When I began reading about and practising hypnosis as a student I became quite enthused about NLP, mainly due to the narrative style and astonishing content of the books written by or about its founders, Richard Bandler and John Grinder. They are quite addictive reading, especially to one without scepticism, and I started to incorporate NLP into my hypnosis shows and any low-level therapeutic help I might offer someone, such as giving up smoking.

—Derren Brown, Tricks of the Mind, pp. 172-3

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Funny how you remember that quip in the book, but you don't see the magic and hypnosis lesson in the book.

I did see them. I read them quite closely. I even expressly mentioned having read them in my above post.

Funny that you read my post but don't remember seeing where I mentioned those things.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Maybe we both are guilty of seeing what we want to see?

Could be. Everybody's guilty of that to some extent.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Further, you are the one who can't explain his trick other than claiming "stooges" and "instant stooges" (and again using that term incorrectly). And when you say that it could sometimes not be stooges, you have no answer.

This is not true. I can understand how he achieves quite a few of his tricks. Others, I cannot. Occasionally, it's obvious that a staged performance is taking place. If you understand how TV is made, how shots are set up, how cameras work, how sound and video editing is done, etc. then you can pick up on lots of cues that the way things are being presented is just not real.

You keep claiming that I'm misusing the term "instant stooge," but you haven't corrected me at all. As I understand it, that means a person from the audience whom the magician may not know, but who's secretly entreated to play along in some way. Is that not correct?

Azrael 5 · 12th December 2011, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Here we see that a Derren Brown fan blogger ran a poll asking how many people believe DB uses NLP, and the results were overwhelming: 77% said they believe he's using it: http://aboutderrenbrown.blogspot.com...p-results.html

37 people voted!!! WOW. Embarassing to even cite that as a statistic.
You do know YouTube isnt a measure of anything,how many videos on there believe 9/11 was an inside job?
All those links add up to about 50 people claiming NLP? I could find hundreds of links that discuss Derren and magic tricks.By typing "NLP+Derren Brown" you're using a form of confirmation bias,by bringing results YOU want to see.

Quote:

I don't ignore other peoples' posts. Even though you might wish I'd ignore some of your arguments, I will always respond as long as I figure what you've said is even worthy of a response.

In that case: #796 #805 .I know it embarasses you JohnAlbert.

Montag451 · 12th December 2011, 06:12 AM

Quote:

I never claimed that he always uses stooges.

That is a lie that you and Azrael seem peculiarly fond of repeating. It is a strawman argument, because you're putting words into my mouth that I never said.

I've asked you at least twice now to quote the post where I said that, but you haven't done so because you can't. I never said it.

I know you've said it, but not needing to use them and not actually using them are two different things.

I have pointed out where some of the tricks and scenarios he presents are very obviously staged. If the scenarios are staged, and the impression ostensibly being created is obviously fake, then what does that tell you about the people appearing in those scenarios?

I have to disagree with your use of language a little.

From reading your (very) numerous and exacting in detail and length posts the use of stooge is a recurring theme. Stooge means "a person who is forced or paid by someone in authority to do an unpleasant or secret job for them" (Cambridge dictionary... Live in Peru, this was the only one I bought with me from the UK, so forgive me if others have slightly different definitions that leave room for over zealous interpretation.

From the wording it seems to have an element of the stooge themselves having knowledge of the job that is required and a willingness to do it. So people going to a hypnosis show do have an element of that, they know what to expect and do fall into what the hypnotist wants. The psychology of this is complicated and the crux of all stage hypnosis.

Stage magicians spend time weeding out the few people who would be the most receptive to suggestion to make the show work. It isn't mind control but it is more than just acting out a scene.

However would it be fair to say that in your original posting you used the word to mean a Plant, that is a person who is working fully as an actor in a role? That is what I have taken from your numerous words written on this subject.

If this is what you originally meant then I simply believe you are wrong. All you need to do is provide acceptable proof that a Plant has been used then you will have owned the thread. However hearsay, rumour and my mate told me do not constitute proof. My guess is you will only be able to link to proofs such as these.

For example in the 90s I acted on an episode of 999 Lifesavers, the UK TV series that restaged incidents where the emergency services responded. It happened in my Science lab at my school, with my tutor group and an actor sitting with them. Would this make me an actor if I every appeared on another TV show? Would I be a plant or stooge? I have also been interviewed on a beach in Punta Sal in Peru by national TV to get an expats view of Peru. Does this mean, due to my extensive acting repertoire, that I was a plant by the TV crew who briefed me in detail before and made me learn cues like when a shadow passes over my bottom in the shape of a crocodile skateboarding I have to say Ceviche is the best food in the world ever?

Or was it coincidence that they spotted a Gringo on the beach who is also a loud mouthed git?

Have you really not considered that there are certain profiles of people who want to appear on TV shows whether in the audience or the star. Interestingly it is often the very person who wants to go to such a show that is often most suited to be on it. While I have no proof (sorry) I am guessing (chose that word carefully for you to comment on and it is only opinion and it may be wrong) that the same sort of psych profile would apply to an actor. It does not mean the actor (profession) is acting on the orders of the performer. It means they are acting (behaving) within the boundaries of there own psychology.

On the point of being uncritical earlier. Just because I do not think the lottery prediction had to be a camera trick it in no way implies anything. I expressed an opinion based on my experience with some magic techniques. It is but an opinion. it does not mean that I cannot accept I am wrong or that there is a magical aspect to it. It just means that DB doesn't tend to do gimmicked stand up magic tricks and I am of the opinion that the real trick is still unknown. Perhaps this is why it is the weakest by far of his shows.

Finally would it be possible for you not to appear so agressive in your replies, it comes across as quite rude and disrespecful.

Azrael 5 · 12th December 2011, 08:08 AM

Yes he does mean plants Montag451. After all he claimed in the first 2 pagesof this thread that
"Derren has been caught out many times using stooges/plants." Of course he fails to back this up just like everything else.
On the topic of people thinking he does NLP,considering he has never state din any TV show that he uses it then peopel are jumping to conclusions of their own making.I would bet the average Derren Brown viewer has no idea what NLP is nor asumes this being a method.
People will believer rubbish no matter what. I have stated this before,it is not reflective of Derren Brown;some people walk away from his theatre shows thinking he has supernatural/psychic abilities.Despite him insisting the opposite.
Stupid is stupid does.

How many of the YouTubers actually believe he is using NLP but rather are using him and "NLP" in keywords to attract viewers to their channel?

Montag451 · 12th December 2011, 08:38 AM

NLP as a red herring suits him well I believe. DB HAS to allude to certain hooks to allow viewers to believe in what he does. The more people argue about NLP or whatever then the less people look at his real techniques.

However some commentators miss the whole point of misdirection.

As you so rightly say 'Stupid is stupid does'

John Albert · 12th December 2011, 11:40 AM

Apparently, I need to clear up my use of terminology here. If any of you professional conjurer types feel I'm misrepresenting your "lingo" in a manner inconsistent with its common usage, please correct me.

When I say "stooge," I'm not talking about a low-level lackey in the employ of a crime boss. I'm not talking about a bumbling idiot or a 20th Century Jewish slapstick comedian. I'm not talking about a member of Iggy Pop's backup band. I'm using the word in the specific sense of a person employed by the magician (or his company) for the purpose of aiding him in his work without the knowledge of the audience. The person may or may not have 100% understanding of how the trick is done. They may or may not be paid. The point is that they are confederates of the magician, acting without the audience's knowledge.

Stooges have been widely used in mentalism and other stage acts throughout the history of magic, in a number of different ways.

They don't always pose as audience members called onstage to participate. Sometimes they're used by mentalists to gather the information for him to miraculously "know" onstage. Uri Geller, for example, has been exposed as employing stooges in this way. His best friend Shipi would stand outside in the parking lot and watch people emerge from their cars, then write down their license plate numbers. He would then mingle with the audience before showtime and during intermissions, eavesdropping or striking up small talk to get more info which he'd write down and pass to Geller. During the show, he'd use coded hand signals to communicate with Uri, indicating which individuals to call on for what information. Peter Popoff used his wife and another woman as stooges in a similar way. They would gather the "intel" from cards filled out at the entrance of the auditorium, then relay that to Peter via a radio disguised as a hearing aid.

Then there's the technique of "instant stooging" whereby the magician brings an audience member on the stage and secretly entreats them to play along without the audience's knowledge. In that case, the audience member again may or may not have knowledge of how the trick is supposed to work, but simply responds to cues and instructions from the magician to play along and help pull it off.

A "plant" is merely a person placed into the audience by the magician for one reason or another. They might be stooges (like when Uri had his friend Shipi in the audience, pointing out people to call on) but they aren't necessarily. They may or may not have been explicitly told what to do. They might be people the performer has met (or his company has selected from a "talent pool") who are known to be ready and willing to play along. They may not even know they've been placed there for a specific purpose. I have seen enough believable allegations by seemingly trustworthy people, that DB uses audience plants in this way, so I feel it's an entirely plausible explanation for how he sometimes does things.

As for "evidence" to back up these speculations, what would you expect to see?

As far as the "stooge" question goes, I readily admit that all I have to go on is the claims of witnesses, the circumstantial evidence of Magda Rodriguez's IMDB page, and observations of some videos that strongly suggest they're faked. I don't have anything as conclusive as Randi's audio recordings of Peter Popoff's wife on the radio, feeding him information. If I had, I'd be saying I know for 100% certain that he's using stooges. But I'm not saying that. I'm also not making the argument from ignorance, "I don't know how he does it, so it's stooges."

I'm not a magician, but I have long held a fascination for the world of magic. I have read a number of books on magic. I have also studied film & video production in college, and have a number of friends who work in those fields, at the production level, to actors, all the way up to directors and high executive positions. The things you see on TV, even "reality TV shows," are highly scripted and pre-planned. That's why I speak so disparagingly of TV magic. It's so cheap and easy, just about anybody with good presentation skills can do it. As for Derren Brown's latest material, it appears that most of the innovation and skill is pushed aside in favor of this boring "reality show" tripe, and the hawking of sensationalistic woo just makes it even more distasteful.

Montag451 · 12th December 2011, 11:59 AM

It is slightly disingenuous of you to keep relating to Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. These people are operating in a belief system. They attribute their 'powers' to supernatural means. If history has taught us anything it has taught us that there is nothing as pervasive and difficult to change as faith. The act of having faith almost presupposes a suspension of critical thinking.

I believe therefore it is.

Evidence is almost anathema to belief/faith, with the act of believing making an individuals 'truth' their faith.

I still see very little relevance for Uri Gellers proclivities to use a stooge as having any relevance to DB. Yes UG and PP use stooges, plants etc, it does not logically follow that DB is.

While I accept that you are not specifically linking the 2 ideas and nowhere do you say "UG does it, PP does it therefore Db does it" the constant reference to these 2 does seem an attempt to muddy the waters a little, which does cheapen some of your more valid points.

As James Randi himself says (and I paraphrase as I do not have my Kindle with me at the moment) he would have no problem with UG if he just stated he was a magic act. It is the dishonesty of pretending that is wrong.

I still stand by my statement that it would end DBs career if it could be proven that he used a paid for stooge, plant or shill. Minimal proof would be needed. One of these people needs to stand up and say I was a stooge. Here is how we did it and here are the mechanics behind the trick. Once you are told what the cues and gags are then they are obvious to see, a little bit like playing records backwards. Once you know what you are supposed to hear then you can't unhear. With a magic trick, often once you know what to look for you can't unsee.

John Albert · 12th December 2011, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Montag451

It is slightly disingenuous of you to keep relating to Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. These people are operating in a belief system. They attribute their 'powers' to supernatural means. If history has taught us anything it has taught us that there is nothing as pervasive and difficult to change as faith. The act of having faith almost presupposes a suspension of critical thinking.

You're mistaking my purpose in using them as examples. I'm not doing it to compare Derren Brown to them from an ethical or even a methodological perspective. I merely used them as examples of how confederates are commonly employed in magic and mentalism, without exposing the tricks of actual magicians working as honest entertainers.

Originally Posted by Montag451

I still stand by my statement that it would end DBs career if it could be proven that he used a paid for stooge, plant or shill. Minimal proof would be needed.

Yet it has happened, was apparently covered up, and no damage done whatsoever. It doesn't matter what people say; what matters is what people believe.

Originally Posted by Montag451

One of these people needs to stand up and say I was a stooge. Here is how we did it and here are the mechanics behind the trick. Once you are told what the cues and gags are then they are obvious to see, a little bit like playing records backwards. Once you know what you are supposed to hear then you can't unhear. With a magic trick, often once you know what to look for you can't unsee.

And in doing so, those people would be placing themselves in an actionable position with the lawyers of Derren Brown and Objective Productions. They could be sued for an enormous sum, considering lost licensing revenues and punitive damages. I'm guessing you missed the entire discussion of the legalities of intellectual property and non-disclosure agreements and so forth.

What would such a person stand to gain by assuming that much risk just to trash Derren Brown's career? Then there's always the possibility of Derren and Objective Productions defusing the whole threat by covering it up, or simply calling them a liar.

Several prominent magicians have been accused and even proven to use stooges in their performances, but what careers have ever been ruined by those allegations? The evidence just doesn't bear out the "career ender" claim.

And I know how a lot of magic tricks are done, but that doesn't in any way dampen my appreciation for the craft.

You know what does though? Seeing a magician use magic to mislead people into believing a load of BS. That really bums me out, big-time.

Azrael 5 · 12th December 2011, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Several prominent magicians have been accused and even proven to use stooges in their performances, but what careers have ever been ruined by those allegations? The evidence just doesn't bear out the "career ender" claim.

Yet when called upon you fail to name these. Just like you failed to supply proof that Derren ahd been caught out "many times" susing actors/stooges/plants(choose your terminology).
Regards career enders. It cant end your career being caught with stooges if you didnt claim to not use them.
Any thought on posts 796 and 805? Ignoring me wont make the embarassment any less.

JFrankA · 12th December 2011, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by John Albert

I have not "twisted" anything.

Yes you are. Case in point:

Quote:

Clearly, you're expressing the idea that Derren Brown's powers of hypnosis are somehow strong enough to make a subject completely forget they're standing on a stage in front of an audience, contributing to a magic show.

No, I am not saying Derren Brown has powers at all. I have never claimed anyone has any powers. Where did you see me (or anyone in this thread) say he has powers????

Quote:

You seem to be saying that a few words and gestures from Derren are enough to make them think they're somewhere else entirely, or that the glass beaker they're holding is filled with acid, and that they have no power to resist the command to throw that acid into the face of the person in front of them.

This, yes, I am saying. It is possible. Depending on the circumstances, the environment, the words used, etc. People are not infallible.

Quote:

I'm saying that's wrong.

And you would be wrong.

Quote:

I'm saying that the participants on Derren Brown's show are fully aware that they've been called onstage to take part in a magic performance. I'm saying they know full well it's a performance, that they have a role to play in this performance that is dictated by Derren Brown himself. I'm saying they know that as long as they do what Derren Brown tells them to do, they will get to continue taking part in this experience and possibly even get to appear on TV for their family and friends to see. I'm guessing that is the most popular motivation to cooperate and "act" the part to the best of their own ability. These subjects may be excited and nervous about the experience, maybe even to the point where it seems unreal or hyperreal, but a few reassuring words here and there from the famous magician is enough to inspire trust and encourage them to turn in the best performance they can.

That's all there is to it. They're complicit, willing accomplices by their own choice. They came to the show with the expectation that they might be asked onstage. Maybe they even applied to a talent firm which recommended them to the production company, which screened them and determined them to be camera-friendly personalities, good for TV. So they've got an expectation that if they are offered the opportunity, they're going to turn in a performance in the hopes of being used in the show.

You are partly right. There's a little more going on as well. I'll reiterate this: humans are not as infallible as you seem to think we are.

Quote:

If you doubt that there's any factual basis for this belief of mine, read the "Finding of the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust" on the investigation of The Real Hustle. Paragraph 3 of the report mentions the procedure by which Objective Productions solicits amateur talent to appear in its reality shows:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets...eal_hustle.txt

That's fine, however, this is point is moot.

Quote:

Please clarify this. I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're merely talking about relaxing and concentrating on something, then yes I would agree that most people do it every single day whenever they're engaging in any complex task.

The "reading a book" is one of the best examples I can come up with. Another example would be watching a movie and being so engrossed in the film, that not only is your heart beating fast at the exciting scene, not only are you crying with the protagonist, not only are you feeling the victory at the end of the movie, you never notice the guy in front of you eating his popcorn loudly. Or going on a drive, letting your mind wander a bit and suddenly realize that you are farther along than you thought you were.

All of these is the exact same thing that hypnosis is. Nothing magical. Just something we do everyday.

Quote:

But I would say that hypnosis is a rather specialized form of focused attention that not everybody does every day.

I wouldn't say it's not "specialized", it's just one kind of focused attention, and, as you see from my above explanation, it IS something we do everyday.

Quote:

Please knock it off. You sound like an idiot when you say stuff like that.

But Moooooooooooooooom!!!!! It's soooooooo much fun to do it that waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!

Quote:

I'm not misrepresenting or dumbing-down your arguments to make them appear foolish. I'm quoting exactly what you've said, and then replying to it. I've asked you before to quote the exact posts where I've misrepresented something you said, and to explain where I got it wrong, but you have declined to do so. So either put up or shut up about the strawman nonsense.

If I am guilty of it, I'm sorry. But honestly, so are you.

Quote:

What trick are you talking about, specifically, that you've done yourself?

Want a list? Come on over to my show sometime. I have to warn you, though, my shows are far more X-rated than Derren's. But the hypnosis "process", so to speak, share the same basic techniques.

Quote:

I never claimed that he always uses stooges.

That is a lie that you and Azrael seem peculiarly fond of repeating. It is a strawman argument, because you're putting words into my mouth that I never said.

I've asked you at least twice now to quote the post where I said that, but you haven't done so because you can't. I never said it.

Then you are being misleading. You've just said that every hypnosis show involves stooges, then you take a step back and say that not all of them do, yet when I ask you something like "if not stooges, then how?" you have no answer and moments later you are saying stooges again.

And I HAVE called on you saying always. Just in case you've forgotten, here it is again:

Originally Posted by John Albert

I also know that acting is always in play for these "hypnosis mind control" acts, whether the actors are paid pros or just enthusiastic amateurs.

No, you didn't use the word stooges here, but it is your definition of stooges; and yes, you did recant the word "always", but you have never ever come up with another explanation as to how stage hypnosis would work otherwise. The only answer you have provided is either stooge or some definition of stooge.

At any rate, Montag451 put it much better than I did. Read his post.

Quote:

I know you've said it, but not needing to use them and not actually using them are two different things.

I have pointed out where some of the tricks and scenarios he presents are very obviously staged. If the scenarios are staged, and the impression ostensibly being created is obviously fake, then what does that tell you about the people appearing in those scenarios?

"I never said he always uses stooges but there is no other way to explain the way he does his tricks!!!!! But, I've never used the word 'always'!"

Give it up.

Quote:

Yes, I did. You asked if a stooge or actor is not being used, then what other explanation could there be. I answered that it could be a situation where the person is being tricked.

Funny, that's what I thought I said. If I missed where you said that, my apologies. However, please show me where you said that because I honestly don't recall you saying that the person could be tricked.

Quote:

Another possibility might be that the person arrived on the stage with a preconceived notion about how they're supposed to behave, and then the magician might exploit that to his advantage.

Yes, you've explained it that way, but this is the ONLY time you have left out the condition that you've been preaching this whole time: that the subject is purposely doing it to be on camera.

Quote:

First of all, I know what a "dual reality" gag is, and I did not use it the wrong way. "Dual reality" is where you play the same trick on two different people in such a way that they both derive different conclusions from it. Dual reality is one of the most common tricks of a magician. For example, making one statement that means something entirely different to the participant and the audience.

Okay, I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. Very good. I apologize. You got that right.

Quote:

Another option is that the notion of "hypnosis" itself can be used as a pretense to play a trick. Some subjects might feel that it presents them with an excuse for acting a certain way that they might not normally do, or that it might lend credence to a belief, a feeling, or a story they want to express.

That's very good as well.

Quote:

One thing hypnosis cannot do, however, is cause somebody to do things they don't want to do. It is not a means of controlling a person's mind or actions. It is merely a state of relaxation and concentration. A person cannot be "programmed" into hallucinating or acting against their will by means of hypnosis.

That's true, too. But you are leaving one last scenario: the fact that hypnosis (or relaxation, surprise and concentration in general) can leave a person vulnerable to suggestion. I'm not talking big, life changing suggestions, but small little suggestions. With enough conditioning, (and trust on the subject's part) the subject can be convinced, i.e. tricked, into doing something they aren't realizing that they are doing.

Notice NOT "what they don't want to do", but tricked into thinking they are doing "A" and not "B".

Quote:

It just doesn't work that way, yet Derren Brown consistently misrepresents it in that way. in both his stage performances and in the book Tricks of the Mind.

You are completely wrong. Sorry.

Quote:

I already told you, I am not insulted in the least. It's obvious that your intent was to make a dig, but the simple fact is that performing magic is just not something I've ever really aspired to do. In that sense, yeah, I agree I'd make a bad magician because I don't care enough to put in the practice.

But my aptitude for performing magic is also something you cannot possibly know without having ever met me.

You assume a lot don't you? Besides, as you have already said, there are ways that one can tell.

It is my humble opinion that you wouldn't. That's all. If I'm wrong, meh, I've been wrong before. Sorry you're taking it so personally. If you truly feel I was trying to "dig" you, I humbly withdraw the comment.

Quote:

It is not a strawman. You might not have claimed it outright, but Derren Brown did. Then you alleged that Derren Brown was being honest in his representation of hypnosis in that show. So by backing up Derren Brown's lies, you opened yourself up to the same criticism as well.

...round and round we go.......

I stated that he does give the truth about how hypnosis works through out the show. I stand by that.

Quote:

Derren Brown not merely claimed, but purported to prove that hypnosis can make someone do something against their will.

What show were you watching???? He wasn't out to prove anything. If he was, he wasn't out to prove that someone can do something "against their will".

It wasn't against his will to shoot. It was his will. In his mind he was shooting in a firing range, NOT a human being. This is part of what I mean by tricking or fooling someone.

Quote:

That was the entire premise of that TV show: a pretense of an "experiment" whereby it was ostensibly "proven" that a seemingly mild-mannered audience member could be made to fire a loaded firearm at another man, without any knowledge or post hoc memory of what he was doing.

Now that was the premise. That is NOT the same as "having someone do something against their will". Two very different things. Please don't mix the two.

And he wasn't out to prove something.

Quote:

That is impossible. Hypnosis cannot do that. Derren Brown misrepresented hypnosis in a pseudoscientific, fantastic way that is completely untrue.

It is not a strawman argument to point that out.

The argument that he was trying to prove that someone "can do something against their will while under hypnosis" IS a straw man. No one, including DB is out to prove that.

Quote:

And it also requires a willing participant who's game to put on a show for people.

Willing participant, yes. One "who's game to put on a show for people", not all the time. There are other reasons, not all of the conscious ones. More often, it's an unconscious choice.

...and no, it's not the same thing you are arguing....

Quote:

Nice "Poe job" then. You had me fooled. I laughed when I first read it, but to tell you the truth on second thought I couldn't tell if you were being serious or not. You never can tell around here.

Glad you did laugh. Unfortunately, it's not a Poe job.

Just take a look:
https://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&...rough+hypnosis

Quote:

As I said, I don't care if he uses plants, stooges, or whatever, so long as it puts on a good show. But I don't think this recent trend he's on is good magic or good entertainment. It just comes off as a badly-contrived reality show giving credence to all kinds of lame woo beliefs.

Fine. We can discuss that. Then please stop claiming he's using stooges, please???

Quote:

Yeah, that's a completely valid point. As I said before, Derren Brown is not so despicable as somebody like John Edward, who scams people out of money when off the stage.

But Derren Brown is quite slippery and disingenuous in some of his claims about psychology. I still refuse to cut him a break when he presents his shows in this mockumentary format wherein he mixes up real psychological trickery with stage magic and fake psychological pseudo-explanations. It's misleading. While I don't feel that all entertainers have a responsibility to educate, the least they can do is not actively promote total pseudoscience in such a way that the majority of their audience perceive it as fact.

But again, that's his shtick. It's just for show. If people are going to take his show (or any show on television) like this as red without any research, I'm sorry, it's my humble opinion that they are looking to believe.

Maybe I'm being callous on that, and I'm sorry, but I've gone through it personally even when I tell people I'm doing a trick.

Quote:

Or they can say, "I do tricks that rely on magic and psychology. I'm not going to come out and endorse the NLPers, but admittedly it is part of what I do." To me that is disingenuous. He's deliberately misleading people into thinking that stuff has any credibility whatsoever, simply because it creates controversy and keeps people talking about him.

What can I say, he's being honest there. Misleading? Yes. But that's part of the dual reality. He's telling just enough to make the trick work and be interesting. How would you say something better? I know I couldn't come up with something that walks the line so nicely.

Quote:

I agree. And by those standards, Derren Brown has always walked a fine, fine line, but lately has begun to overstep it quite often and quite far at times.

Perhaps. That's the real discussion isn't it. My feeling, and I could be wrong, is that he feels that people know by now he's just a magician and what he's doing is making the line finer.

Certainly he hasn't come up with any books giving out "sure fire methods of mind control". If he started doing that, I'd be right on your side.

Quote:

It's an altered state of awareness. Some people need practice and discipline to attain it. Once a person is accustomed to it, it's just a matter of "zoning out" or whatever; focusing one's attention enough to ignore outside distractions.

There we go! Yes, exactly. But it's not as rare as you think, and it's easier to get into that "zoning out" than you may believe, and people do it to themselves everyday.

Quote:

So you agree that it's not something that a person can be "snapped" into without any control of one's own, and stage hypnotists tend to misrepresent it for the purposes of an act?

No, I disagree. A person can be "snapped" into that kind of frame of mind. ....if the conditions are right.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but that's how it appeared. You agreed that a person cannot be hypnotized to act unwillingly, and then later you said that a hypnotized person has no conscious control over their decisions.

No problem. I understand that. And yes. Sometimes what happens with hypnosis is that there is no conscious decision. There are simple psychological tricks that bypass the conscious, critical thinking "mind", so to speak. It's minor, it's not something that actually controls a person, but it does exist in a basic, simple level.

Quote:

They're the founders of NLP, the guys Derren Brown "learned" from. Bandler is widely credited with having pioneered the "interrupted handshake" method of rapid induction.

Don't know the guys. And I thought it was Mesmer who used the "interrupted handshake" method. Which does work.

Quote:

Well that's actually quite revealing, considering how Derren Brown likes to exaggerate the power of hypnosis.

In his books? No he doesn't.

Quote:

According to how the show presents it, he was up there in the balcony hypnotized to think he was firing at a target, while actually shooting at a person. Obviously, Derren Brown is trying to make it look like the hypnosis fooled him into doing something against his will.

That's a lie. Hypnosis cannot do that. It's pseudoscience.

Derren Brown presented this totally bogus pseudo-psychology garbage as a factual "experiment" to millions of viewers worldwide.

This is true but, and this is the important part (to me anyways), that is only during the show. I'm sorry, but during a magic show all bets are off. Reality and lies are mixed together to produce the effect.

Again, once the lights are off, if he continued to do that, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. The show doesn't matter: that is not reality. After the show matters.

And I'm sorry, I don't have time to respond back to the rest of your post. I will when I can.

Azrael 5 · 12th December 2011, 02:44 PM

Not just the acid throw,people sat in ice baths quite happily on Assassin.,unles of course it wasnt ice and they were stooges.

Fact is if Derren Brown just did magic tricks a la Paul Daniels he wouldnt suceed.Magic on Tv needs an edge and audiences want an insight into methods(See P&T fool us).Thus the body language psychology explanaitons. It feeds the audience desire to know "how its done".
As I repeatedly state the average Derren Brown viewer/fan has no idea what NLP is.If they begin to research it they will not find anything from Derren promoting it.
JohnAlbert your issue is a non-issue.

Posts #796 #805.

Checkmite · 12th December 2011, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

The "reading a book" is one of the best examples I can come up with. Another example would be watching a movie and being so engrossed in the film, that not only is your heart beating fast at the exciting scene, not only are you crying with the protagonist, not only are you feeling the victory at the end of the movie, you never notice the guy in front of you eating his popcorn loudly. Or going on a drive, letting your mind wander a bit and suddenly realize that you are farther along than you thought you were.

All of these is the exact same thing that hypnosis is. Nothing magical. Just something we do everyday.

That's called "focus", not hypnosis.

Very different from the "dangling a pendulum in front of someone, telling them they're getting veeeery sleeeeepy, making them bark like a dog" thing that hypnosis has been alleged to be ever since it first started being described over a century ago. It's an attempt to rationalize and redefine the existence of hypnosis in the face of the fact that hypnosis in its original, traditional sense doesn't actually work.

It would be like me redefining "precognition" as "hypothetical prediction" just so I could keep saying "precognition is a real effect". Certainly I can argue that all those who claim to know the future through mystical means really are just "guessing"; but historically "precognition" is not supposed to be guessing, it is supposed to be knowing through mystical means - which doesn't work, therefore there's no such thing as precognition.

There's also no such thing as hypnosis.

John Albert · 12th December 2011, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Yes you are. Case in point:

Quote:

Clearly, you're expressing the idea that Derren Brown's powers of hypnosis are somehow strong enough to make a subject completely forget they're standing on a stage in front of an audience, contributing to a magic show.

No, I am not saying Derren Brown has powers at all. I have never claimed anyone has any powers. Where did you see me (or anyone in this thread) say he has powers????

Oh, brother. Alright.

Scratch the word "powers" and replace it with, oh let's say... "abilities," okay?

Quote:

Clearly, you're expressing the idea that Derren Brown's ~~powers~~ abilities of hypnosis are somehow strong enough to make a subject completely forget they're standing on a stage in front of an audience, contributing to a magic show.

The point still stands.

You appear to be either misrepresenting hypnosis, or mistaken about what actually happens in a subject's mind while hypnotized.

I personally have been under hypnosis many times in my lifetime. The first time was under the care a professional psychologist when I was in college. Every time I have been "under hypnosis," I have been fully aware of my surroundings, only more relaxed and with a feeling of clarity. Even when asked to visualize something, never did I hallucinate or think that I was anywhere else but where I was. The entire experience was actually quite normal-feeling, only more relaxed and freer about sharing my thoughts and memories.

Those experiences with the "shrink" inspired me to experiment with self-hypnosis, and after some practice I got pretty good at it. At one time I was able to assume a "trance state" quite easily, with just a few seconds of concentration.

I have also been onstage for a hypnotism act. After asking my name, the mentalist asked, "have you ever been hypnotized before?" I answered, truthfully, "yes, and I also practice self-hypnosis." He replied, "excellent!" and then proceeded to go into his schtick.

As he started his "induction" routine I immediately felt relaxed, probably because I was relieved of the stress of replying to his questions. However, I must emphasize that at no time was I ever unaware of the fact that I was on a stage in front of a theater full of people. I was completely aware of everything that was going on around me at all times, and was fully in control of all my faculties. At no time was I asked to do anything I felt the least bit uncomfortable about. In fact, I did not feel "hypnotized" at all, only a little nervous and excited to be the center of attention.

He presented me with a number of imaginary scenarios: being outside on a cold day without a jacket (I shuddered), just having received a new haircut (I began to itch about the neck and shoulders), and meeting a new dog for the first time (I role-played as if I was cautiously reaching down to offer my hand). After a few of those, he directed me to sit on a chair alongside other "subjects" who'd been called up to participate. I just sat there and watched as he played the same kind of games with other people from the audience, then had them take a seat with the rest of us.

After all the chairs on the stage were occupied by participants, he stepped before us and began issuing "suggestions" to all of us as a group. I went along with it for awhile, role-playing the situations he proposed. He had us all shake hands, hug and greet one another as if we were old friends. We played "musical chairs" to no music, with him raising his hand to simulate picking the needle off a record. I must emphasize that I only went along with it for awhile because it was fun, and at no time was I ever convinced that anything he was saying was actually real.

After a few of these tricks, the guy sitting next to me started making smart-assed quips under his breath about the magician and the performance. He was really funny—far more entertaining than this dumb stuff we were being asked to do—so a couple of us began snickering and joking around along with him. Once the hypnotist noticed our disruptive behavior, he politely said, "OK, everybody sit down," then gestured at those of us who were clowning. He asked us to stand and take a bow, then leave the stage. The audience applauded, and we went back to our seats.

The remaining people on stage continued performing the acts as he told them, and whenever somebody became embarrassed or put on a lame display, he told them to sit down. Finally there was one guy left, and that guy became the star of the show by acting out all these really crazy performances and making a complete fool of himself. It appeared that he may have had some training in mime, his acting was that good.

To this day I am convinced that guy was a stooge. He was hanging out after the performance and my girlfriend and I talked with him a little. He said he'd heard of this particular magician, but had never been to one of his shows before. One thing I noticed was that he did not appear to be there with a date or any other friends.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Quote:

You seem to be saying that a few words and gestures from Derren are enough to make them think they're somewhere else entirely, or that the glass beaker they're holding is filled with acid, and that they have no power to resist the command to throw that acid into the face of the person in front of them.

This, yes, I am saying. It is possible. Depending on the circumstances, the environment, the words used, etc. People are not infallible.

Yeah, and I think you're wrong about that.

I never said people are "infallible." That's a strawman. I just don't believe people are that malleable. I think they act along because they want to.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

And you would be wrong.

My own experience tells me otherwise. Also, the small amount of medical literature I've read seems to indicate that hypnosis subjects do not lose their ability to make conscious decisions.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

The "reading a book" is one of the best examples I can come up with. Another example would be watching a movie and being so engrossed in the film, that not only is your heart beating fast at the exciting scene, not only are you crying with the protagonist, not only are you feeling the victory at the end of the movie, you never notice the guy in front of you eating his popcorn loudly.

Yeah, but reading Watership Down does not make me behave like a bunny rabbit, watching Superman doesn't make me jump out of a window thinking I can fly, and reading The Day of the Jackal does not make me try to assassinate a French prime minister.

It's a very, very poor analogy that only reinforces my point, not your own.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

All of these is the exact same thing that hypnosis is. Nothing magical. Just something we do everyday.

I wouldn't say it's not "specialized", it's just one kind of focused attention, and, as you see from my above explanation, it IS something we do everyday.

Not really. I think you're trying to give credence to your extraordinary claims by alleging it's something germane to our human experience. I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to that kind of magical thinking.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Want a list? Come on over to my show sometime. I have to warn you, though, my shows are far more X-rated than Derren's. But the hypnosis "process", so to speak, share the same basic techniques.

PM me the details, and I'll gladly take you up on your offer.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Then you are being misleading. You've just said that every hypnosis show involves stooges, then you take a step back and say that not all of them do, yet when I ask you something like "if not stooges, then how?" you have no answer and moments later you are saying stooges again.

And I HAVE called on you saying always. Just in case you've forgotten, here it is again:

Originally Posted by John Albert

I also know that acting is always in play for these "hypnosis mind control" acts, whether the actors are paid pros or just enthusiastic amateurs.

Where do you see the word "stooges" in that sentence? You might want to reread it again. I think maybe you've been "hypnotized" into seeing words that aren't actually there.

Think about what I've been saying about hypnosis, then reread that passage again.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

No, you didn't use the word stooges here, but it is your definition of stooges; and yes, you did recant the word "always"

I never "recanted" anything about saying he "always" uses stooges, because

I NEVER SAID HE ALWAYS USES STOOGES IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

"I never said he always uses stooges but there is no other way to explain the way he does his tricks!!!!! But, I've never used the word 'always'!"

I never said that, either.

Looks like you're mustering your armies of strawmen along my border again. Don't you know you're not fooling anybody? Everybody knows strawmen are unable to fight!

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Quote:

Yes, I did. You asked if a stooge or actor is not being used, then what other explanation could there be. I answered that it could be a situation where the person is being tricked.

Funny, that's what I thought I said. If I missed where you said that, my apologies. However, please show me where you said that because I honestly don't recall you saying that the person could be tricked.

Maybe you were too preoccupied with fashioning that strawman about me not knowing what "dual reality" means.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Yes, you've explained it that way, but this is the ONLY time you have left out the condition that you've been preaching this whole time: that the subject is purposely doing it to be on camera.

Maybe they're doing it to be on camera, maybe they're paralyzed with stagefright and the magician is able to recognize and assuage that fear into a feeling of trust and compliance. There could be any number of reasons why people play along, but I'm sure it's not because they're unable to make conscious decisions just because the magician spoke a few "magic words."

Originally Posted by JFrankA

But you are leaving one last scenario: the fact that hypnosis (or relaxation, surprise and concentration in general) can leave a person vulnerable to suggestion. I'm not talking big, life changing suggestions, but small little suggestions. With enough conditioning, (and trust on the subject's part) the subject can be convinced, i.e. tricked, into doing something they aren't realizing that they are doing.

...Like mistaking a theater for a firing range and a flesh-and-blood human being for a paper target? I think not.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Notice NOT "what they don't want to do", but tricked into thinking they are doing "A" and not "B".

You'd have to present an example for me to be able to determine if it's possible or not. I can't speak to a vague generality like that "A" vs. "B" stuff.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Quote:

It just doesn't work that way, yet Derren Brown consistently misrepresents it in that way. in both his stage performances and in the book Tricks of the Mind.

You are completely wrong. Sorry.

Nah, I don't think so. Derren Brown tends to exaggerate a lot of things into being far more important, powerful and impressive then they actually are. While it may make him a great magician, it also means you have to take everything he says with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Sorry you're taking it so personally. If you truly feel I was trying to "dig" you, I humbly withdraw the comment.

You keep apologizing over and over again, as if to make it appear that I was offended. I'm not taking it personally, only making a point to note your inherent dishonesty about it.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I stated that he does give the truth about how hypnosis works through out the show. I stand by that.

That's why you're still wrong about hypnotism making people do things they'd otherwise be unwilling to. And it's still not a "strawman" for me to point it out.

Indeed, round and round we go, because you keep talking in circles.

Saying hypnotism makes people do things unconsciously, through no will of their own...

...then denying it and accusing me of "twisting"...

...then agreeing with Derren Brown when he says it...

...then calling it a "strawman" when I point out that it's incorrect...

You're the one leading the circle of illogic, not me.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

What show were you watching???? He wasn't out to prove anything. If he was, he wasn't out to prove that someone can do something "against their will".

It wasn't against his will to shoot. It was his will. In his mind he was shooting in a firing range, NOT a human being. This is part of what I mean by tricking or fooling someone.

That's BS and you know it. Hypnotism cannot do that.

Audience dude was depicted shooting a gun at a man, something he obviously never would have done willfully. Derren Brown presented this whole scenario as hypnosis messing up some guy's mind so much that he performed a crime that he'd never ever have done otherwise.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Now that was the premise. That is NOT the same as "having someone do something against their will". Two very different things. Please don't mix the two.

I'm not mixing the two, you are. You're saying that because the guy "thought" he was doing something different, then he was. But that is not how it was presented in the show.

Why are you being so deliberately obtuse about this?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

And he wasn't out to prove something.

In Derren Brown's introduction at the beginning of the show, he said:

Quote:

"Good evening, and welcome to tonight's experiment, which asks: is it possible to program somebody to kill, and without them realizing it.

"Conspiracy theorists claim that the CIA hypnotized unsuspecting candidates to carry out assassinations in the '50s and '60s, most notably that of Senator Robert Kennedy. Tonight we'll find out if that's even possible, or just the stuff of movie fiction. During tonight's experiment, I'll be testing to see whether such unlikely-sounding claims are actually possible."

<snipped the historical reference to Sirhan Sirhan and RFK assassination, presented in documentary format with "expert" commentary by a conspiracy theorist>
"So I'm about to give a demonstration of hypnosis to an audience of people who've applied to take part in my show. I haven't prepared these people in any way. I'm about to show you from scratch, how it is that I can create a hypnotic state.

"But what they don't know, is that I'm on the lookout for a perfect candidate that I can program to carry out the assassination of a well-known figure at a public event.

"Now nothing like this has ever been done before, unless the claims of the conspiracy theorists are true."

Then, the premise of the entire show was to prove "the claims of the conspiracy theorists are true."

All one needs to do is watch the video to see that you're lying.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Then please stop claiming he's using stooges, please???

You're actually begging me? Why?

Why do you really care so much?

What interest do you have in whether somebody says they think Derren Brown employs stooges?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

But again, that's his shtick. It's just for show. If people are going to take his show (or any show on television) like this as red without any research, I'm sorry, it's my humble opinion that they are looking to believe.

Perhaps. But some people also implicitly trust Derren Brown, hang on his every word, and don't believe he'd ever lie about anything. Take a quick look back through this thread for significant evidence of that.

Then, he talks out of both sides of his mouth:

He pretends to use NLP techniques, then makes fun of the NLPers for recognizing the techniques for exactly what they are.

He claims to use nothing but tricks, misdirection, and psychology, then blatantly misrepresents "psychology" in the terms of some pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

He puts on a show where he plays the skeptic, debunking various forms of woo, then he puts on other shows wherein he pretends to prove other kinds of woo are real, by the use of disingenuous explanations, amateur actors and TV editing trickery.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Maybe I'm being callous on that, and I'm sorry, but I've gone through it personally even when I tell people I'm doing a trick.

Imagine if you were as deceitful as Derren Brown about it. You might have thousands of people posting stuff all over the Internet about how you use NLP to control minds!

Originally Posted by JFrankA

What can I say, he's being honest there. Misleading? Yes. But that's part of the dual reality. He's telling just enough to make the trick work and be interesting. How would you say something better? I know I couldn't come up with something that walks the line so nicely.

The "dual reality" is, the audience never know whether they're watching Derren Brown the skeptic, or Derren Brown the trickster. That's the "dual reality" this thread is about.

That's the "dual reality" he deserves to be called out on, because there really is no "dual reality." There is in fact really only one reality, and misrepresenting reality in the mixed-up that way Derren Brown does is a disservice to the public.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

No, I disagree. A person can be "snapped" into that kind of frame of mind. ....if the conditions are right.

Not true. What you should have said is:

Quote:

A person can be made to appear as if they're being "snapped" into that kind of frame of mind. ....if ~~the conditions are right~~ they're willing to play along with the act.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

No problem. I understand that. And yes. Sometimes what happens with hypnosis is that there is no conscious decision. There are simple psychological tricks that bypass the conscious, critical thinking "mind", so to speak. It's minor, it's not something that actually controls a person, but it does exist in a basic, simple level.

And then it's misrepresented by the NLPers and stage magicians (like Derren Brown, and yourself, apparently) to make it appear as if something far more powerful and compelling than it actually is.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

This is true but, and this is the important part (to me anyways), that is only during the show. I'm sorry, but during a magic show all bets are off. Reality and lies are mixed together to produce the effect.

But how do we know whether Derren Brown's doing a magic show, or a serious, skeptical inquiry into an extraordinary phenomenon?

We don't. That's why it's so deceitful. That's why he needs to be called on it when he oversteps his "entertainment" boundary.

Other people who disingenuously use the "entertainment" disclaimer are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Besides the fact that their material is strictly political, what's the difference?

Montag451 · 12th December 2011, 05:44 PM

Quote:

And in doing so, those people would be placing themselves in an actionable position with the lawyers of Derren Brown and Objective Productions. They could be sued for an enormous sum, considering lost licensing revenues and punitive damages. I'm guessing you missed the entire discussion of the legalities of intellectual property and non-disclosure agreements and so forth.

What would such a person stand to gain by assuming that much risk just to trash Derren Brown's career? Then there's always the possibility of Derren and Objective Productions defusing the whole threat by covering it up, or simply calling them a liar.

Does seem to in confrontation with the next paragraph

Quote:

Several prominent magicians have been accused and even proven to use stooges in their performances, but what careers have ever been ruined by those allegations? The evidence just doesn't bear out the "career ender" claim.

I am sorry but I just do not accept that on one hand it is far too dangerous for DBs 'stooges' to come out of the top hat as it were, but other magicians can be outed by their own.

You do seem to want to have your cake and eat it.

Here is a simple question... what would you consider unequivocal proof that he uses stooges? I would except audio recordings in the vein of PP, video, credible multiple eyewitnesses, document etc. Are you confident that just because somebody on the Interwebz said it 'because their best mates bruvver, had a dog that one belonged to an extra on Eastenders new sumwun oo said it was true coz they new it' is an acceptable level of proof.

If so can I sell you some magnetised water that cures everything. I am sure I saw it on the web somewhere.

Azrael 5 · 13th December 2011, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by John Albert

blah blah blah

Posts #796 and #805. I will continue the reminders until you can offer an explanation. Or maybe youve been hypnotized into forgetting you wrote them

JFrankA · 13th December 2011, 02:43 AM

Okay, let me approach this another way. Instead of going line-by-line, which, quite honestly, is too time consuming and too confusing. I think we are both meddling things up here.

And frankly, I'm sick of you guys putting words in my mouth: Let me say this clearly: There is no magic, the people aren't reacting to "magic words", and these psychological tricks are not something that can cause people to do something against their will.

Sheesh.

Derren Brown doesn't have special abilities. Derren Brown is a magician. People who watch his shows and get information only by his show and not bothering to dig deeper are asking to believe in woo.

Because his shows are stage performances. By being a magician he will mix truth and semi-truth and lies to give the audience an effect that will "wow" them.

That is his job. That is what the audience pays for.

Now once the show is over, and he does something like, write a book or do an interview, then he is being himself and the show isn't going on.

That's the difference between him and people like Beck, (I can't believe you compared the two. Beck vs Brown? Really? Anyway...) or Edwards, etc. Again: Once the lights are off and the show is over, the performance stops. A good magician stops. A con artist continues. That's the difference and it's a major one.

Second, a magic show is the prime place for psychological tricks that is attributed to hypnosis and NLP to work. The magician is in complete control of the environment, a good magician can change from one venue to another and still remain in control of the environment.

So whatever psychological tricks that are applied usually work very strongly because conditions are right for it. Further, people are in a frame of mind to be "wow-ed" so it makes it easier. There's a trust there that surpasses any and all conscious decisions. A good magician plays on that trust.

Also, you're wrong. People are that malleable (and thank you for that word. Honestly, it's exactly the word I was looking for but couldn't come up with.)

And I'm sorry, you yourself MUST believe people are that malleable otherwise you wouldn't be so upset that Derren Brown has a show that might get people who watch it to think that woo is real. If you really believed that people are not that malleable, then why does this show upset you so much?

But back to the point: people ARE THAT malleable but, and this is important, a person's malleability is dependent upon the conditions that are going on. This can include a person's state-of-mind (confused, happy, etc), the place they are in (an auditorium, with friends, etc), recent experiences, expectations of what is to follow, etc.

All this is controlled in a stage performance. And people do not react to these psychological tricks on a conscious level. There's a heightened emotional factor going on that sparks their subconscious, for lack of a better word. In other words, they don't know why they acted the way they did, they just did.

Not every decision a human being makes is a conscious one.

How "powerful" is this? Not very. I've said it's a parlor trick. But at the right time, right conditions, right tricks, yes, one will give their wallet to a stranger, or collapse at the word "sleep" or bark like a dog. The idea is to get the subject to trick themselves.

In fact, we do this to ourselves it all the time. And yes, you're right. Focus is a very big part of this. Focus is key. The idea of the "dangling watch" or the verbal imagery IS focus. The trick is getting the person to focus so much that they lose touch with what is going around them. That's a major factor going on here. Focus causes the person to ignore consequences, ups the trust, etc. That is what is attributed to hypnosis is focus. There are other factors too, such as trust. But once you have mixed trust with focus, you get suggestibility.

And in a stage performance setting, where an audience is willing to trust and the focus is on the performer, half the battle is already done. And there are other small psychological parlor tricks that can be done to enhance this trust and focus, but again the key thing you guys are missing is this:

It is a show. People are malleable. More so in a show setting.

And, to go back to DB's intro:

Quote:

"Good evening, and welcome to tonight's experiment, which asks: is it possible to program somebody to kill, and without them realizing it.

"Conspiracy theorists claim that the CIA hypnotized unsuspecting candidates to carry out assassinations in the '50s and '60s, most notably that of Senator Robert Kennedy. Tonight we'll find out if that's even possible, or just the stuff of movie fiction. During tonight's experiment, I'll be testing to see whether such unlikely-sounding claims are actually possible."
<snipped the historical reference to Sirhan Sirhan and RFK assassination, presented in documentary format with "expert" commentary by a conspiracy theorist>
"So I'm about to give a demonstration of hypnosis to an audience of people who've applied to take part in my show. I haven't prepared these people in any way. I'm about to show you from scratch, how it is that I can create a hypnotic state.

"But what they don't know, is that I'm on the lookout for a perfect candidate that I can program to carry out the assassination of a well-known figure at a public event.

"Now nothing like this has ever been done before, unless the claims of the conspiracy theorists are true."

Tell me where do the words "against their will" appear?

As far as I can tell, no one has said "against their will" except for John and Checkmite. And those are the ones who are wrongfully claiming others have said it.

Stop it.

Second, at the end of the show, it is extremely important that the assassin doesn't know what he fired at. That, to me, is a big hint as to what is going on. I personally, don't think that Steven Fry and the assassin were in the same room at the same time. I think the television audience is fooled, maybe by editing, maybe something more elaborate, I'm not sure.

But what I think it could be is (and here's the dual reality folks) that the assassin and the audience thinks he fired at no one. However, once the meeting with Fry and Brown, and the assassin was told that he fired at Fry, that's when he believed that he did. This is what the television audience sees. However, the audience in the actual theater saw something else.

There are other possibilities, of course, I could be very wrong. But the important factors in this are a) the assassin honestly didn't know what he was shooting at and b) Derren Brown is a master at creating dual reality tricks.

The assassin may have been a stooge, but honestly, I don't think he was because there are so many ways that this could be done, that a stooge would be unnecessary.

The bottom line is this: people are that malleable given the right conditions. A magic show setting is the perfect condition for this. And, as I pointed out, if you really, truly believed people are NOT that malleable then why the hell are you so upset at DB's show? If people are not that malleable then something simple like a show like DB will not make them think woo is real. They'll know it's a show.

My argument is simply this: these psychological tricks do work, given the right conditions. The people who sell NLP are taking these tricks and giving them more "power" than they have. DB (and other magicians) uses the psychological tricks but not NLP.

Hypnosis is real to the point that it is trust, focus and suggestibility. All of which we do everyday to ourselves. A stage hypnotist can help a person who trusts her/him enough to reach that state of focus, with the use of psychological tricks. Of course, this can only work with trust. (READ: willingness). So a lot of times the subject doesn't know why they reacted to a command, they just did, and that's something we all do that everyday as well.

Finally, for the love of Mighty Zarquon, please stop comparing DB to Uri, or Edwards, or Beck.

Brown drops his act at the end of the show. The others don't. Big, major difference.

...okay, I'm done. My apologies if this ends up being tl;dr.

Azrael 5 · 13th December 2011, 09:12 AM

JFrankA it seem sour dear friend JohNAlbert is ignoring me however I have found a piece in Assasin that you may wish to repeat,it's relevant to his "playing along" claims.Considering he claims to have seen the show"Many times" im suprised he didnt see this bit.

Dr Stuart Derbyshire Director of Pain Imaging at Birmingham University:
"Hypnosis can be used as a very powerful analgesic,if we tell a person the water is warm or there arm is anesthesied(sp?) they put in the ice water and don't feel the pain"
Derren"Importantly you couldnt do this by sort of playing along"
Dr Stuart"It would be pretty tough to do that yes"

Oh and pop in a mention of #796 and #805

Checkmite · 13th December 2011, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Tell me where do the words "against their will" appear?

As far as I can tell, no one has said "against their will" except for John and Checkmite. And those are the ones who are wrongfully claiming others have said it.

Stop it.

Don't be silly. The fact that the "subject" is not willing to kill somebody is very obviously implicit in the fact that "hypnosis" or some other kind of manipulation is required in order to get them to do it.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Second, at the end of the show, it is extremely important that the assassin doesn't know what he fired at. That, to me, is a big hint as to what is going on. I personally, don't think that Steven Fry and the assassin were in the same room at the same time. I think the television audience is fooled, maybe by editing, maybe something more elaborate, I'm not sure.

But what I think it could be is (and here's the dual reality folks) that the assassin and the audience thinks he fired at no one. However, once the meeting with Fry and Brown, and the assassin was told that he fired at Fry, that's when he believed that he did. This is what the television audience sees. However, the audience in the actual theater saw something else.

There are other possibilities, of course, I could be very wrong. But the important factors in this are a) the assassin honestly didn't know what he was shooting at and b) Derren Brown is a master at creating dual reality tricks.

The assassin may have been a stooge, but honestly, I don't think he was because there are so many ways that this could be done, that a stooge would be unnecessary.

The bottom line is this: people are that malleable given the right conditions. A magic show setting is the perfect condition for this. And, as I pointed out, if you really, truly believed people are NOT that malleable then why the hell are you so upset at DB's show? If people are not that malleable then something simple like a show like DB will not make them think woo is real. They'll know it's a show.

My argument is simply this: these psychological tricks do work, given the right conditions. The people who sell NLP are taking these tricks and giving them more "power" than they have. DB (and other magicians) uses the psychological tricks but not NLP.

Hypnosis is real to the point that it is trust, focus and suggestibility. All of which we do everyday to ourselves. A stage hypnotist can help a person who trusts her/him enough to reach that state of focus, with the use of psychological tricks. Of course, this can only work with trust. (READ: willingness). So a lot of times the subject doesn't know why they reacted to a command, they just did, and that's something we all do that everyday as well.

All right, listen. If I say to you, "I want to take some video of you shooting a gun into this (offscreen) barrel" and you say "okay" and do it, and without your knowledge I take that video that splice it with footage I took at a different time of a person acting like they've been shot in such a way that when viewed as a continuous whole it looks as if you shot the actor, I have not hypnotized anyone into doing anything. I haven't hypnotized you into assassinating someone, I haven't hypnotized you even into shooting the gun into the barrel. I haven't used any "psychological tricks" on anyone, even those to whom I play the video if they believe the sequence of events as portrayed in it. And if I show you the spliced footage later and claimed you shot this person and I just "fooled you" into thinking you were shooting a gun into a barrel, and I consistently argue for the truth of that erroneous event to the point that you began to question your own recollection, I haven't hypnotized you into believing you did something you didn't do. There was no hypnosis involved in that scenario at all whatsoever, either of the original kind or of this new equivocal redefined kind that you've proposed. So when we take Brown's statements at the beginning of the show, we can analyze them as follows:

Quote:

"Conspiracy theorists claim that the CIA hypnotized unsuspecting candidates to carry out assassinations in the '50s and '60s, most notably that of Senator Robert Kennedy. Tonight we'll find out if that's even possible, or just the stuff of movie fiction. During tonight's experiment, I'll be testing to see whether such unlikely-sounding claims are actually possible." FALSE

<snipped the historical reference to Sirhan Sirhan and RFK assassination, presented in documentary format with "expert" commentary by a conspiracy theorist>
"So I'm about to give a demonstration of hypnosis to an audience of people who've applied to take part in my show. I haven't prepared these people in any way. I'm about to show you from scratch, how it is that I can create a hypnotic state. FALSE

"But what they don't know, is that I'm on the lookout for a perfect candidate that I can program to carry out the assassination of a well-known figure at a public event. FALSE

Using edited video to make it look like I've accomplished something isn't artful or particularly creative or clever or new or innovative. It's stock Hollywood. It's simple lying: saying something false convincingly enough that people who don't know any better will believe it. It isn't a psychological "trick" or "skill" or "technique", it requires no understanding of psychology, nor do demonstrations of it in action lead to any new understanding; there are no special "states" or "levels of inherent or enhanced suggestiveness" necessary to accomplish it - in fact, "suggestion" isn't even involved.

Essentially the answer to the questions posed at the beginning of the show are "no it's not possible"; Derren Brown's claims that he will in fact demonstrate hypnosis are simple lies; and the show is stitched together to argue for the opposite of both of those facts, contrary to Azrael's insistence that he leaves it "open to interpretation".

JFrankA · 13th December 2011, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Don't be silly. The fact that the "subject" is not willing to kill somebody is very obviously implicit in the fact that "hypnosis" or some other kind of manipulation is required in order to get them to do it.

But the subject IS WILLING TO FIRE A GUN. The point is that the subject THINKS he's pulling the trigger on something other than a person. He is being fooled as well as the audience, as well as YOU!

And I am not even going to comment on the rest of what you wrote, because it's very clear you didn't get the point of the rest of what I wrote.

Please re-read it again. And start with noticing that I never ever ever said that anyone was under hypnosis, or in a hypnotic trance or doing something that weren't willing to do, or that DB has proven that hypnosis is powerful.

Also take note that it is a SHOW! Merely meant for entertainment based on the fact that he's a magician. Nothing more.

Sheesh!

Checkmite · 13th December 2011, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

But the subject IS WILLING TO FIRE A GUN. The point is that the subject THINKS he's pulling the trigger on something other than a person. He is being fooled as well as the audience, as well as YOU!

Except that he isn't. In the scenario you proposed, he quite correctly is aware that he is not shooting at a person, and so is the audience around him; only the television audience is "fooled" because of the post-production editing.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

And I am not even going to comment on the rest of what you wrote, because it's very clear you didn't get the point of the rest of what I wrote.

Please re-read it again. And start with noticing that I never ever ever said that anyone was under hypnosis, or in a hypnotic trance or doing something that weren't willing to do, or that DB has proven that hypnosis is powerful.

If it is your stance that Brown is not using hypnosis, your arguing over whether or not he's hypnotizing people to do things "against their will" makes no sense.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Also take note that it is a SHOW! Merely meant for entertainment based on the fact that he's a magician. Nothing more.

Sheesh!

This objection has been dealt with already.

JFrankA · 13th December 2011, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Except that he isn't. In the scenario you proposed, he quite correctly is aware that he is not shooting at a person, and so is the audience around him; only the television audience is "fooled" because of the post-production editing.

Could be post production, could be something more clever. Anyways, the point I'm making is that the shooter didn't think he was shooting at a human. That is important because in his mind, whether Steven Fry was really there or not, there was no human there.

So it either means that DB really did "hypnotize" him, or DB fooled him, or we were fooled or there was a camera trick, etc, etc, etc.

I tend to think that there is some kind of dual reality going on. That maybe the audience in the studio is seeing one thing and the audience at home is seeing another.

And that can be done without the use of a stooge or a camera trick. Honestly, I don't have a full answer. I have my impression.

Just because I don't know how it was specifically done doesn't mean "camera trick" or "stooge" or "hypnosis".

You're a skeptic, why don't you think this way?

Quote:

If it is your stance that Brown is not using hypnosis, your arguing over whether or not he's hypnotizing people to do things "against their will" makes no sense.

It's because YOU ARE THE ONE BRING UP THE WHOLE SUBJECT. YOU are one of the only two people using the phrase "against their will" and the other person is John.

You and John are the people insisting that I am saying that he is "hypnotizing people" when all I've been saying is that he's been doing some psychological tricks, tricks that are not that possible, and fooling the shooter, the stage audience and the at home audience with different kinds of magician's secret.

DB is a lot more meticulous in his performances. Often he has a few pieces of deception and distraction running to pull off his tricks.

And although I am arguing that some psychological trick do work to fool a person, (again: to a point and under very certain conditions), they are not powerful enough to make someone do something "against their will".

Quote:

This objection has been dealt with already.

No it hasn't. Not by a long shot. Again, I say if someone falls for his shows, without looking at who he and what he pushes after the show is over, is begging to believe woo.

So again, I put this question to you: if you think that people are not as malleable as the psychological tricks to be fooled into, for example, giving their wallets, then why the hell do you feel that people will fall for a television show presented by a magician known for the fact that he is very very good at fooling his audience?

Azrael 5 · 13th December 2011, 04:34 PM

Theres no reasoning with Checkmite. I notice my last post was completely ignored.Maybe CM or JA can explain how the persons were able to withstand ice baths and opinions on what Univeristy experts said.

Checkmite · 13th December 2011, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Could be post production, could be something more clever. Anyways, the point I'm making is that the shooter didn't think he was shooting at a human. That is important because in his mind, whether Steven Fry was really there or not, there was no human there.

So it either means that DB really did "hypnotize" him, or DB fooled him, or we were fooled or there was a camera trick, etc, etc, etc.

I tend to think that there is some kind of dual reality going on. That maybe the audience in the studio is seeing one thing and the audience at home is seeing another.

And that can be done without the use of a stooge or a camera trick. Honestly, I don't have a full answer. I have my impression.

Just because I don't know how it was specifically done doesn't mean "camera trick" or "stooge" or "hypnosis".

You're a skeptic, why don't you think this way?

It's called resorting to Occam's Razor and/or defaulting to the null hypothesis in the absence of
a definite answer.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

It's because YOU ARE THE ONE BRING UP THE WHOLE SUBJECT. YOU are one of the only two people using the phrase "against their will" and the other person is John.

Hypnotizing someone into doing something like assassinating a person, as I've already said, means making them do something they're not willing to do. You're niggling this issue over semantics, claiming that if the person was willing to fire a gun (not at a person though), then that counts as it not being against the person's will. But of course that's nonsensical: Brown did not declare that he was going to hypnotize someone into simply firing a gun, he declared he was going to hypnotize someone into assassinating a person. Whether Brown used the exact phrase "against his will" or not, he stated pretty explicitly that he intended to hypnotize someone without their knowledge. Leaving aside the fact that it's impossible - if it were, the person would be an unwilling subject by definition.

But even choosing to argue over that particular phrase is a tangent. I don't believe Brown or anyone else is capable of actually "hypnotizing" someone into a suggestive state whether he claims to be doing so against their will or not.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

You and John are the people insisting that I am saying that he is "hypnotizing people" when all I've been saying is that he's been doing some psychological tricks, tricks that are not that possible, and fooling the shooter, the stage audience and the at home audience with different kinds of magician's secret.

You've also been arguing that hypnosis is real - whether independently from the Brown show discussion or not. I'm not convinced by your arguments in that tangent because it looks like rather than discussing the original, long-standing conception of hypnosis, you're taking nebulous but more plausible-sounding notions and repackaging them as "what hypnosis really is".

Originally Posted by JFrankA

No it hasn't. Not by a long shot. Again, I say if someone falls for his shows, without looking at who he and what he pushes after the show is over, is begging to believe woo.

So again, I put this question to you: if you think that people are not as malleable as the psychological tricks to be fooled into, for example, giving their wallets, then why the hell do you feel that people will fall for a television show presented by a magician known for the fact that he is very very good at fooling his audience?

This is a double-edged sword, my friend. If you think people are as malleable as they need to be in order for people to be "fooled" by Brown's "tricks", why aren't you bothered by the fact that he feels it's okay for him to "fool" a few malleable individuals into thinking they've been hypnotized into doing things like killing people without knowing it, for the sake of others' "entertainment" - and furthermore, why are you so averse to or unconcerned about the possibility that people who are malleable enough to fall for it will continue to believe it long after the show is over, perhaps to their own detriment?

Checkmite · 13th December 2011, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Theres no reasoning with Checkmite. I notice my last post was completely ignored.Maybe CM or JA can explain how the persons were able to withstand ice baths and opinions on what Univeristy experts said.

What the University expert said had nothing to do with what Brown claimed he was doing. Whether it's "very difficult" to pretend to be hypnotized into thinking an ice water bath is not cold is irrelevant; it is in fact extremely easy to pretend to "fire a gun at someone without consciously knowing you're doing it". It was a soundbite Brown included to make the television viewing audience think that it's difficult to pretend to be hypnotized, period - which, as I've said, is blatantly false.

John Albert · 13th December 2011, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Okay, let me approach this another way. Instead of going line-by-line, which, quite honestly, is too time consuming and too confusing. I think we are both meddling things up here.

Looks to me like a pretense to completely evade nearly all the points I put so much time and effort considering, composing, and writing down in my last post, and instead spinning the discussion off in a direction you'd prefer to take. Nice little piece of "misdirection" there, Mr. "Magician." So much for all the bluster about being honest in one's dealings offstage.

Quote:

Tell me where do the words "against their will" appear?

As far as I can tell, no one has said "against their will" except for John and Checkmite. And those are the ones who are wrongfully claiming others have said it.

Wow, JFrankA. You're really hung up on semantics, aren't you? Your entire strategy seems to be identifying certain terms (like "powers" or "against their will"), and then vehemently objecting without looking past the turn of phrase to even consider the actual idea that is being discussed. I certainly appreciate the importance of precision in language, but come on, man. That's pretty damn nitpicky.

Then on top of that, you've totally misrepresented most of the things I've said, and taken them completely out of context. Did you even bother to read, or are you just skimming the text for terminology to object to?

Quote:

Anyways, the point I'm making is that the shooter didn't think he was shooting at a human. That is important because in his mind, whether Steven Fry was really there or not, there was no human there.

And that's another strawman. Nobody ever argued that the shooter thought he was shooting at a live person.

What I said is that Derren Brown deliberately structured the entire show to make it appear as if hypnosis "programmed" the guy to shoot at Stephen Fry, while at the same time thinking he was at a firing range shooting at a target. In other words, the show dishonestly stages a fake "experiment" to ostensibly prove that Sirhan Sirhan's preposterous conspiracy theory is not only possible, but credible.

That is dishonest on Derren Brown's part, and it flies in the face of your pleadings that he's honest when talking about hypnosis. Derren Brown blatantly misrepresented hypnosis as the ability to "program" a subject to do something against the subject's will. This is not the only time he's made these kinds of extraordinary claims about what his hypnosis can do. He does it all the time.

That was my point all along, but you twisted the whole thing up into a tangential bicker-fest over a single phrase "against his will" instead of addressing the actual substance of what I said.

Checkmite and I have been saying all along that hypnosis cannot make someone act against their own will. You are the one who introcuced that claim yourself (in so many words), after I told you the "hypnotized" subjects were really just acting of their own free will:

Originally Posted by JFrankA

The people are not acting. Acting means that they are consciously and with full knowledge doing what they are told to do to be in on act. And although these people genuinely believe what is happening to them IS happening to them, they are not acting.

That is wrong. People are just as capable of making conscious decisions while "under hypnosis." The state of hypnosis is not inherently confusing. People do not hallucinate situations proposed by the hypnotist, or otherwise uncontrollably comply without conscious thought. Your above statement is a misrepresentation of what hypnosis is.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Acting is consciously choosing to play along. The person acting knows what they are doing and consciously choosing to do it, willing to stop at any time and say, "I'm playing along. Ha ha."

What acting isn't is when the person does what s/he is doing without a conscious decision on it. Look at the woman with the clasped hands at the start of the first experiment show. She isn't acting,

That is NOT acting.

Again, you are stating that these people are not acting of their own free will, that instead they are unable to make a conscious decision to do anything outside what the hypnotist tells them. That is false. Hypnosis cannot do that. You are also implying that people in a state of hypnosis cannot quit the state of hypnosis of their own free will, which is also false.

The girl you are referring to in the video merely pretended not to be able to separate her hands. She was not subconsciously tricked into thinking she was unable to pull her hands apart. She was indeed "acting," "role playing," "going along with the show," or however you choose to say it. As for her motives, we can only speculate. But the fact that she applied to be on Derren's show (as he clearly states in his introduction) suggests some rather obvious possibilities.

The fact of the matter is, if she'd refused to play along like a good little stooge, then they simply would have edited her out of the footage and we wouldn't even be discussing her right now.

Anyway, so after all that arguing wherein you tried to convince us that hypnosis was capable of rendering a person unable to make a conscious decision on their own, you waffled and denied it when I put it into the familiar terms, "hypnosis cannot make somebody act against their will."

Even though what you alleged was essentially the same thing, you expressed outrage at that particular phraseology, calling it a "strawman":

Originally Posted by JFrankA

The straw man I was referring to, that you completely ignored, is the claim that I said that hypnosis can make someone doing something against their will. I never claimed that. Neither has DB. In fact, no one has. That's the straw man.

See?

You also stated numerous times that Derren Brown is entirely truthful about hypnosis and its effects on the ~~stooges~~ er, I mean, "members from the hand-picked audience supplied to him by the talent agency":

Originally Posted by JFrankA

in fact, Derren tells, quite accurately and truthfully what is going on.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Because in "The Experiments" he is actually giving you the secret of what he is doing. He actually tells you why he doing what he is doing while hypnotizing the audience.

You claimed Derren Brown's telling it all "accurately and truthfully" and "giving [us] the secret of what he is doing." You said he never claimed hypnosis can make somebody do anything against their will, yet that's the entire theme of the TV episode we've been discussing all along!

Derren Brown is purporting to take a mild-mannered, nonviolent person from the audience and "program" him through the use of hypnosis into becoming a cold-blooded killer who attempts to assassinate a well-known figure at a public event.

The whole point of this thread is that Derren Brown has presented a TV show wherein he purports to prove that he can hypnotize somebody into being an assassin against their will. This thread is about how bogus that claim is, and how dishonest Derren Brown is for presenting such nonsense as a proven possibility.

The entire program is presented in terms of an "experiment," a scientific method of inquiry whereby real-world materials and phenomena are objectively tested in a controlled way, to determine an empirical conclusion.

Now I'm going to go ahead and re-post his introduction yet again. There's a good reason why I took the time and bother to transcribe it verbatim, and you totally ignored my point in favor of whinging about some irrelevant semantic diversion.

I want you to read it carefully:

Quote:

"Good evening, and welcome to tonight's experiment, which asks: is it possible to program somebody to kill, and without them realizing it.

"Conspiracy theorists claim that the CIA hypnotized unsuspecting candidates to carry out assassinations in the '50s and '60s, most notably that of Senator Robert Kennedy. Tonight we'll find out if that's even possible, or just the stuff of movie fiction. During tonight's experiment, I'll be testing to see whether such unlikely-sounding claims are actually possible."

<snipped the historical reference to Sirhan Sirhan and RFK assassination, presented in documentary format with "expert" commentary by a conspiracy theorist>
"So I'm about to give a demonstration of hypnosis to an audience of people who've applied to take part in my show. I haven't prepared these people in any way. I'm about to show you from scratch, how it is that I can create a hypnotic state.

"But what they don't know, is that I'm on the lookout for a perfect candidate that I can program to carry out the assassination of a well-known figure at a public event.

"Now nothing like this has ever been done before, unless the claims of the conspiracy theorists are true."

So, in this introduction, what he's proposing to do is perform an experiment to prove an hypothesis. You understand what that means, yes? He's purporting to examine evidence in an objective fashion. His hypothesis is that hypnosis can be used to "program somebody to kill, and without them realizing it."

So that's the setup, but then throughout the whole show he proceeds to use ~~stooges~~ pre-screened audience members selected through an agency, stock stage hypnotist gags, hackneyed Vaudeville-era stunts, and misleading TV editing to dishonestly prove something that is not only false, but completely impossible.

The control he boasts to have over his subjects is BS, and he makes these extraordinary claims in his books as well as on TV. Hypnosis can't do anything of the sort. It is nothing more than a state of concentration wherein a person focuses their attention. People might be a little more susceptible to suggestion while "hypnotized," but that "snap my fingers" rapid induction BS is not even hypnosis.

"Rapid induction" is just a parlor trick whereby the "hypnotist" surprises and momentarily confuses a person, uses that split-second of disorientation to gain the upper hand on them physically for about half a second, just long enough to spin them round and lay them on the floor. People are not "put to sleep" by rapid-induction hypnosis (unless maybe they have really high blood pressure or are otherwise prone to fainting from being suddenly shoved to the floor, but that could be dangerous). When you see that trick performed on a stage, and the "subject" just lies there afterward as if asleep, they're just play-acting. It's a fake trick that requires a docile, compliant subject to pull off. A magician performing it on a stage is one thing, but try walking up to a stranger in a bar and pulling something like that, and you're likely to get your ass kicked.

The "ice bath" is an old, old trick from the 19th Century at least. I imagine Houdini probably did it at least once.

If you really think it's so impressive, consider the fact that before they first started, the thermometer (who knows how accurate it was, BTW) read that the water was 4.5°C. That's about 40°F. That's cold, no denying it. But it's not dangerously cold, nor even painfully intolerable for just a few minutes. It's only a few degrees colder than the inside of your refrigerator. I've been outside in a t-shirt in weather like that. The thermometer probe might even have been placed down at the bottom of the tank, where the water is the coldest.

Also, ask yourself, what's the thermal density of the heavy glass tank the water is sitting in, and do you think that tank was pre-chilled before adding the water? Gee, I wonder...

If it wasn't, then it's going to transfer some of its warmth to the water over time. Also, water that cold in a poorly insulated, oblong container with that much surface area is going to be losing a few degrees a minute just from exposure to the air, assuming the studio is maintained at a comfortable room temperature.

Then you've also got the guys repeatedly sticking their arms in there. That's also going to warm the water up a little.

There's very little ice on top, so you know that water's not going to stay cold for very long. Think about the last time you went to grab a beer out of a picnic cooler on a hot day, and there was only a thin, loose layer of melting ice on top. You didn't recoil your arm in agony after grabbing that beer, did you?

Finally, consider the shock of diving into a cool pool on a hot day. After you've been in there awhile though, it doesn't seem so bad, does it? What happens if you get out of the pool for a few minutes, and then get back in? Does it feel just as cold getting into the pool the second time, as it did the first?

"But, Derren gave them a suggestion, then touched the edge of the tank and suddenly the guys said the water felt warm!"

Hmmm... what possible explanation can there be for why people knowingly performing stunts for a TV magic act might say a thing like that...?

Quote:

Could be post production, could be something more clever.

Watch the video again, and pay attention to the edits. The two men were never even shown in the same room together. There's no reason to suspect anything "more clever" than TV editing trickery. Derren Brown had used lame tricks like this before on his TV shows. It's par for the course for him these days.

If you want to "suspend disbelief' for entertainment purposes that's one thing, but don't mistake that for critical thinking.

Of all the stuff in my last post that you totally ignored, this is the most important part and I still want to hear your considered reply to it:

Originally Posted by John Albert

Originally Posted by JFrankA

But again, that's his shtick. It's just for show. If people are going to take his show (or any show on television) like this as red without any research, I'm sorry, it's my humble opinion that they are looking to believe.

Perhaps. But some people also implicitly trust Derren Brown, hang on his every word, and don't believe he'd ever lie about anything. Take a quick look back through this thread for significant evidence of that.

Then, he talks out of both sides of his mouth:

He pretends to use NLP techniques, then makes fun of the NLPers for recognizing the techniques for exactly what they are.

He claims to use nothing but tricks, misdirection, and psychology, then blatantly misrepresents "psychology" in the terms of some pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

He puts on a show where he plays the skeptic, debunking various forms of woo, then he puts on other shows wherein he pretends to prove other kinds of woo are real, by the use of disingenuous explanations, amateur actors and TV editing trickery.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

What can I say, he's being honest there. Misleading? Yes. But that's part of the dual reality. He's telling just enough to make the trick work and be interesting. How would you say something better? I know I couldn't come up with something that walks the line so nicely.

The "dual reality" is, the audience never know whether they're watching Derren Brown the skeptic, or Derren Brown the trickster. That's the "dual reality" this thread is about.

That's the "dual reality" he deserves to be called out on, because there really is no "dual reality." There is in fact really only one reality, and misrepresenting reality in the mixed-up that way Derren Brown does is (as Checkmite said) a disservice to the public.

10th December 2011, 06:26 PM	#801
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	Originally Posted by banquetbear ...dude: anyone thats read the thread will know that you have not backed anything up. You cited Corinda, someone else provided the actual cite. You've claimed "tens of thousands of people of people using Derren Brown as an example of the "amazing powers of NLP" then cited a google search result that showed the opposite. The Google search did not show the opposite. If you'd actually looked through those results, you'd have seen that an overwhelming number were people discussing Derren Brown's work in NLP terms, people talking about how he uses NLP techniques, and people using his shows to sell their own NLP books and seminars. You simply claimed that all the results you saw showed the opposite, because you could. Even if I did go to all the trouble of posting a hundred examples of people who believed Derren Brown exploits arcane tricks of psychology to extraordinary effect, you'd simply dismiss it under some other pretense. Originally Posted by banquetbear You claim that Brown probably uses stooges: your evidence is a single (now deleted) IMDB entry, the fact that other Mentalists (not Brown) claim to use stooges, and your own personal gut feelings. Thats it. I've said it before, I really don't care if he uses stooges. My enjoyment of a performance is not necessarily contingent upon some purism of the magician's art. I consider stooges part of the game, because whether you (or he) want to admit it, it really is. Honestly. Your production company invites people to be on TV, chooses the participants through a careful screening process, sets up the expectation (spoken or not) that they're supposed to behave a certain way and do everything you ask them to do: that's a stooge. If you really think the things Derren Brown is showing you on TV do not require the participants' willingness to act the part, then I'm sorry you're so gullible. Just like Derren refuses to call his fake hypnosis "NLP," he might not consider them stooges under his own definition, but let's be honest here. They're stooges. That's all I've been saying. If you look at it rationally, discounting all the BS about hypnosis and suggestion, the whole trick is just convincing people to play along. I said basically that in so many words, and suddenly I've got a whole bunch of people all up in arms, calling me names, insulting my intelligence, and claiming I know nothing of magic. But not a single person offered anything by the way of reasonable alternate explanations. It's weird. I've noticed some amazing bouts of credulity, especially for individuals supposedly so interested in critical thinking. Originally Posted by banquetbear And yet somehow this thread still keeps going and going and going... The original post in this thread expressed concern over the direction that Derren Brown has been taking his performances lately. At first, I figured it was all just hyperbole. Derren Brown is just an entertainer, so why would anyone get all upset about anything he says? But then I watched a few of his shows where he debunks various supernatural woo, and then some of his more recent shows where he blatantly claims to be manipulating peoples' minds through these bogus "techniques" touted by the NLP charlatans. I had no idea he'd actually gone beyond simply mimicking the NLPers' techniques, but actually explaining himself in those terms. That kind of surprised me because I'd always thought the NLP garbage was just sort of an "inside joke" with him or something. Of course, voicing these concerns brought the wrath of the Brownites down on me twice as hard. Now I've got even more people calling me a liar, totally misrepresenting everything I've said. I've got people misquoting me, quoting offhand statements (which I later clarified) totally out of context as proof of something or other, even blatantly putting words into my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I said. Why are some people so irrational about this? I mean maniacally defensive to the point of lividity, ranting complete nonsense over a trivial conversation about a stage magician. Are you guys obsessed or what? Like I said, I don't hate Derren Brown. He seems like a nice, personable guy on the surface, if a little full of himself. Some of his work is absolutely awesome, easily some of the best mentalism I've ever seen. I don't even give a crap if he uses stooges, as long as he hides it well and doesn't do it all the time. For me, it's all about the outward effect. If it's really convincing magic, then I don't even care. Of course I'm not holding out any fantasies about him having psychological superpowers or anything like that, but if he's successful in pulling off the illusion, then the suspension of disbelief will remain. But lately I've been seeing more and more of this total crap where he's obviously and unapologetically playing straight to the woo crowd. He appears to be taking more and more shortcuts, relying more on these staged stunts and less on traditional magic, and making more and more ridiculous claims about psychology with no disclaimer. I really don't like this new direction he's going. The worst part is, he's placing the woo-woo BS explanations ahead of the craft, and it's unconvincing. That whole "acid throwing in the face" thing from the "Assassin" episode was just cringeworthy. Talking out of his ass with the stock NLP "instant induction" explanations, the weak performances of the participants... It's so obviously staged, but even worse, it was just lame. The "Voodoo Doll" trick was also obviously staged, but at least that was kind of somewhat intriguing in a creepy sort of way. This new stuff is just as hard for me to sit through as John Edward, because I can tell it's all crap. Hardcore Derren Brown true-believers might be willingly taken in by this garbage, but I find it laughable. I just wish he would go back to doing straight magic instead of this pseudoscience nonsense. I imagine he might feel he needs to keep topping himself with more and more challenging material, so he does whatever the TV people come up with. But I think he's pushing the "concept" angle way too hard with not enough emphasis on originality, so he's losing his edge.
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain

11th December 2011, 06:34 AM	#802
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	John Albert I notice you sidestepped my previous posts,this quote from a month ago sums up your problem. Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox I think the problem here is lack of knowledge of the man. As I've said many times. Read his blogs or Twitter. The guy is clearly a sceptic and always admits what he does is trickery. He might not do so in the one magic TV show you have chosen to watch. But he will. Somewhere. And he is always extremely careful in his wording. I suggest you rewatch this show and listen to what he's saying. Not what his hands are doing. This was not promoted as a genuine scientific experiment. It was promoted as an entertainment show. snip If you're interested to know more about him, check out his blogs & Twitter. If you're not bothered, stop making claims you can't substantiate. . In a nutshell.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

11th December 2011, 08:03 AM	#803
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	Originally Posted by John Albert In most cases, yes. In cases when a seemingly conscious person says "I can't get out of my chair! I'm stuck!" that person is acting. When guy falls on the floor after Derren grabs his hand and yells, "Sleep!" That guy is acting. When a girl closes her eyes and pretends to choke while Derren winds a rope around a doll, that woman is acting. OK I concede it's not always in play. Sometimes it might be a trick, like PK touch or whatever, but certainly those people in The Experiments: The Assassin were acting. Ah. This is obviously some strange usage of the word "acting" I wasn't previously aware of. The people are not acting. Acting means that they are consciously and with full knowledge doing what they are told to do to be in on act. And although these people genuinely believe what is happening to them IS happening to them, they are not acting. Now, since you concede that hypnosis shows aren't always acting, so what is happening when, in a hypnosis show, a person isn't acting....? Quote: Nice ad hominem there. That's not even an insult! While I enjoy magic, I have no interest in performing magic on stage. What I said was neither meant to be an ad hominem, nor an insult. Merely an observation. It's good you don't pursue stage magic. You would be terrible. Quote: Um, no. What I said is accurate. There's no evidence that anybody can be hypnotized against their will, and substantial proof that they cannot. The Stanford Scale does not measure susceptibility to hypnosis; it purports to measure suggestibility while under hypnosis, but the whole thing is based on pseudoscience anyway. Uhm, no. What you said was double talk with a straw man thrown in. Who said anything about it being "against their will"? There was no "against their will" going on here. None. Hypnosis, the basics of it, is a very real and true and measurable psychological phenomenon that we all humans do everyday, usually to ourselves. To say that hypnosis can do things, like, breasts growing, is pseudoscience, yes. However, like so many pseudosciences out there, there are basics, very tiny little things that do work, that does happen quite often that pseudoscience takes and blows up into "miracle" proportions in order to make a quick buck on people trying to improve their lives. This is true of NLP too. Quote: Wow what a bombastic strawman that one is. You'd better put him down quick, before he makes you look real foolish! Oops, too late... Pot calling kettle black. Besides, that's no straw man, it's true. You obviously don't like Derren Brown because you believe he's selling woo. Where's the straw man? Quote: I already said I read it. You do realize that Tricks of the Mind is not a magic book, in that it does not reveal any methods beyond a few basic, throwaway effects. It's a book targeted at the general public, part autobiography, part skeptical debunking, part elaboration on the woo DB claims to use in his acts. All in all, it's a fan book for people who like his shows and want to read more about the "mystery." I challenge that you didn't read it carefully. Or maybe skipped to the pages you wanted to. Page ten of the book he teaches a coin trick. Then he teaches how to make it better by using a bit of misdirection. Then he teaches you how to make it even better by more direct misdirection. If that isn't a lesson in magic then what is????? Read pages 153 to 174. Twenty-one pages. That's all the instruction you need to do hypnosis. That's it. That's all it is. No other book, no other course, no other techniques, nothing else needed. You have all the info you need to do stage hypnosis to some audience. All you need now is stage experience, (i.e. learning how to handle an audience with no hypnosis involved, how to misdirect, how to have an out, how to improv, etc). Other than that, you have everything you need to know to prove hypnosis because hypnosis is nothing else more than that. That looks like a magic lesson to me. Quote: I never said there weren't. But those people will play along anyway, or else we'll never see them on TV because they'll end up on the cutting-room floor. Another strawman. I never, ever said that. You have said that Derren Brown must use stooges because there's no other explanation. Are you going back on that claim now? Are you saying now that some of the people who are included in the show are not stooges? If not, where's the straw man? What you have been doing throughout this discussion, and others I've had with you about DB, is a complete straw man. Oh, and since you are so fond of disclaimers, The following statements are an observation and a conclusion, not an ad hominem nor an insult. If you choose to take it as such, then that is your fault. You are the type of audience who has no stage magic experience, no idea of techniques and yet states you know how some trick is done, be completely and totally wrong, yet brags about how knowledgeable you are about knowing the "secret to the trick". Evidence? You've been doing that this entire thread. You're whole argument about what hypnosis and NLP really are is a straw man. To use your own analogy, you sir, are holding a nuclear bomb straw man. Quote: Not on The Experiments, he doesn't. Not on The Experiments, he doesn't. He presents it as an "experiment," an honest attempt to learn the truth. You have to go to a computer and browse the website to see the disclaimer. Because in "The Experiments" he is actually giving you the secret of what he is doing. He actually tells you why he doing what he is doing while hypnotizing the audience. Further, even after it happens, he doesn't come out and say "See? This happened here." He presented the show and kept his own findings in question. The whole show keeps you guessing if what is happening is real. Quote: I know. I read it. He basically admits that all it is is imagination and role playing. The hypnotist uses language to set an emotional tone and present suggestions, which they voluntarily act on. How is that fundamentally different from acting? Because it is. Acting is consciously choosing to play along. The person acting knows what they are doing and consciously choosing to do it, willing to stop at any time and say, "I'm playing along. Ha ha." What acting isn't is when the person does what s/he is doing without a conscious decision on it. Look at the woman with the clasped hands at the start of the first experiment show. She isn't acting, in fact, Derren tells, quite accurately and truthfully what is going on. That is NOT acting. Quote: The "subject" makes a decision whether to either play along or not. The better they play along, the more successful is the effect. And sometimes the subject doesn't know s/he made the decision. Sometimes the subject is fooled into making the decision. Do you think that every decision one makes is conscious and that person can list why in detail? They may decide to be there, be open to whatever happens, but that does not mean that they are consciously playing along with the thought of "Ho ho! I'm going to be on the telly if I do this". That's just wrong. This is why I say you don't know the meaning of "instant stooge". In fact, I'm going to add the meaning of the word "acting" to the list of words you don't know. Someone acting and someone following suggestions are two very different psychological things. Quote: I was referring specifically to his TV shows, not what he does on the side. What he does "on the side" matters just as much, if not more than what his shows are. What you are doing is cherry picking. Quote: Yes, he does. He just attributes his to "psychology" instead of the supernatural. ...and "psychology," which he misrepresents in such a way as to make it sound nearly indistinguishable from something supernatural. He does use psychology in his tricks. Every mentalist (and magician) does. But "indistinguishable from something supernatural"? That's a stretch, especially since you cherry pick only the parts that make you seem right, and misuse words such as "acting" and "instant stooge". Quote: Granted, he does not do that. But Uri Geller has stopped doing that also. Derren has NEVER done that. NEVER. John Edwards continues to do that. So stop comparing them. Quote: But he mimics it in his performances, so people see that and hear his explanations that invoke NLP language and claims, and that's almost as good an endorsement as running ads. Cherry picking is fun you get to make a point that is very dull and not well thought out. Once again, every mentalist, every magician uses these same tricks. Further, Derren never, ever, uses the word NLP in his performances. And "almost as good as an endorsement" is not good enough. Not even close to what Geller and Edwards do. You are stretching. Speaking of logical fallicies... Watch out: That straw man nuclear bomb your holding is going to go off in three...two....one...... Quote: Then why are so many people unable to do that? Why do we have guys like LondonJohn and yourself swearing that people can be hypnotized into doing things against their will? KA BOOOOOOOM! Quote: Then you're talking crap. Okay. So, I'm confused. I thought your point is that Derren Brown is exactly like John Edwards and Uri Geller because you think he promotes woo and makes people believe and promotes NLP and hypnosis (the overblown, pseudo-stuff side of it) as real. And since he's doing that, he's making people buy into the woo side of it, spending their money on said woo-side of hypnosis and NLP. Is this your stance or not?
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch Last edited by JFrankA; 11th December 2011 at 08:04 AM.

11th December 2011, 09:33 AM	#804
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	JFrankA Quote: I challenge that you didn't read it carefully. Or maybe skipped to the pages you wanted to. Page ten of the book he teaches a coin trick. Then he teaches how to make it better by using a bit of misdirection. Then he teaches you how to make it even better by more direct misdirection. He wouldnt know as he only "skimmed" the book and read one chapter he thinks supports his argument.But he 's "read" the other books apparently despute claiming he hadnt only two weeks ago Considering he only skimmed ToTM I dont take his claims of reading with much merit.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

11th December 2011, 10:40 AM	#805
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	Originally Posted by John Albert He's a good enough magician that he needn't rely on that kind of garbage. As far as I'm concerned, it's every bit as bad as what John Edward does and what Uri Geller used to do. Originally Posted by John Albert Derren Brown is not a bad skeptic, his stage act just invokes a lot of "woo" concepts, as most good magic acts do to some extent. Doesn't mean he really endorses it in real life. Audiences ought to be responsible enough to know the difference. He's not somebody like John Edward who, even offstage, goes around trying to convince people that he can relay messages to and from their dead relatives. LMAO every post a contradiction John Albert.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown Last edited by Azrael 5; 11th December 2011 at 10:48 AM. Reason: Added quote to qualify

11th December 2011, 12:13 PM	#806
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	Originally Posted by JFrankA Ah. This is obviously some strange usage of the word "acting" I wasn't previously aware of. Well you learn something new every day, if you can be bothered to try. Originally Posted by JFrankA The people are not acting. Acting means that they are consciously and with full knowledge doing what they are told to do to be in on act. And although these people genuinely believe what is happening to them IS happening to them, they are not acting. Is that what you really think? That these stage hypnotism subjects don't know it's an act? That they really think the stuff Derren Brown says is what's really happening to them? Have you ever been under hypnosis? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Derren Brown gives the impression that he can control people with hypnosis, and a lot of people actually believe him, even though it's complete and total BS. Originally Posted by JFrankA Now, since you concede that hypnosis shows aren't always acting, so what is happening when, in a hypnosis show, a person isn't acting....? A trick. A person is fooled by means of a false pretense, like a dual-reality trick for example. Originally Posted by JFrankA What I said was neither meant to be an ad hominem, nor an insult. Merely an observation. It's good you don't pursue stage magic. You would be terrible. You have absolutely no way of knowing that, having never even met me, seen me, or what I can and cannot do. You're trying to belittle me in the view of readers of this thread, but all you're doing is making yourself look immature. A person who is unable to properly judge how their words and actions come off to strangers would make a poor magician indeed. Originally Posted by JFrankA Uhm, no. What you said was double talk with a straw man thrown in. Why don't you explain what you're talking about, instead of just throwing accusations around? Originally Posted by JFrankA Who said anything about it being "against their will"? There was no "against their will" going on here. None. Hypnosis, the basics of it, is a very real and true and measurable psychological phenomenon that we all humans do everyday, usually to ourselves. I'm talking about the "instant induction" techniques. That kind of thing is complete and utter BS. You can't just approach a random stranger on the street and suddenly "hypnotize" them without their own knowledge and willing participation. You cannot suddenly "force" somebody into hypnosis like that. It's a stage act, nothing more. If you really believe that kind of "NLP" nonsense is real, then we have another example right here in this thread, of somebody who's been misled by Derren Brown's misrepresentations of "psychology." Originally Posted by JFrankA To say that hypnosis can do things, like, breasts growing, is pseudoscience, yes. Who ever said anything about hypnosis making breasts grow? I certainly didn't. That's a patently ridiculous example. A claim does not have to be that absurd to be recognizable as pseudoscience. Originally Posted by JFrankA However, like so many pseudosciences out there, there are basics, very tiny little things that do work, that does happen quite often that pseudoscience takes and blows up into "miracle" proportions in order to make a quick buck on people trying to improve their lives. This is true of NLP too. Dunno about the "improve their lives" part, but exploiting the public's misconceptions about hypnosis is exactly what Derren Brown does in his pseudo-explanations of what he's doing when he purports to "hypnotize" people. Hypnosis is nothing more than a willful concentration and relaxation, that allows the subject to willingly let his or her imagination go. It requires some degree of effort on the part of the subject. It is not something that a person can be "snapped" into without any control of one's own, the way stage hypnotists present it. You apparently don't understand that. You certainly appear to be waffling about it. You just said: Originally Posted by JFrankA Who said anything about it being "against their will"? There was no "against their will" going on here. None. And then later on in the same post, you said: Originally Posted by JFrankA [...] the person does what s/he is doing without a conscious decision on it. You appear confused about what hypnosis actually is. I wonder if the pseudoscientific claims of people like Richard Bandler, John Grinder, and Derren Brown might have anything to do with that. The entire premise of Derren Brown's "Assassin experiment" was to prove the notion that people can be hypnotized into doing things against their own will, without any post hoc memory of what they'd done, like Sirhan Sirhan claims happened to him when he shot Bobby Kennedy. Hypnosis cannot do that; that claim is pure pseudoscience. Derren Brown used willing stooges and TV trickery to present the impression of having done exactly that. Derren Brown blatantly promoted pseudoscience beliefs as fact, with no disclaimer. Originally Posted by JFrankA You obviously don't like Derren Brown because you believe he's selling woo. Where's the straw man? You lied, and misrepresented my position in this debate. I never said I "hate" him. I don't dislike him either. I've said many times in this thread that I think he's extremely talented and an excellent performer. I'm just really dismayed by these newer shows of his, where he pitches this total pseudoscience nonsense with very few magic tricks except a bunch of "instant stooges" playing along in dumb, boring roles just because they want to be on TV. Originally Posted by JFrankA I challenge that you didn't read it carefully. Or maybe skipped to the pages you wanted to. Page ten of the book he teaches a coin trick. Then he teaches how to make it better by using a bit of misdirection. Then he teaches you how to make it even better by more direct misdirection. If that isn't a lesson in magic then what is????? You didn't read what I said. He threw in a couple extremely basic tricks here and there to make the audience think they're getting let in on some secrets, but most of the book is self-aggrandizing drivel aimed at fanboys. The tricks he presents are nothing you couldn't get in a "magic for beginners" text written for 12-year-olds. He explains the wording of stage hypnotist patter, presents some rudiments of NLP and then waffles about using it onstage without calling it as such, and generally tells a lot of stories. Calling it a "magic text" is quite a stretch. Originally Posted by JFrankA Read pages 153 to 174. Twenty-one pages. That's all the instruction you need to do hypnosis. That's it. That's all it is. I know, dude. I read it! Originally Posted by JFrankA You have said that Derren Brown must use stooges because there's no other explanation. That's not what I said. I said he probably uses stooges, because they're a known method for certain kinds of effects, and I haven't seen any alternate explanations that make sense to me. I merely consider explanations on a priority basis according to what I know. I have heard absolutely no convincing explanations—apart from stooges—for how certain effects were achievable. "Instant hypnosis," for example, is total bunkum. In some of these acts, like the "Russian Gypsy Scam," what he's presenting is so patently absurd from a common sense viewpoint that the use of stooges (or at least willing participants) is the only reasonable option. We know he's not out there taking actual tourists' wallets and walking away with them. If it's not random strangers on the street whom he's scamming, then what are the alternatives? Stooges, or unwitting "extras" planted on that street by the production company for the express purpose of Derren Brown approaching them to do his trick. Anybody applying for such a TV role is going to have expectations and a different "comfort level" than some random person on the street being approached by a stranger. Originally Posted by JFrankA Are you going back on that claim now? Are you saying now that some of the people who are included in the show are not stooges? If not, where's the straw man? Of course some of the people Derren Brown uses are not stooges. I never said every trick he's ever done requires stooges, only that it's most probable that at least some of them use stooges, or "instant stooges," or willing participants planted into the audience, or what have you. Originally Posted by JFrankA What you have been doing throughout this discussion, and others I've had with you about DB, is a complete straw man. Oh, and since you are so fond of disclaimers, The following statements are an observation and a conclusion, not an ad hominem nor an insult. If you choose to take it as such, then that is your fault. You are the type of audience who has no stage magic experience, no idea of techniques and yet states you know how some trick is done, be completely and totally wrong, yet brags about how knowledgeable you are about knowing the "secret to the trick". Evidence? You've been doing that this entire thread. You're whole argument about what hypnosis and NLP really are is a straw man. To use your own analogy, you sir, are holding a nuclear bomb straw man. You're talking out of your ass. That doesn't even make sense. If you're accusing everything I say of being a strawman, then I accuse YOU of being a strawman yourself! See? I win. So there. Resorting to nonsense is never a good look in a debate. You are so bad at this. Why don't you just give it up? Originally Posted by JFrankA Because in "The Experiments" he is actually giving you the secret of what he is doing. He actually tells you why he doing what he is doing while hypnotizing the audience. Further, even after it happens, he doesn't come out and say "See? This happened here." He presented the show and kept his own findings in question. The whole show keeps you guessing if what is happening is real. No, he's not letting anybody in on any secret. He's using typical stage hypnotist patter and BS pseudo-explanations. Are you alleging that "instant induction" and all that other NLP nonsense is actually real? Originally Posted by JFrankA Acting is consciously choosing to play along. The person acting knows what they are doing and consciously choosing to do it, willing to stop at any time and say, "I'm playing along. Ha ha." Yep, and that's what all those participants are doing. Research has proven that people cannot be hypnotized to do anything against their own will and intent. If you think otherwise, then you're being misled. Originally Posted by JFrankA What acting isn't is when the person does what s/he is doing without a conscious decision on it. Look at the woman with the clasped hands at the start of the first experiment show. She isn't acting, in fact, Derren tells, quite accurately and truthfully what is going on. That is NOT acting. Nonsense. She's chosen to play along because she's a willing participant who wants to be on TV. If she hadn't played along, that scene would have been cut and we would never have seen it. She's a stooge, basically. Originally Posted by JFrankA And sometimes the subject doesn't know s/he made the decision. Sometimes the subject is fooled into making the decision. Playing a trick on somebody is not hypnosis, though of course the pretense of hypnosis can be used to trick somebody. The two situations are not one and the same. Originally Posted by JFrankA Do you think that every decision one makes is conscious and that person can list why in detail? They may decide to be there, be open to whatever happens, but that does not mean that they are consciously playing along with the thought of "Ho ho! I'm going to be on the telly if I do this". That's just wrong. I don't doubt that people become engrossed in the role they're playing, but no, I don't believe for a minute that any one of those people could not just choose to stop and say "forget this. I'm not doing this." if they wanted to. You're being misled if you think otherwise. Have you ever actually been under hypnosis? It's nothing more than a game, like role playing. It only exerts as much control over you as you're willing to give it. Originally Posted by JFrankA This is why I say you don't know the meaning of "instant stooge". In fact, I'm going to add the meaning of the word "acting" to the list of words you don't know. Then why don't you explain precisely where I'm wrong, instead of just making hollow accusations? What ever difference there may be is purely semantic. Originally Posted by JFrankA Someone acting and someone following suggestions are two very different psychological things. Tell that to a "Method" actor. Your own ignorance is showing. Originally Posted by JFrankA What he does "on the side" matters just as much, if not more than what his shows are. What you are doing is cherry picking. OK, then in that sense he's not as bad as what John Edward does or what Uri Geller used to do, unless of course he really did use NLP to ostensibly "help people to stop smoking" as he claimed in his book. If he received any sort of payment for that kind of "therapy," then I classify him likewise. Originally Posted by JFrankA He does use psychology in his tricks. Every mentalist (and magician) does. Every magician worth his salt does, whether he realizes it or not. Originally Posted by JFrankA But "indistinguishable from something supernatural"? That's a stretch... You're being misled by DB's disingenuous pseudo-explanations. He misrepresents what he's doing as some form of mind control, with claims that it's all backed up by real psychology, which is a lie. Most of what he's doing (lately, anyway) is not mind control—it's not done against anyone's will without their active participation—and it's not backed up by science. It's pseudoscience. Originally Posted by JFrankA Cherry picking is fun you get to make a point that is very dull and not well thought out. I think you need to do a little research into the meaning of the phrase, "cherry-picking." Originally Posted by JFrankA Once again, every mentalist, every magician uses these same tricks. Further, Derren never, ever, uses the word NLP in his performances. And "almost as good as an endorsement" is not good enough. Not even close to what Geller and Edwards do. You are stretching. I never said he ever utters the acronym "NLP" in his performances. Of course he doesn't. But he has, on at least two occasions, publicly stated that he uses parts of NLP without calling it as such. If you really believe all that tripe about "instant induction" and "hypnotic suggestion," then you're pretty credulous for a skeptic. Originally Posted by JFrankA I thought your point is that Derren Brown is exactly like John Edwards and Uri Geller because you think he promotes woo and makes people believe and promotes NLP and hypnosis (the overblown, pseudo-stuff side of it) as real. And since he's doing that, he's making people buy into the woo side of it, spending their money on said woo-side of hypnosis and NLP. Is this your stance or not? He's not exactly like them, no. But there is absolutely no doubt that he promotes woo whenever it suits him, and that an awful lot of people seem to believe his woo (even yourself!), yet he never makes an outright disclaimer that doesn't leave him an "out" to claim that psychology is allowing him some elaborate control over other peoples' thoughts and actions. Originally Posted by Azrael He wouldnt know as he only "skimmed" the book and read one chapter he thinks supports his argument.But he 's "read" the other books apparently despute claiming he hadnt only two weeks ago Considering he only skimmed ToTM I dont take his claims of reading with much merit. That's another lie to add to your voluminous collection. I've done more than "skim" the book. When I first came into this discussion, I had only read select chapters of Tricks of the Mind several years prior (specifically, the ones pertaining to "hypnosis," "NLP," and "critical thinking"), but no longer had the book in my possession. Since then, I've reacquired Tricks of the Mind and read nearly every word. In the past month or so, I have also read large portions of Absolute Magic and am currently reading Pure Effect. I'm also reading The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, Fiasco by Stanislaw Lem, and working my way through the Sun Microsystems Press course on Core Java. Oh yeah, and also reading a pulp novel my friend wrote about a zombie attack in Bangkok, Thailand. That one's called Dead Bangkok, and it's a lot of fun. What can I say? I like books. Would you like any more details on my reading habits?
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain Last edited by John Albert; 11th December 2011 at 01:18 PM.

11th December 2011, 12:58 PM	#807
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	Originally Posted by John Albert That's another lie to add to your voluminous collection. I've done more than "skim" the book. When I first came into this discussion, I had only read select chapters of Tricks of the Mind several years prior (specifically, the ones pertaining to "hypnosis," "NLP," and "critical thinking"), but no longer had the book in my possession. Your quotes dude,would you like me to fetch them again? Quote: Other than that, I sort of skimmed through the book and read a few other passages here and there that looked intriguing. It was a few years ago and I fully intended to read the whole thing, but nowadays my interest in Derren Brown isn't all that great. Quote: What can I say? I like books. Do you need any more details on my reading habits? Your reading habits dont stretch to reading my posts where i point out your contradictions. Face it you stopped making sense pages ago.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

11th December 2011, 01:30 PM	#808
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	Originally Posted by Azrael 5 Your quotes dude,would you like me to fetch them again? Why don't you "fetch" the entire quote instead of cherry-picking? Why didn't you link to the actual post, or present it in its full context, where I said the part referenced by the words "Other than that"? Originally Posted by John Albert I only fully read the NLP part, because his take on that was the information I was most interested in learning about Derren Brown at the time. Other than that, I sort of skimmed through the book and read a few other passages here and there that looked intriguing. That post was made over a month ago. Since then, I have made other posts in this thread wherein I stated that I have reread large portions of the Tricks of the Mind and other DB books besides. Of course you completely ignore all that information and cherry-pick a single statement from a month ago and present it totally out of context. You're a dishonest liar, Azrael. I'm finished with you. Go pester somebody else with your sleazy idiocy.
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain Last edited by John Albert; 11th December 2011 at 01:32 PM.

11th December 2011, 01:46 PM	#809
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	Originally Posted by John Albert I've read parts of his books, and a lot of what I read is garbage. You seem to have been taken in by it regardless. Garbage? You obviously havent read anything.As important books for magic as 13 steps were. Taken in by nothing,he's magican that uses a mixture of hypnosis magic techniques and psychology. I notice no reply to my previous posts interestingly.You know the ones where you contradict yourself? Quote: You're a dishonest liar, Azrael. I'm finished with you. Go pester somebody else with your sleazy idiocy. As dishonest as this from first couple of pages? Quote: DerrenBrown has been caught out numerous times using stooges And dishonest as this(paraphrasing but exact quote isnt far away) Quote: I happen to know many mentalists have used stooges in their career Which still is without proof. "Sleazy idiocy?" Oh the irony.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

11th December 2011, 01:59 PM	#810
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,979	Originally Posted by JFrankA Okay. So, I'm confused. I thought your point is that Derren Brown is exactly like John Edwards and Uri Geller because you think he promotes woo and makes people believe and promotes NLP and hypnosis (the overblown, pseudo-stuff side of it) as real. And since he's doing that, he's making people buy into the woo side of it, spending their money on said woo-side of hypnosis and NLP. Is this your stance or not? I can't speak for John Albert, but my stance is that Derren Brown is performing a disservice to the public, because even if his pseudo psychobabble patter is fully intended to be benign, it happens to look and sound like very strong support for ideas that are flimflam, off which scammers and slicksters make a profit, which makes Derren Brown responsible for providing them with at least some demand to supply. Individuals testifying that they personally aren't fooled, or implying that only stupid people would "believe his words", or ignoring repeated visits to this thread from individuals who just know Brown is "really" hypnotizing people, are not sufficient arguments to clear him of this complicity (be it willing or accidental).

11th December 2011, 03:02 PM	#811
banquetbear Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 373	Originally Posted by John Albert The Google search did not show the opposite. ...so you say. Quote: If you'd actually looked through those results, you'd have seen that an overwhelming number were people discussing Derren Brown's work in NLP terms, people talking about how he uses NLP techniques, and people using his shows to sell their own NLP books and seminars. No they didn't. Quote: You simply claimed that all the results you saw showed the opposite, because you could. Well, I did see the opposite, so thats what I said. I didn't do it just because I could. You were so confident with your original assertion: then I saw that you linked to the snarky LMGTFY site, that in turn linked to a google search which showed the opposite of what you claimed. Did you think that people wouldn't check? Quote: Even if I did go to all the trouble of posting a hundred examples of people who believed Derren Brown exploits arcane tricks of psychology to extraordinary effect, you'd simply dismiss it under some other pretense. I didn't make the assertion: you did. I eventually checked out the first two pages of google hits: arguably only one out of twenty links came even close to matching your assertion. You don't seem to have a handle on how this internet debate thing works. You make an assertion: then when challenged on it you provide proof to back it up. If you can't back it up, then you concede. Its been nearly a month since you first posted the tens of thousands of people claim. In that month you haven't cited ONE example to back up your assertion. Not a single one. Yet in the time it took you to type your last post you could have gone to google and posted several links to back up your claim. Maybe instead of complaining about how much trouble it is to link to evidence to back up your assertions, you could simply back up your assertions? I really don't know why you expect other people to do your work for you. Quote: I've said it before, I really don't care if he uses stooges. My enjoyment of a performance is not necessarily contingent upon some purism of the magician's art. I consider stooges part of the game, because whether you (or he) want to admit it, it really is. Honestly. Your production company invites people to be on TV, chooses the participants through a careful screening process, sets up the expectation (spoken or not) that they're supposed to behave a certain way and do everything you ask them to do: that's a stooge. You can redefine stooge to mean whatever you want. However if you are discussing it with other people, you should use the definition that is more commonly understood. What you are describing is not the common understanding of the word stooge. Quote: If you really think the things Derren Brown is showing you on TV do not require the participants' willingness to act the part, then I'm sorry you're so gullible. I'm willing to be convinced. How about some evidence? Yeah, we've seen the IMDB link, we've know about Corinda, and we know what your gut says. So rather than bringing those up again: what evidence do you have you got? Quote: Just like Derren refuses to call his fake hypnosis "NLP," he might not consider them stooges under his own definition, but let's be honest here. They're stooges. He doesn't use NLP and Brown's definition is the same as the one that everyone else in this thread is usings...with the exception of you. Quote: That's all I've been saying. If you look at it rationally, discounting all the BS about hypnosis and suggestion, the whole trick is just convincing people to play along. I said basically that in so many words, and suddenly I've got a whole bunch of people all up in arms, calling me names, insulting my intelligence, and claiming I know nothing of magic. You've contributed a significant amount of the name calling, snide remarks, getting up and arms and insulting peoples intelligence in this thread. You, after all, are responsible for the following post: Quote: Arguing with you feels like I'm picking on the handicapped. It's actually rather depressing. I think you need to stop complaining and admit that people are only giving you back what you dish out. Please don't pretend that you are a shining angel in this thread and that everyone else is just being mean. Quote: But not a single person offered anything by the way of reasonable alternate explanations. It's weird. I've noticed some amazing bouts of credulity, especially for individuals supposedly so interested in critical thinking. I don't have a clue how Brown does any of his tricks. I've made that admission already. You don't have a clue how he does his tricks: you have admitted this. From that: you conclude he probably uses stooges. I don't have a clue how you made that leap from a link to IMDB and a quote from a book. This is not critical thinking. This is why people are frustrated with you: you have come to the "probably uses stooges" conclusion based on literally nothing. Quote: Of course, voicing these concerns brought the wrath of the Brownites down on me twice as hard. Firstly you call us fanatics: now you are labeling people that disagree with you as "Brownites." And you do that after complaining about how mean everyone else is being to you. I am not a Brownite. I am not a Brown fanatic. I simply disagree with you. Labeling the people who hold opposing views to you is a weak debating tactic. Quote: Now I've got even more people calling me a liar, totally misrepresenting everything I've said. I've got people misquoting me, quoting offhand statements (which I later clarified) totally out of context as proof of something or other, even blatantly putting words into my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I said. With all due respect: you have been the rudest person in this thread. You keep changing your story. You state that you can't believe that anyone would think that he doesn't use stooges, and when people confront you on this you say "I never said he always uses stooges!" You twist, you spin, you dance, but you can't hold one position. You misrepresent what other people write constantly. Quote: Why are some people so irrational about this? I mean maniacally defensive to the point of lividity, ranting complete nonsense over a trivial conversation about a stage magician. Are you guys obsessed or what? You can pretend that everyone else is being irrational: and you can complain that everyone else is being defensive: but what you say really applies to you. Why are you so defensive? Why do you have to get the last word in on the thread every single time? We are not being irrational about this. We aren't the ones who are comparing John Edward to Derren Brown. We aren't the ones who insist the results of a google search say one thing when one actually looks at the google search it says the complete opposite. We aren't the ones who can deduce that "he probably uses stooges" based on two extremely weak datapoints. We aren't the ones who insist on responding to each and every post in this thread. That would be you. Unfortunately, unlike you I can't spend my life in this thread, so I'm sure you will do a point by point rebuttal which will completely twist what I've said (again). Instead of doing that: why don't you simply attempt to back up your assertions?

11th December 2011, 03:32 PM	#812
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	JohnAlbert divert your attention to #796 and #805. No rush.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

11th December 2011, 04:37 PM	#813
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	Originally Posted by banquetbear You were so confident with your original assertion: then I saw that you linked to the snarky LMGTFY site, that in turn linked to a google search which showed the opposite of what you claimed. Did you think that people wouldn't check? I didn't make the assertion: you did. I eventually checked out the first two pages of google hits: arguably only one out of twenty links came even close to matching your assertion. You don't seem to have a handle on how this internet debate thing works. You make an assertion: then when challenged on it you provide proof to back it up. If you can't back it up, then you concede. Its been nearly a month since you first posted the tens of thousands of people claim. In that month you haven't cited ONE example to back up your assertion. Not a single one. Yet in the time it took you to type your last post you could have gone to google and posted several links to back up your claim. Maybe instead of complaining about how much trouble it is to link to evidence to back up your assertions, you could simply back up your assertions? I really don't know why you expect other people to do your work for you. Alright, here's a partial rundown of the first 2 pages of results from this Google search: http://www.google.com/search?q="Derren+Brown"+NLP The first 5 results on every page are video clips, and every single one of them was posted by a different user who believes DB uses NLP. The original poster of this YouTube clip obviously thought DB was using NLP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=befugtgikMg Another YouTube poster who believes DB uses NLP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-QtNE9k84 Yet another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HInA3N-M3gQ Yet another: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/579884...ren_brown_nlp/ Yet another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4aB6vvVliE More YouTube posters who believe DB uses NLP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6_Mr3BuDII http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AZ6ZB58WIA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKrh4OrTyj8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZp9sjrQ0k Besides the videos, the majority of other links are from people claiming DB uses NLP. Here we see that a Derren Brown fan blogger ran a poll asking how many people believe DB uses NLP, and the results were overwhelming: 77% said they believe he's using it: http://aboutderrenbrown.blogspot.com...p-results.html Other links to pages wherein various people claim DB uses NLP: http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/...-other-people/ http://prsync.com/indyainfotech/nlp-...-style-349359/ http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=75000 http://www.punchkids.net/derren-brow...rn-interrupts/ http://morphcity.com/faves/70-derren-brown-and-nlp http://www.myspace.com/video/maarten...-nlp/106379966 All those were taken from the first 2 pages of Google search results, and that doesn't even begin to touch on all the NLP and other pop-psych woo blogs, forums and other web pages that blatantly use Derren Brown's videos to promote NLP. Out of all those results in the first 2 pages, only 2 results pointedly challenged the notion that Derren Brown uses NLP. One of them was The Straight Dope. So, do you still want to call me a liar for making the shocking statement that a lot of people seem to think Derren Brown uses NLP to achieve his effects? Originally Posted by banquetbear You can redefine stooge to mean whatever you want. However if you are discussing it with other people, you should use the definition that is more commonly understood. What you are describing is not the common understanding of the word stooge. Originally Posted by banquetbear Brown's definition is the same as the one that everyone else in this thread is usings...with the exception of you. My definition of a "stooge" is a person who knows that a trick is being perpetrated, and willingly plays along with the magician to help fool the audience. How is that an incorrect definition? Originally Posted by banquetbear He doesn't use NLP That's a strawman. I never alleged that he did. He only pretends to, and then only half-denies it when asked. Originally Posted by banquetbear I don't have a clue how Brown does any of his tricks. I've made that admission already. Then you are absolutely in no position to state that he doesn't use stooges, confederates, paid actors or anything else. Originally Posted by banquetbear You don't have a clue how he does his tricks: you have admitted this. From that: you conclude he probably uses stooges. Post the exact quote wherein I said I don't have a clue how he does his tricks. Originally Posted by banquetbear I don't have a clue how you made that leap from a link to IMDB and a quote from a book. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. It sounds like you're confusing and conflating several different points I've made. Originally Posted by banquetbear This is not critical thinking. This is why people are frustrated with you: you have come to the "probably uses stooges" conclusion based on literally nothing. If this is what you really think, then you really need to reread this entire thread, and actually pay attention to what I said. Originally Posted by banquetbear Firstly you call us fanatics: now you are labeling people that disagree with you as "Brownites." And you do that after complaining about how mean everyone else is being to you. [...] I am not a Brownite. I am not a Brown fanatic. I simply disagree with you. Labeling the people who hold opposing views to you is a weak debating tactic. You know what? You're absolutely right. I'll refrain from using ad hominem attacks from now on. Originally Posted by banquetbear With all due respect: you have been the rudest person in this thread. I strongly disagree. Others have been just as rude as I, some have been quite a bit more so. But this is not a rudeness contest or a victimization contest, so I'm totally willing to let all that slide and refrain from that kind of talk from now on. Originally Posted by banquetbear You keep changing your story. I do? I have already explained where I changed my mind about a couple points, but I think alleging that I "keep changing my story" is an unwarranted accusation. Originally Posted by banquetbear You state that you can't believe that anyone would think that he doesn't use stooges, and when people confront you on this you say "I never said he always uses stooges!" That's because it's a strawman argument. The two things are not one and the same. Please point out where I ever said he always uses stooges. I never, ever said that. What I said was that I don't believe his claims that he never uses them. Do you not understand the difference? Originally Posted by banquetbear You twist, you spin, you dance, but you can't hold one position. You misrepresent what other people write constantly. Point out where I misrepresented your position and explain how I got it wrong, and I will gladly correct myself. Originally Posted by banquetbear We are not being irrational about this. Who are "we"? Exactly whom are you referring to with that pronoun? Originally Posted by banquetbear We aren't the ones who are comparing John Edward to Derren Brown. I made the comparison, because I see a similarity. Why are you taking it so personally? Do you have some amazing revelation to make, right here in this thread? Are you Derren Brown? If not, then what's the big deal? Why do you even care? Originally Posted by banquetbear We aren't the ones who insist on responding to each and every post in this thread. That would be you. Responding to another person is a courtesy. I don't ignore other peoples' posts. Even though you might wish I'd ignore some of your arguments, I will always respond as long as I figure what you've said is even worthy of a response.
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain Last edited by John Albert; 11th December 2011 at 06:21 PM.

11th December 2011, 09:52 PM	#815
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,979	Originally Posted by JFrankA ...and yes, they do work, but no, it is not "against their will". Again, it's a simple psychological parlor trick. Honestly, it's more show than anything else. It's called "playing along", and the so-called psychological "trick" behind it is peer pressure to participate and social pressure not to heckle. Originally Posted by JFrankA Doesn't prove that at all. Nothing was done "against anyone's will". Not one thing. And, (I'm going by memory, now, I'm not sure of this, so if I'm wrong please correct me), I don't think anyone used the words "against his will" when talking about the shooter in the show. At any rate, listen at the shooter at the end of the show. Listen to his idea of what he fired at. He was firing at a target in a gun range, not a human being. Not against his will, he was fooled. No he wasn't. There's no way to get a person to look down from a theater balcony into a crowd and "make him think" he's at target shooting range. Thats BS.

12th December 2011, 03:21 AM	#817
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	Quote: Here we see that a Derren Brown fan blogger ran a poll asking how many people believe DB uses NLP, and the results were overwhelming: 77% said they believe he's using it: http://aboutderrenbrown.blogspot.com...p-results.html 37 people voted!!! WOW. Embarassing to even cite that as a statistic. You do know YouTube isnt a measure of anything,how many videos on there believe 9/11 was an inside job? All those links add up to about 50 people claiming NLP? I could find hundreds of links that discuss Derren and magic tricks.By typing "NLP+Derren Brown" you're using a form of confirmation bias,by bringing results YOU want to see. Quote: I don't ignore other peoples' posts. Even though you might wish I'd ignore some of your arguments, I will always respond as long as I figure what you've said is even worthy of a response. In that case: #796 #805 .I know it embarasses you JohnAlbert.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown Last edited by Azrael 5; 12th December 2011 at 03:23 AM.

12th December 2011, 06:12 AM	#818
Montag451 Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Peru Posts: 372	Quote: I never claimed that he always uses stooges. That is a lie that you and Azrael seem peculiarly fond of repeating. It is a strawman argument, because you're putting words into my mouth that I never said. I've asked you at least twice now to quote the post where I said that, but you haven't done so because you can't. I never said it. I know you've said it, but not needing to use them and not actually using them are two different things. I have pointed out where some of the tricks and scenarios he presents are very obviously staged. If the scenarios are staged, and the impression ostensibly being created is obviously fake, then what does that tell you about the people appearing in those scenarios? I have to disagree with your use of language a little. From reading your (very) numerous and exacting in detail and length posts the use of stooge is a recurring theme. Stooge means "a person who is forced or paid by someone in authority to do an unpleasant or secret job for them" (Cambridge dictionary... Live in Peru, this was the only one I bought with me from the UK, so forgive me if others have slightly different definitions that leave room for over zealous interpretation. From the wording it seems to have an element of the stooge themselves having knowledge of the job that is required and a willingness to do it. So people going to a hypnosis show do have an element of that, they know what to expect and do fall into what the hypnotist wants. The psychology of this is complicated and the crux of all stage hypnosis. Stage magicians spend time weeding out the few people who would be the most receptive to suggestion to make the show work. It isn't mind control but it is more than just acting out a scene. However would it be fair to say that in your original posting you used the word to mean a Plant, that is a person who is working fully as an actor in a role? That is what I have taken from your numerous words written on this subject. If this is what you originally meant then I simply believe you are wrong. All you need to do is provide acceptable proof that a Plant has been used then you will have owned the thread. However hearsay, rumour and my mate told me do not constitute proof. My guess is you will only be able to link to proofs such as these. For example in the 90s I acted on an episode of 999 Lifesavers, the UK TV series that restaged incidents where the emergency services responded. It happened in my Science lab at my school, with my tutor group and an actor sitting with them. Would this make me an actor if I every appeared on another TV show? Would I be a plant or stooge? I have also been interviewed on a beach in Punta Sal in Peru by national TV to get an expats view of Peru. Does this mean, due to my extensive acting repertoire, that I was a plant by the TV crew who briefed me in detail before and made me learn cues like when a shadow passes over my bottom in the shape of a crocodile skateboarding I have to say Ceviche is the best food in the world ever? Or was it coincidence that they spotted a Gringo on the beach who is also a loud mouthed git? Have you really not considered that there are certain profiles of people who want to appear on TV shows whether in the audience or the star. Interestingly it is often the very person who wants to go to such a show that is often most suited to be on it. While I have no proof (sorry) I am guessing (chose that word carefully for you to comment on and it is only opinion and it may be wrong) that the same sort of psych profile would apply to an actor. It does not mean the actor (profession) is acting on the orders of the performer. It means they are acting (behaving) within the boundaries of there own psychology. On the point of being uncritical earlier. Just because I do not think the lottery prediction had to be a camera trick it in no way implies anything. I expressed an opinion based on my experience with some magic techniques. It is but an opinion. it does not mean that I cannot accept I am wrong or that there is a magical aspect to it. It just means that DB doesn't tend to do gimmicked stand up magic tricks and I am of the opinion that the real trick is still unknown. Perhaps this is why it is the weakest by far of his shows. Finally would it be possible for you not to appear so agressive in your replies, it comes across as quite rude and disrespecful.
	Last edited by Montag451; 12th December 2011 at 06:18 AM.

12th December 2011, 08:08 AM	#819
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	Yes he does mean plants Montag451. After all he claimed in the first 2 pagesof this thread that "Derren has been caught out many times using stooges/plants." Of course he fails to back this up just like everything else. On the topic of people thinking he does NLP,considering he has never state din any TV show that he uses it then peopel are jumping to conclusions of their own making.I would bet the average Derren Brown viewer has no idea what NLP is nor asumes this being a method. People will believer rubbish no matter what. I have stated this before,it is not reflective of Derren Brown;some people walk away from his theatre shows thinking he has supernatural/psychic abilities.Despite him insisting the opposite. Stupid is stupid does. How many of the YouTubers actually believe he is using NLP but rather are using him and "NLP" in keywords to attract viewers to their channel?
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

12th December 2011, 08:38 AM	#820
Montag451 Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Peru Posts: 372	NLP as a red herring suits him well I believe. DB HAS to allude to certain hooks to allow viewers to believe in what he does. The more people argue about NLP or whatever then the less people look at his real techniques. However some commentators miss the whole point of misdirection. As you so rightly say 'Stupid is stupid does'

12th December 2011, 11:40 AM	#821
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	Apparently, I need to clear up my use of terminology here. If any of you professional conjurer types feel I'm misrepresenting your "lingo" in a manner inconsistent with its common usage, please correct me. When I say "stooge," I'm not talking about a low-level lackey in the employ of a crime boss. I'm not talking about a bumbling idiot or a 20th Century Jewish slapstick comedian. I'm not talking about a member of Iggy Pop's backup band. I'm using the word in the specific sense of a person employed by the magician (or his company) for the purpose of aiding him in his work without the knowledge of the audience. The person may or may not have 100% understanding of how the trick is done. They may or may not be paid. The point is that they are confederates of the magician, acting without the audience's knowledge. Stooges have been widely used in mentalism and other stage acts throughout the history of magic, in a number of different ways. They don't always pose as audience members called onstage to participate. Sometimes they're used by mentalists to gather the information for him to miraculously "know" onstage. Uri Geller, for example, has been exposed as employing stooges in this way. His best friend Shipi would stand outside in the parking lot and watch people emerge from their cars, then write down their license plate numbers. He would then mingle with the audience before showtime and during intermissions, eavesdropping or striking up small talk to get more info which he'd write down and pass to Geller. During the show, he'd use coded hand signals to communicate with Uri, indicating which individuals to call on for what information. Peter Popoff used his wife and another woman as stooges in a similar way. They would gather the "intel" from cards filled out at the entrance of the auditorium, then relay that to Peter via a radio disguised as a hearing aid. Then there's the technique of "instant stooging" whereby the magician brings an audience member on the stage and secretly entreats them to play along without the audience's knowledge. In that case, the audience member again may or may not have knowledge of how the trick is supposed to work, but simply responds to cues and instructions from the magician to play along and help pull it off. A "plant" is merely a person placed into the audience by the magician for one reason or another. They might be stooges (like when Uri had his friend Shipi in the audience, pointing out people to call on) but they aren't necessarily. They may or may not have been explicitly told what to do. They might be people the performer has met (or his company has selected from a "talent pool") who are known to be ready and willing to play along. They may not even know they've been placed there for a specific purpose. I have seen enough believable allegations by seemingly trustworthy people, that DB uses audience plants in this way, so I feel it's an entirely plausible explanation for how he sometimes does things. As for "evidence" to back up these speculations, what would you expect to see? As far as the "stooge" question goes, I readily admit that all I have to go on is the claims of witnesses, the circumstantial evidence of Magda Rodriguez's IMDB page, and observations of some videos that strongly suggest they're faked. I don't have anything as conclusive as Randi's audio recordings of Peter Popoff's wife on the radio, feeding him information. If I had, I'd be saying I know for 100% certain that he's using stooges. But I'm not saying that. I'm also not making the argument from ignorance, "I don't know how he does it, so it's stooges." I'm not a magician, but I have long held a fascination for the world of magic. I have read a number of books on magic. I have also studied film & video production in college, and have a number of friends who work in those fields, at the production level, to actors, all the way up to directors and high executive positions. The things you see on TV, even "reality TV shows," are highly scripted and pre-planned. That's why I speak so disparagingly of TV magic. It's so cheap and easy, just about anybody with good presentation skills can do it. As for Derren Brown's latest material, it appears that most of the innovation and skill is pushed aside in favor of this boring "reality show" tripe, and the hawking of sensationalistic woo just makes it even more distasteful.
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain Last edited by John Albert; 12th December 2011 at 12:43 PM.

12th December 2011, 11:59 AM	#822
Montag451 Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Peru Posts: 372	It is slightly disingenuous of you to keep relating to Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. These people are operating in a belief system. They attribute their 'powers' to supernatural means. If history has taught us anything it has taught us that there is nothing as pervasive and difficult to change as faith. The act of having faith almost presupposes a suspension of critical thinking. I believe therefore it is. Evidence is almost anathema to belief/faith, with the act of believing making an individuals 'truth' their faith. I still see very little relevance for Uri Gellers proclivities to use a stooge as having any relevance to DB. Yes UG and PP use stooges, plants etc, it does not logically follow that DB is. While I accept that you are not specifically linking the 2 ideas and nowhere do you say "UG does it, PP does it therefore Db does it" the constant reference to these 2 does seem an attempt to muddy the waters a little, which does cheapen some of your more valid points. As James Randi himself says (and I paraphrase as I do not have my Kindle with me at the moment) he would have no problem with UG if he just stated he was a magic act. It is the dishonesty of pretending that is wrong. I still stand by my statement that it would end DBs career if it could be proven that he used a paid for stooge, plant or shill. Minimal proof would be needed. One of these people needs to stand up and say I was a stooge. Here is how we did it and here are the mechanics behind the trick. Once you are told what the cues and gags are then they are obvious to see, a little bit like playing records backwards. Once you know what you are supposed to hear then you can't unhear. With a magic trick, often once you know what to look for you can't unsee.

12th December 2011, 12:05 PM	#823
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	Originally Posted by Montag451 It is slightly disingenuous of you to keep relating to Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. These people are operating in a belief system. They attribute their 'powers' to supernatural means. If history has taught us anything it has taught us that there is nothing as pervasive and difficult to change as faith. The act of having faith almost presupposes a suspension of critical thinking. You're mistaking my purpose in using them as examples. I'm not doing it to compare Derren Brown to them from an ethical or even a methodological perspective. I merely used them as examples of how confederates are commonly employed in magic and mentalism, without exposing the tricks of actual magicians working as honest entertainers. Originally Posted by Montag451 I still stand by my statement that it would end DBs career if it could be proven that he used a paid for stooge, plant or shill. Minimal proof would be needed. Yet it has happened, was apparently covered up, and no damage done whatsoever. It doesn't matter what people say; what matters is what people believe. Originally Posted by Montag451 One of these people needs to stand up and say I was a stooge. Here is how we did it and here are the mechanics behind the trick. Once you are told what the cues and gags are then they are obvious to see, a little bit like playing records backwards. Once you know what you are supposed to hear then you can't unhear. With a magic trick, often once you know what to look for you can't unsee. And in doing so, those people would be placing themselves in an actionable position with the lawyers of Derren Brown and Objective Productions. They could be sued for an enormous sum, considering lost licensing revenues and punitive damages. I'm guessing you missed the entire discussion of the legalities of intellectual property and non-disclosure agreements and so forth. What would such a person stand to gain by assuming that much risk just to trash Derren Brown's career? Then there's always the possibility of Derren and Objective Productions defusing the whole threat by covering it up, or simply calling them a liar. Several prominent magicians have been accused and even proven to use stooges in their performances, but what careers have ever been ruined by those allegations? The evidence just doesn't bear out the "career ender" claim. And I know how a lot of magic tricks are done, but that doesn't in any way dampen my appreciation for the craft. You know what does though? Seeing a magician use magic to mislead people into believing a load of BS. That really bums me out, big-time.
John Albert Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,143	__________________ “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —Mark Twain Last edited by John Albert; 12th December 2011 at 12:42 PM.

12th December 2011, 01:33 PM	#824
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	Quote: Several prominent magicians have been accused and even proven to use stooges in their performances, but what careers have ever been ruined by those allegations? The evidence just doesn't bear out the "career ender" claim. Yet when called upon you fail to name these. Just like you failed to supply proof that Derren ahd been caught out "many times" susing actors/stooges/plants(choose your terminology). Regards career enders. It cant end your career being caught with stooges if you didnt claim to not use them. Any thought on posts 796 and 805? Ignoring me wont make the embarassment any less.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown Last edited by Azrael 5; 12th December 2011 at 01:34 PM.

12th December 2011, 01:54 PM	#825
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	Originally Posted by John Albert I have not "twisted" anything. Yes you are. Case in point: Quote: Clearly, you're expressing the idea that Derren Brown's powers of hypnosis are somehow strong enough to make a subject completely forget they're standing on a stage in front of an audience, contributing to a magic show. No, I am not saying Derren Brown has powers at all. I have never claimed anyone has any powers. Where did you see me (or anyone in this thread) say he has powers???? Quote: You seem to be saying that a few words and gestures from Derren are enough to make them think they're somewhere else entirely, or that the glass beaker they're holding is filled with acid, and that they have no power to resist the command to throw that acid into the face of the person in front of them. This, yes, I am saying. It is possible. Depending on the circumstances, the environment, the words used, etc. People are not infallible. Quote: I'm saying that's wrong. And you would be wrong. Quote: I'm saying that the participants on Derren Brown's show are fully aware that they've been called onstage to take part in a magic performance. I'm saying they know full well it's a performance, that they have a role to play in this performance that is dictated by Derren Brown himself. I'm saying they know that as long as they do what Derren Brown tells them to do, they will get to continue taking part in this experience and possibly even get to appear on TV for their family and friends to see. I'm guessing that is the most popular motivation to cooperate and "act" the part to the best of their own ability. These subjects may be excited and nervous about the experience, maybe even to the point where it seems unreal or hyperreal, but a few reassuring words here and there from the famous magician is enough to inspire trust and encourage them to turn in the best performance they can. That's all there is to it. They're complicit, willing accomplices by their own choice. They came to the show with the expectation that they might be asked onstage. Maybe they even applied to a talent firm which recommended them to the production company, which screened them and determined them to be camera-friendly personalities, good for TV. So they've got an expectation that if they are offered the opportunity, they're going to turn in a performance in the hopes of being used in the show. You are partly right. There's a little more going on as well. I'll reiterate this: humans are not as infallible as you seem to think we are. Quote: If you doubt that there's any factual basis for this belief of mine, read the "Finding of the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust" on the investigation of The Real Hustle. Paragraph 3 of the report mentions the procedure by which Objective Productions solicits amateur talent to appear in its reality shows: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets...eal_hustle.txt That's fine, however, this is point is moot. Quote: Please clarify this. I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're merely talking about relaxing and concentrating on something, then yes I would agree that most people do it every single day whenever they're engaging in any complex task. The "reading a book" is one of the best examples I can come up with. Another example would be watching a movie and being so engrossed in the film, that not only is your heart beating fast at the exciting scene, not only are you crying with the protagonist, not only are you feeling the victory at the end of the movie, you never notice the guy in front of you eating his popcorn loudly. Or going on a drive, letting your mind wander a bit and suddenly realize that you are farther along than you thought you were. All of these is the exact same thing that hypnosis is. Nothing magical. Just something we do everyday. Quote: But I would say that hypnosis is a rather specialized form of focused attention that not everybody does every day. I wouldn't say it's not "specialized", it's just one kind of focused attention, and, as you see from my above explanation, it IS something we do everyday. Quote: Please knock it off. You sound like an idiot when you say stuff like that. But Moooooooooooooooom!!!!! It's soooooooo much fun to do it that waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!! Quote: I'm not misrepresenting or dumbing-down your arguments to make them appear foolish. I'm quoting exactly what you've said, and then replying to it. I've asked you before to quote the exact posts where I've misrepresented something you said, and to explain where I got it wrong, but you have declined to do so. So either put up or shut up about the strawman nonsense. If I am guilty of it, I'm sorry. But honestly, so are you. Quote: What trick are you talking about, specifically, that you've done yourself? Want a list? Come on over to my show sometime. I have to warn you, though, my shows are far more X-rated than Derren's. But the hypnosis "process", so to speak, share the same basic techniques. Quote: I never claimed that he always uses stooges. That is a lie that you and Azrael seem peculiarly fond of repeating. It is a strawman argument, because you're putting words into my mouth that I never said. I've asked you at least twice now to quote the post where I said that, but you haven't done so because you can't. I never said it. Then you are being misleading. You've just said that every hypnosis show involves stooges, then you take a step back and say that not all of them do, yet when I ask you something like "if not stooges, then how?" you have no answer and moments later you are saying stooges again. And I HAVE called on you saying always. Just in case you've forgotten, here it is again: Originally Posted by John Albert I also know that acting is always in play for these "hypnosis mind control" acts, whether the actors are paid pros or just enthusiastic amateurs. No, you didn't use the word stooges here, but it is your definition of stooges; and yes, you did recant the word "always", but you have never ever come up with another explanation as to how stage hypnosis would work otherwise. The only answer you have provided is either stooge or some definition of stooge. At any rate, Montag451 put it much better than I did. Read his post. Quote: I know you've said it, but not needing to use them and not actually using them are two different things. I have pointed out where some of the tricks and scenarios he presents are very obviously staged. If the scenarios are staged, and the impression ostensibly being created is obviously fake, then what does that tell you about the people appearing in those scenarios? "I never said he always uses stooges but there is no other way to explain the way he does his tricks!!!!! But, I've never used the word 'always'!" Give it up. Quote: Yes, I did. You asked if a stooge or actor is not being used, then what other explanation could there be. I answered that it could be a situation where the person is being tricked. Funny, that's what I thought I said. If I missed where you said that, my apologies. However, please show me where you said that because I honestly don't recall you saying that the person could be tricked. Quote: Another possibility might be that the person arrived on the stage with a preconceived notion about how they're supposed to behave, and then the magician might exploit that to his advantage. Yes, you've explained it that way, but this is the ONLY time you have left out the condition that you've been preaching this whole time: that the subject is purposely doing it to be on camera. Quote: First of all, I know what a "dual reality" gag is, and I did not use it the wrong way. "Dual reality" is where you play the same trick on two different people in such a way that they both derive different conclusions from it. Dual reality is one of the most common tricks of a magician. For example, making one statement that means something entirely different to the participant and the audience. Okay, I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. Very good. I apologize. You got that right. Quote: Another option is that the notion of "hypnosis" itself can be used as a pretense to play a trick. Some subjects might feel that it presents them with an excuse for acting a certain way that they might not normally do, or that it might lend credence to a belief, a feeling, or a story they want to express. That's very good as well. Quote: One thing hypnosis cannot do, however, is cause somebody to do things they don't want to do. It is not a means of controlling a person's mind or actions. It is merely a state of relaxation and concentration. A person cannot be "programmed" into hallucinating or acting against their will by means of hypnosis. That's true, too. But you are leaving one last scenario: the fact that hypnosis (or relaxation, surprise and concentration in general) can leave a person vulnerable to suggestion. I'm not talking big, life changing suggestions, but small little suggestions. With enough conditioning, (and trust on the subject's part) the subject can be convinced, i.e. tricked, into doing something they aren't realizing that they are doing. Notice NOT "what they don't want to do", but tricked into thinking they are doing "A" and not "B". Quote: It just doesn't work that way, yet Derren Brown consistently misrepresents it in that way. in both his stage performances and in the book Tricks of the Mind. You are completely wrong. Sorry. Quote: I already told you, I am not insulted in the least. It's obvious that your intent was to make a dig, but the simple fact is that performing magic is just not something I've ever really aspired to do. In that sense, yeah, I agree I'd make a bad magician because I don't care enough to put in the practice. But my aptitude for performing magic is also something you cannot possibly know without having ever met me. You assume a lot don't you? Besides, as you have already said, there are ways that one can tell. It is my humble opinion that you wouldn't. That's all. If I'm wrong, meh, I've been wrong before. Sorry you're taking it so personally. If you truly feel I was trying to "dig" you, I humbly withdraw the comment. Quote: It is not a strawman. You might not have claimed it outright, but Derren Brown did. Then you alleged that Derren Brown was being honest in his representation of hypnosis in that show. So by backing up Derren Brown's lies, you opened yourself up to the same criticism as well. ...round and round we go....... I stated that he does give the truth about how hypnosis works through out the show. I stand by that. Quote: Derren Brown not merely claimed, but purported to prove that hypnosis can make someone do something against their will. What show were you watching???? He wasn't out to prove anything. If he was, he wasn't out to prove that someone can do something "against their will". It wasn't against his will to shoot. It was his will. In his mind he was shooting in a firing range, NOT a human being. This is part of what I mean by tricking or fooling someone. Quote: That was the entire premise of that TV show: a pretense of an "experiment" whereby it was ostensibly "proven" that a seemingly mild-mannered audience member could be made to fire a loaded firearm at another man, without any knowledge or post hoc memory of what he was doing. Now that was the premise. That is NOT the same as "having someone do something against their will". Two very different things. Please don't mix the two. And he wasn't out to prove something. Quote: That is impossible. Hypnosis cannot do that. Derren Brown misrepresented hypnosis in a pseudoscientific, fantastic way that is completely untrue. It is not a strawman argument to point that out. The argument that he was trying to prove that someone "can do something against their will while under hypnosis" IS a straw man. No one, including DB is out to prove that. Quote: And it also requires a willing participant who's game to put on a show for people. Willing participant, yes. One "who's game to put on a show for people", not all the time. There are other reasons, not all of the conscious ones. More often, it's an unconscious choice. ...and no, it's not the same thing you are arguing.... Quote: Nice "Poe job" then. You had me fooled. I laughed when I first read it, but to tell you the truth on second thought I couldn't tell if you were being serious or not. You never can tell around here. Glad you did laugh. Unfortunately, it's not a Poe job. Just take a look: https://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&...rough+hypnosis Quote: As I said, I don't care if he uses plants, stooges, or whatever, so long as it puts on a good show. But I don't think this recent trend he's on is good magic or good entertainment. It just comes off as a badly-contrived reality show giving credence to all kinds of lame woo beliefs. Fine. We can discuss that. Then please stop claiming he's using stooges, please??? Quote: Yeah, that's a completely valid point. As I said before, Derren Brown is not so despicable as somebody like John Edward, who scams people out of money when off the stage. But Derren Brown is quite slippery and disingenuous in some of his claims about psychology. I still refuse to cut him a break when he presents his shows in this mockumentary format wherein he mixes up real psychological trickery with stage magic and fake psychological pseudo-explanations. It's misleading. While I don't feel that all entertainers have a responsibility to educate, the least they can do is not actively promote total pseudoscience in such a way that the majority of their audience perceive it as fact. But again, that's his shtick. It's just for show. If people are going to take his show (or any show on television) like this as red without any research, I'm sorry, it's my humble opinion that they are looking to believe. Maybe I'm being callous on that, and I'm sorry, but I've gone through it personally even when I tell people I'm doing a trick. Quote: Or they can say, "I do tricks that rely on magic and psychology. I'm not going to come out and endorse the NLPers, but admittedly it is part of what I do." To me that is disingenuous. He's deliberately misleading people into thinking that stuff has any credibility whatsoever, simply because it creates controversy and keeps people talking about him. What can I say, he's being honest there. Misleading? Yes. But that's part of the dual reality. He's telling just enough to make the trick work and be interesting. How would you say something better? I know I couldn't come up with something that walks the line so nicely. Quote: I agree. And by those standards, Derren Brown has always walked a fine, fine line, but lately has begun to overstep it quite often and quite far at times. Perhaps. That's the real discussion isn't it. My feeling, and I could be wrong, is that he feels that people know by now he's just a magician and what he's doing is making the line finer. Certainly he hasn't come up with any books giving out "sure fire methods of mind control". If he started doing that, I'd be right on your side. Quote: It's an altered state of awareness. Some people need practice and discipline to attain it. Once a person is accustomed to it, it's just a matter of "zoning out" or whatever; focusing one's attention enough to ignore outside distractions. There we go! Yes, exactly. But it's not as rare as you think, and it's easier to get into that "zoning out" than you may believe, and people do it to themselves everyday. Quote: So you agree that it's not something that a person can be "snapped" into without any control of one's own, and stage hypnotists tend to misrepresent it for the purposes of an act? No, I disagree. A person can be "snapped" into that kind of frame of mind. ....if the conditions are right. Quote: I'm sorry, but that's how it appeared. You agreed that a person cannot be hypnotized to act unwillingly, and then later you said that a hypnotized person has no conscious control over their decisions. No problem. I understand that. And yes. Sometimes what happens with hypnosis is that there is no conscious decision. There are simple psychological tricks that bypass the conscious, critical thinking "mind", so to speak. It's minor, it's not something that actually controls a person, but it does exist in a basic, simple level. Quote: They're the founders of NLP, the guys Derren Brown "learned" from. Bandler is widely credited with having pioneered the "interrupted handshake" method of rapid induction. Don't know the guys. And I thought it was Mesmer who used the "interrupted handshake" method. Which does work. Quote: Well that's actually quite revealing, considering how Derren Brown likes to exaggerate the power of hypnosis. In his books? No he doesn't. Quote: According to how the show presents it, he was up there in the balcony hypnotized to think he was firing at a target, while actually shooting at a person. Obviously, Derren Brown is trying to make it look like the hypnosis fooled him into doing something against his will. That's a lie. Hypnosis cannot do that. It's pseudoscience. Derren Brown presented this totally bogus pseudo-psychology garbage as a factual "experiment" to millions of viewers worldwide. This is true but, and this is the important part (to me anyways), that is only during the show. I'm sorry, but during a magic show all bets are off. Reality and lies are mixed together to produce the effect. Again, once the lights are off, if he continued to do that, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. The show doesn't matter: that is not reality. After the show matters. And I'm sorry, I don't have time to respond back to the rest of your post. I will when I can.
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch

12th December 2011, 02:44 PM	#826
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	Not just the acid throw,people sat in ice baths quite happily on Assassin.,unles of course it wasnt ice and they were stooges. Fact is if Derren Brown just did magic tricks a la Paul Daniels he wouldnt suceed.Magic on Tv needs an edge and audiences want an insight into methods(See P&T fool us).Thus the body language psychology explanaitons. It feeds the audience desire to know "how its done". As I repeatedly state the average Derren Brown viewer/fan has no idea what NLP is.If they begin to research it they will not find anything from Derren promoting it. JohnAlbert your issue is a non-issue. Posts #796 #805.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

12th December 2011, 02:51 PM	#827
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,979	Originally Posted by JFrankA The "reading a book" is one of the best examples I can come up with. Another example would be watching a movie and being so engrossed in the film, that not only is your heart beating fast at the exciting scene, not only are you crying with the protagonist, not only are you feeling the victory at the end of the movie, you never notice the guy in front of you eating his popcorn loudly. Or going on a drive, letting your mind wander a bit and suddenly realize that you are farther along than you thought you were. All of these is the exact same thing that hypnosis is. Nothing magical. Just something we do everyday. That's called "focus", not hypnosis. Very different from the "dangling a pendulum in front of someone, telling them they're getting veeeery sleeeeepy, making them bark like a dog" thing that hypnosis has been alleged to be ever since it first started being described over a century ago. It's an attempt to rationalize and redefine the existence of hypnosis in the face of the fact that hypnosis in its original, traditional sense doesn't actually work. It would be like me redefining "precognition" as "hypothetical prediction" just so I could keep saying "precognition is a real effect". Certainly I can argue that all those who claim to know the future through mystical means really are just "guessing"; but historically "precognition" is not supposed to be guessing, it is supposed to be knowing through mystical means - which doesn't work, therefore there's no such thing as precognition. There's also no such thing as hypnosis.

12th December 2011, 05:44 PM	#829
Montag451 Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Peru Posts: 372	Quote: And in doing so, those people would be placing themselves in an actionable position with the lawyers of Derren Brown and Objective Productions. They could be sued for an enormous sum, considering lost licensing revenues and punitive damages. I'm guessing you missed the entire discussion of the legalities of intellectual property and non-disclosure agreements and so forth. What would such a person stand to gain by assuming that much risk just to trash Derren Brown's career? Then there's always the possibility of Derren and Objective Productions defusing the whole threat by covering it up, or simply calling them a liar. Does seem to in confrontation with the next paragraph Quote: Several prominent magicians have been accused and even proven to use stooges in their performances, but what careers have ever been ruined by those allegations? The evidence just doesn't bear out the "career ender" claim. I am sorry but I just do not accept that on one hand it is far too dangerous for DBs 'stooges' to come out of the top hat as it were, but other magicians can be outed by their own. You do seem to want to have your cake and eat it. Here is a simple question... what would you consider unequivocal proof that he uses stooges? I would except audio recordings in the vein of PP, video, credible multiple eyewitnesses, document etc. Are you confident that just because somebody on the Interwebz said it 'because their best mates bruvver, had a dog that one belonged to an extra on Eastenders new sumwun oo said it was true coz they new it' is an acceptable level of proof. If so can I sell you some magnetised water that cures everything. I am sure I saw it on the web somewhere.

13th December 2011, 02:32 AM	#830
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	Originally Posted by John Albert blah blah blah Posts #796 and #805. I will continue the reminders until you can offer an explanation. Or maybe youve been hypnotized into forgetting you wrote them
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

13th December 2011, 02:43 AM	#831
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	Okay, let me approach this another way. Instead of going line-by-line, which, quite honestly, is too time consuming and too confusing. I think we are both meddling things up here. And frankly, I'm sick of you guys putting words in my mouth: Let me say this clearly: There is no magic, the people aren't reacting to "magic words", and these psychological tricks are not something that can cause people to do something against their will. Sheesh. Derren Brown doesn't have special abilities. Derren Brown is a magician. People who watch his shows and get information only by his show and not bothering to dig deeper are asking to believe in woo. Because his shows are stage performances. By being a magician he will mix truth and semi-truth and lies to give the audience an effect that will "wow" them. That is his job. That is what the audience pays for. Now once the show is over, and he does something like, write a book or do an interview, then he is being himself and the show isn't going on. That's the difference between him and people like Beck, (I can't believe you compared the two. Beck vs Brown? Really? Anyway...) or Edwards, etc. Again: Once the lights are off and the show is over, the performance stops. A good magician stops. A con artist continues. That's the difference and it's a major one. Second, a magic show is the prime place for psychological tricks that is attributed to hypnosis and NLP to work. The magician is in complete control of the environment, a good magician can change from one venue to another and still remain in control of the environment. So whatever psychological tricks that are applied usually work very strongly because conditions are right for it. Further, people are in a frame of mind to be "wow-ed" so it makes it easier. There's a trust there that surpasses any and all conscious decisions. A good magician plays on that trust. Also, you're wrong. People are that malleable (and thank you for that word. Honestly, it's exactly the word I was looking for but couldn't come up with.) And I'm sorry, you yourself MUST believe people are that malleable otherwise you wouldn't be so upset that Derren Brown has a show that might get people who watch it to think that woo is real. If you really believed that people are not that malleable, then why does this show upset you so much? But back to the point: people ARE THAT malleable but, and this is important, a person's malleability is dependent upon the conditions that are going on. This can include a person's state-of-mind (confused, happy, etc), the place they are in (an auditorium, with friends, etc), recent experiences, expectations of what is to follow, etc. All this is controlled in a stage performance. And people do not react to these psychological tricks on a conscious level. There's a heightened emotional factor going on that sparks their subconscious, for lack of a better word. In other words, they don't know why they acted the way they did, they just did. Not every decision a human being makes is a conscious one. How "powerful" is this? Not very. I've said it's a parlor trick. But at the right time, right conditions, right tricks, yes, one will give their wallet to a stranger, or collapse at the word "sleep" or bark like a dog. The idea is to get the subject to trick themselves. In fact, we do this to ourselves it all the time. And yes, you're right. Focus is a very big part of this. Focus is key. The idea of the "dangling watch" or the verbal imagery IS focus. The trick is getting the person to focus so much that they lose touch with what is going around them. That's a major factor going on here. Focus causes the person to ignore consequences, ups the trust, etc. That is what is attributed to hypnosis is focus. There are other factors too, such as trust. But once you have mixed trust with focus, you get suggestibility. And in a stage performance setting, where an audience is willing to trust and the focus is on the performer, half the battle is already done. And there are other small psychological parlor tricks that can be done to enhance this trust and focus, but again the key thing you guys are missing is this: It is a show. People are malleable. More so in a show setting. And, to go back to DB's intro: Quote: "Good evening, and welcome to tonight's experiment, which asks: is it possible to program somebody to kill, and without them realizing it. "Conspiracy theorists claim that the CIA hypnotized unsuspecting candidates to carry out assassinations in the '50s and '60s, most notably that of Senator Robert Kennedy. Tonight we'll find out if that's even possible, or just the stuff of movie fiction. During tonight's experiment, I'll be testing to see whether such unlikely-sounding claims are actually possible." <snipped the historical reference to Sirhan Sirhan and RFK assassination, presented in documentary format with "expert" commentary by a conspiracy theorist> "So I'm about to give a demonstration of hypnosis to an audience of people who've applied to take part in my show. I haven't prepared these people in any way. I'm about to show you from scratch, how it is that I can create a hypnotic state. "But what they don't know, is that I'm on the lookout for a perfect candidate that I can program to carry out the assassination of a well-known figure at a public event. "Now nothing like this has ever been done before, unless the claims of the conspiracy theorists are true." Tell me where do the words "against their will" appear? As far as I can tell, no one has said "against their will" except for John and Checkmite. And those are the ones who are wrongfully claiming others have said it. Stop it. Second, at the end of the show, it is extremely important that the assassin doesn't know what he fired at. That, to me, is a big hint as to what is going on. I personally, don't think that Steven Fry and the assassin were in the same room at the same time. I think the television audience is fooled, maybe by editing, maybe something more elaborate, I'm not sure. But what I think it could be is (and here's the dual reality folks) that the assassin and the audience thinks he fired at no one. However, once the meeting with Fry and Brown, and the assassin was told that he fired at Fry, that's when he believed that he did. This is what the television audience sees. However, the audience in the actual theater saw something else. There are other possibilities, of course, I could be very wrong. But the important factors in this are a) the assassin honestly didn't know what he was shooting at and b) Derren Brown is a master at creating dual reality tricks. The assassin may have been a stooge, but honestly, I don't think he was because there are so many ways that this could be done, that a stooge would be unnecessary. The bottom line is this: people are that malleable given the right conditions. A magic show setting is the perfect condition for this. And, as I pointed out, if you really, truly believed people are NOT that malleable then why the hell are you so upset at DB's show? If people are not that malleable then something simple like a show like DB will not make them think woo is real. They'll know it's a show. My argument is simply this: these psychological tricks do work, given the right conditions. The people who sell NLP are taking these tricks and giving them more "power" than they have. DB (and other magicians) uses the psychological tricks but not NLP. Hypnosis is real to the point that it is trust, focus and suggestibility. All of which we do everyday to ourselves. A stage hypnotist can help a person who trusts her/him enough to reach that state of focus, with the use of psychological tricks. Of course, this can only work with trust. (READ: willingness). So a lot of times the subject doesn't know why they reacted to a command, they just did, and that's something we all do that everyday as well. Finally, for the love of Mighty Zarquon, please stop comparing DB to Uri, or Edwards, or Beck. Brown drops his act at the end of the show. The others don't. Big, major difference. ...okay, I'm done. My apologies if this ends up being tl;dr.
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch Last edited by JFrankA; 13th December 2011 at 02:51 AM.

13th December 2011, 09:12 AM	#832
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	JFrankA it seem sour dear friend JohNAlbert is ignoring me however I have found a piece in Assasin that you may wish to repeat,it's relevant to his "playing along" claims.Considering he claims to have seen the show"Many times" im suprised he didnt see this bit. Dr Stuart Derbyshire Director of Pain Imaging at Birmingham University: "Hypnosis can be used as a very powerful analgesic,if we tell a person the water is warm or there arm is anesthesied(sp?) they put in the ice water and don't feel the pain" Derren"Importantly you couldnt do this by sort of playing along" Dr Stuart"It would be pretty tough to do that yes" Oh and pop in a mention of #796 and #805
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown Last edited by Azrael 5; 13th December 2011 at 09:13 AM.

13th December 2011, 11:04 AM	#833
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,979	Originally Posted by JFrankA Tell me where do the words "against their will" appear? As far as I can tell, no one has said "against their will" except for John and Checkmite. And those are the ones who are wrongfully claiming others have said it. Stop it. Don't be silly. The fact that the "subject" is not willing to kill somebody is very obviously implicit in the fact that "hypnosis" or some other kind of manipulation is required in order to get them to do it. Originally Posted by JFrankA Second, at the end of the show, it is extremely important that the assassin doesn't know what he fired at. That, to me, is a big hint as to what is going on. I personally, don't think that Steven Fry and the assassin were in the same room at the same time. I think the television audience is fooled, maybe by editing, maybe something more elaborate, I'm not sure. But what I think it could be is (and here's the dual reality folks) that the assassin and the audience thinks he fired at no one. However, once the meeting with Fry and Brown, and the assassin was told that he fired at Fry, that's when he believed that he did. This is what the television audience sees. However, the audience in the actual theater saw something else. There are other possibilities, of course, I could be very wrong. But the important factors in this are a) the assassin honestly didn't know what he was shooting at and b) Derren Brown is a master at creating dual reality tricks. The assassin may have been a stooge, but honestly, I don't think he was because there are so many ways that this could be done, that a stooge would be unnecessary. The bottom line is this: people are that malleable given the right conditions. A magic show setting is the perfect condition for this. And, as I pointed out, if you really, truly believed people are NOT that malleable then why the hell are you so upset at DB's show? If people are not that malleable then something simple like a show like DB will not make them think woo is real. They'll know it's a show. My argument is simply this: these psychological tricks do work, given the right conditions. The people who sell NLP are taking these tricks and giving them more "power" than they have. DB (and other magicians) uses the psychological tricks but not NLP. Hypnosis is real to the point that it is trust, focus and suggestibility. All of which we do everyday to ourselves. A stage hypnotist can help a person who trusts her/him enough to reach that state of focus, with the use of psychological tricks. Of course, this can only work with trust. (READ: willingness). So a lot of times the subject doesn't know why they reacted to a command, they just did, and that's something we all do that everyday as well. All right, listen. If I say to you, "I want to take some video of you shooting a gun into this (offscreen) barrel" and you say "okay" and do it, and without your knowledge I take that video that splice it with footage I took at a different time of a person acting like they've been shot in such a way that when viewed as a continuous whole it looks as if you shot the actor, I have not hypnotized anyone into doing anything. I haven't hypnotized you into assassinating someone, I haven't hypnotized you even into shooting the gun into the barrel. I haven't used any "psychological tricks" on anyone, even those to whom I play the video if they believe the sequence of events as portrayed in it. And if I show you the spliced footage later and claimed you shot this person and I just "fooled you" into thinking you were shooting a gun into a barrel, and I consistently argue for the truth of that erroneous event to the point that you began to question your own recollection, I haven't hypnotized you into believing you did something you didn't do. There was no hypnosis involved in that scenario at all whatsoever, either of the original kind or of this new equivocal redefined kind that you've proposed. So when we take Brown's statements at the beginning of the show, we can analyze them as follows: Quote: "Conspiracy theorists claim that the CIA hypnotized unsuspecting candidates to carry out assassinations in the '50s and '60s, most notably that of Senator Robert Kennedy. Tonight we'll find out if that's even possible, or just the stuff of movie fiction. During tonight's experiment, I'll be testing to see whether such unlikely-sounding claims are actually possible." FALSE <snipped the historical reference to Sirhan Sirhan and RFK assassination, presented in documentary format with "expert" commentary by a conspiracy theorist> "So I'm about to give a demonstration of hypnosis to an audience of people who've applied to take part in my show. I haven't prepared these people in any way. I'm about to show you from scratch, how it is that I can create a hypnotic state. FALSE "But what they don't know, is that I'm on the lookout for a perfect candidate that I can program to carry out the assassination of a well-known figure at a public event. FALSE Using edited video to make it look like I've accomplished something isn't artful or particularly creative or clever or new or innovative. It's stock Hollywood. It's simple lying: saying something false convincingly enough that people who don't know any better will believe it. It isn't a psychological "trick" or "skill" or "technique", it requires no understanding of psychology, nor do demonstrations of it in action lead to any new understanding; there are no special "states" or "levels of inherent or enhanced suggestiveness" necessary to accomplish it - in fact, "suggestion" isn't even involved. Essentially the answer to the questions posed at the beginning of the show are "no it's not possible"; Derren Brown's claims that he will in fact demonstrate hypnosis are simple lies; and the show is stitched together to argue for the opposite of both of those facts, contrary to Azrael's insistence that he leaves it "open to interpretation".
	Last edited by Checkmite; 13th December 2011 at 11:10 AM.

13th December 2011, 12:37 PM	#834
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	Originally Posted by Checkmite Don't be silly. The fact that the "subject" is not willing to kill somebody is very obviously implicit in the fact that "hypnosis" or some other kind of manipulation is required in order to get them to do it. But the subject IS WILLING TO FIRE A GUN. The point is that the subject THINKS he's pulling the trigger on something other than a person. He is being fooled as well as the audience, as well as YOU! And I am not even going to comment on the rest of what you wrote, because it's very clear you didn't get the point of the rest of what I wrote. Please re-read it again. And start with noticing that I never ever ever said that anyone was under hypnosis, or in a hypnotic trance or doing something that weren't willing to do, or that DB has proven that hypnosis is powerful. Also take note that it is a SHOW! Merely meant for entertainment based on the fact that he's a magician. Nothing more. Sheesh!
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch Last edited by JFrankA; 13th December 2011 at 12:39 PM.

13th December 2011, 01:50 PM	#835
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,979	Originally Posted by JFrankA But the subject IS WILLING TO FIRE A GUN. The point is that the subject THINKS he's pulling the trigger on something other than a person. He is being fooled as well as the audience, as well as YOU! Except that he isn't. In the scenario you proposed, he quite correctly is aware that he is not shooting at a person, and so is the audience around him; only the television audience is "fooled" because of the post-production editing. Originally Posted by JFrankA And I am not even going to comment on the rest of what you wrote, because it's very clear you didn't get the point of the rest of what I wrote. Please re-read it again. And start with noticing that I never ever ever said that anyone was under hypnosis, or in a hypnotic trance or doing something that weren't willing to do, or that DB has proven that hypnosis is powerful. If it is your stance that Brown is not using hypnosis, your arguing over whether or not he's hypnotizing people to do things "against their will" makes no sense. Originally Posted by JFrankA Also take note that it is a SHOW! Merely meant for entertainment based on the fact that he's a magician. Nothing more. Sheesh! This objection has been dealt with already.

13th December 2011, 02:20 PM	#836
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	Originally Posted by Checkmite Except that he isn't. In the scenario you proposed, he quite correctly is aware that he is not shooting at a person, and so is the audience around him; only the television audience is "fooled" because of the post-production editing. Could be post production, could be something more clever. Anyways, the point I'm making is that the shooter didn't think he was shooting at a human. That is important because in his mind, whether Steven Fry was really there or not, there was no human there. So it either means that DB really did "hypnotize" him, or DB fooled him, or we were fooled or there was a camera trick, etc, etc, etc. I tend to think that there is some kind of dual reality going on. That maybe the audience in the studio is seeing one thing and the audience at home is seeing another. And that can be done without the use of a stooge or a camera trick. Honestly, I don't have a full answer. I have my impression. Just because I don't know how it was specifically done doesn't mean "camera trick" or "stooge" or "hypnosis". You're a skeptic, why don't you think this way? Quote: If it is your stance that Brown is not using hypnosis, your arguing over whether or not he's hypnotizing people to do things "against their will" makes no sense. It's because YOU ARE THE ONE BRING UP THE WHOLE SUBJECT. YOU are one of the only two people using the phrase "against their will" and the other person is John. You and John are the people insisting that I am saying that he is "hypnotizing people" when all I've been saying is that he's been doing some psychological tricks, tricks that are not that possible, and fooling the shooter, the stage audience and the at home audience with different kinds of magician's secret. DB is a lot more meticulous in his performances. Often he has a few pieces of deception and distraction running to pull off his tricks. And although I am arguing that some psychological trick do work to fool a person, (again: to a point and under very certain conditions), they are not powerful enough to make someone do something "against their will". Quote: This objection has been dealt with already. No it hasn't. Not by a long shot. Again, I say if someone falls for his shows, without looking at who he and what he pushes after the show is over, is begging to believe woo. So again, I put this question to you: if you think that people are not as malleable as the psychological tricks to be fooled into, for example, giving their wallets, then why the hell do you feel that people will fall for a television show presented by a magician known for the fact that he is very very good at fooling his audience?
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch

13th December 2011, 04:34 PM	#837
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,042	Theres no reasoning with Checkmite. I notice my last post was completely ignored.Maybe CM or JA can explain how the persons were able to withstand ice baths and opinions on what Univeristy experts said.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

13th December 2011, 05:31 PM	#838
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,979	Originally Posted by JFrankA Could be post production, could be something more clever. Anyways, the point I'm making is that the shooter didn't think he was shooting at a human. That is important because in his mind, whether Steven Fry was really there or not, there was no human there. So it either means that DB really did "hypnotize" him, or DB fooled him, or we were fooled or there was a camera trick, etc, etc, etc. I tend to think that there is some kind of dual reality going on. That maybe the audience in the studio is seeing one thing and the audience at home is seeing another. And that can be done without the use of a stooge or a camera trick. Honestly, I don't have a full answer. I have my impression. Just because I don't know how it was specifically done doesn't mean "camera trick" or "stooge" or "hypnosis". You're a skeptic, why don't you think this way? It's called resorting to Occam's Razor and/or defaulting to the null hypothesis in the absence of a definite answer. Originally Posted by JFrankA It's because YOU ARE THE ONE BRING UP THE WHOLE SUBJECT. YOU are one of the only two people using the phrase "against their will" and the other person is John. Hypnotizing someone into doing something like assassinating a person, as I've already said, means making them do something they're not willing to do. You're niggling this issue over semantics, claiming that if the person was willing to fire a gun (not at a person though), then that counts as it not being against the person's will. But of course that's nonsensical: Brown did not declare that he was going to hypnotize someone into simply firing a gun, he declared he was going to hypnotize someone into assassinating a person. Whether Brown used the exact phrase "against his will" or not, he stated pretty explicitly that he intended to hypnotize someone without their knowledge. Leaving aside the fact that it's impossible - if it were, the person would be an unwilling subject by definition. But even choosing to argue over that particular phrase is a tangent. I don't believe Brown or anyone else is capable of actually "hypnotizing" someone into a suggestive state whether he claims to be doing so against their will or not. Originally Posted by JFrankA You and John are the people insisting that I am saying that he is "hypnotizing people" when all I've been saying is that he's been doing some psychological tricks, tricks that are not that possible, and fooling the shooter, the stage audience and the at home audience with different kinds of magician's secret. You've also been arguing that hypnosis is real - whether independently from the Brown show discussion or not. I'm not convinced by your arguments in that tangent because it looks like rather than discussing the original, long-standing conception of hypnosis, you're taking nebulous but more plausible-sounding notions and repackaging them as "what hypnosis really is". Originally Posted by JFrankA No it hasn't. Not by a long shot. Again, I say if someone falls for his shows, without looking at who he and what he pushes after the show is over, is begging to believe woo. So again, I put this question to you: if you think that people are not as malleable as the psychological tricks to be fooled into, for example, giving their wallets, then why the hell do you feel that people will fall for a television show presented by a magician known for the fact that he is very very good at fooling his audience? This is a double-edged sword, my friend. If you think people are as malleable as they need to be in order for people to be "fooled" by Brown's "tricks", why aren't you bothered by the fact that he feels it's okay for him to "fool" a few malleable individuals into thinking they've been hypnotized into doing things like killing people without knowing it, for the sake of others' "entertainment" - and furthermore, why are you so averse to or unconcerned about the possibility that people who are malleable enough to fall for it will continue to believe it long after the show is over, perhaps to their own detriment?