have you watched derren browns "the experiment"

[John Albert]

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Nope. Still not getting it, even though I've said it clear as day.

What I said was practically the same thing. I even quoted your own post wherein you said it. You're mincing words, just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I'm saying that some people are going to believe what they want to believe no matter how much evidence and education is thrown at them.

...and you were using that argument to support what position? That we ought to call Derren Brown on it whenever he promotes woo, or that we ought to stop criticizing him?

Why don't you go out on a limb and try being honest for a change?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

*Yawn* I know what a null hypothesis is.

I am saying that your assessment of what the null hypothesis is wrong.

You apparently don't know what a null hypothesis is, or what it's for.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

And, I think you're using it as an "out".

I have no need for an "out."

The burden of proof is not on me to prove that people called onstage to participate in a show often choose to participate in the show of their own free will. That's a given.

You've made a number of extraordinary claims about what stage hypnotism can do, yet you refuse to back them up with any evidence. Instead, you just repeat the same tired rationalizations over and over. Rationalizations are not evidence.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I am not saying that the hypnotist has control over the subject. I am saying that the hypnotist convinces the subject that she/he has the control and the subject believes it enough to be fooled and/or confused in obeying a suggestion.

I know exactly what you're saying. You keep repeating it over and over. You're saying you don't really have control, you just convince them that you do, and then you use that pretense to exercise control over them.

You're claiming this technique can be used to literally cause paralysis in parts of their bodies, make them impervious to pain, and make them instantly fall asleep with a handshake or the snap of a finger... Yet you've offered absolutely no evidence to prove those extraordinary claims.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

That doesn't mean that they are always "play acting" either.

"Play acting" is something human beings are known to do in certain situations, like when they're onstage in a show. That's the completely mundane behavior people are expected to do when they're onstage. That's why "playing along" is the null hypothesis. You haven't offered any evidence whatsoever to prove otherwise, so the null hypothesis has not been falsified.

On the other hand, you're alleging that something extraordinary is going on when these people get called onstage for this particular kind of show.

What evidence do you have that your extraordinary claims are true, and that they're not just "playing along" as people normally do in any other kind of show?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Because, if you actually read what I've been writing for 10 pages you'd know that is not exactly what I am saying.

Unfortunately, I have been reading, comprehending, and considering everything you've been saying, and a lot of it amounts to nothing but hot air. You've shown no evidence whatsoever for anything you've said. You just keep talking around in circles, saying a lot of crap, but showing nothing substantial.

I'm through wasting my time with this nonsense until you start backing up your claims with evidence.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I am saying that some people can be fooled into believing what was suggested to them is happening to them.

Yet you have shown absolutely no evidence that such a thing is even possible.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Tell me how to prove that they are telling the truth when they say "I don't remember doing that" or "I did it and I don't know why".

So you find yourself in the same quandary as the UFO guys who say, "How do you expect me to prove that all the people were telling the truth when they said they were abducted by outer space aliens?" That's your problem, not mine. You figure it out. I already gave a few hints on the last page.

It's not the skeptic's burden to prove they were lying. It's your burden to prove your own extraordinary claims. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Once again, you do not, either on purpose or really don't see, what I have been actually saying over the past 10 pages.

Quit with the ad hominems.

I already warned you about those lame accusations about my understanding. I've been reading, comprehending, considering, and addressing everything you've been saying.

You just keep trying to sidetrack the discussion by repeating the same assertions over and over, because you're too weaselly to admit you have no evidence to back up your extraordinary claims.

No matter how many times you keep repeating it, it still won't constitute evidence.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Maybe I'm not being clear. I don't know. But you really are not getting it.

Let's start with this:

"Real hypnosis" techniques and stage hypnosis techniques are exactly the same thing...

<blah blah blah>

You're making the extraordinary claims about what stage hypnotism can do, yet you refuse to back it up with any evidence. Instead, you just repeat the same tired explanations over and over.

It's like arguing with a CTM proponent who keeps blathering about chi energy and chakras and meridians even after the hundredth time I ask for evidence for their extraordinary claims.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I AM. I HAVE BEEN FOR 20 PAGES NOW. YOU have been ducking and dodging my point over and over.

Wrong. I've been holding a steady course, insisting that you produce the evidence for your claims.

Lacking evidence, you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to support your conclusion that you must be actually tricking these people into believing you have control over their minds when you tell them to "go grab that girl's tits" or whatever. As far as you know for sure, that guy wanted to grab those tits all along, and you're just offering him a pretense to do it in front of everybody.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I have been using the word "fool", "confuse", "showman" quite a lot.

You sure have. What you haven't done is present evidence to back up your extraordinary claims.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I have been asking you the questions that knock an hole in your assertions. YOU have been dodging and by-passing them, waving them away with the "that's irrelevant" wave of your hand.

You haven't knocked any holes in anything. I haven't dodged anything, because it's not my responsibility to disprove your BS.

You've been talking a lot of garbage, making extraordinary claims about how you can hypnotize somebody with a handshake and subconsciously fool people into not having any control over their own bodies. You've shown absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support anything you've said, yet you're trying to blame me for that.

You've misrepresented my arguments as claims to "know what people are thinking" (something I never, ever claimed to do, ever), and then you try to say I have the burden of proving your strawman.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Therefore, I am finished with discussing this point with you until you can start debating honestly. The next step for you is obviously to either present evidence to back up your wild-ass claims, or else retract the claims.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

And I'm saying that because the environment is right, and people are relaxed...

<blah blah blah>

My "assertions" are nothing more than the rejection of your extraordinary claims as bunk, until you provide evidence.

YOU keep avoiding the burden of proof by trying to make me prove you wrong.

I don't need to prove that people "play along with the show" when they're called onstage by a magician, because it's a given that that's what people do. Audience participants called up onto a stage generally obey what the performer tells them to do, unless they decide not to.

The fact that your entire act revolves around a pretense that you have attained some extraordinary control over their minds, when in fact they're just playing along with you for the fun of it, is not my problem.

I don't need to prove that your act is a hoax.

You need to present evidence to prove that it's real.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Prove to me that they are lieing and they knew they were "play acting".

I don't need to do that. I'm not the one making the extraordinary claims here, I'm the one challenging them.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

There are people who want to believe in whatever woo so badly, they will refuse any evidence of it not being real. Even if the performer admits to it.

But Derren Brown does not admit it. He presents his show in a documentary format, as an "experiment" to determine the truth in a scientific way, then uses magician's patter and magic tricks to mislead the viewer into believing woo, without any disclaimer to say it's not actually true. You look on his website, and he says:

Quote:

If I make a statement on these shows, it will be true. Nowadays, the Channel 4 lawyers check every word to make sure there is no misleading of the viewer: this is a huge issue in the TV industry at the moment. The joke in the office is that a magician can’t even say ‘this is a normal deck of cards’ on TV nowadays if it isn’t, and I don’t think that’s an exaggeration.

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2011/11/claim-claim-2/

So you see, he even lies about it on his website. That being the case, I don't see how you can absolve him of any culpability in people believing the woo he promotes on his show.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Again, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink". Some will drink, yes. Some will not. In my humble opinion most people who go to a Derren Brown show, or even my show, don't even care! They are looking for entertainment, not education.

Saying it's "your humble opinion" does not give you license to make a statement of fact about the thoughts and intentions of thousands or even millions of people. Again, like Azrael, you're trying to pretend you know what's inside the minds of all Derren Brown's viewers, without presenting any evidence whatsoever to prove any of it.

I also find it somewhat ironic that you're talking as a skeptic about people believing or not believing the woo, when you've clearly stated that you in fact believe at least some of the nonsense in DB's patter about hypnosis.

Even if it were true that most people who go to a Derren Brown show know that none of it is real and it's all just a magic show, that's irrelevant to the fact that he's presenting lies as facts on national TV. Even if most of the people in John Edward's studio audience knew it was an act, would that make it OK for John Edward to present his woo claims as fact?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

The people who WANT an education will delve deeper, such as, I don't know, looking a the performer's website, maybe?

Again, you arbitrarily purport to know the mindset of large numbers of people you've never even met.

Anyway, even assuming you're right, and your hypothetical curious few go to Derren Brown's website. Once there, they read:

Quote:

If I make a statement on these shows, it will be true. Nowadays, the Channel 4 lawyers check every word to make sure there is no misleading of the viewer: this is a huge issue in the TV industry at the moment. The joke in the office is that a magician can’t even say ‘this is a normal deck of cards’ on TV nowadays if it isn’t, and I don’t think that’s an exaggeration.

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2011/11/claim-claim-2/

So they're misled by Derren Brown to believe that all the stuff in his patter is true, because the TV standards board won't allow him to lie. ...which is itself a lie.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

He is obviously a performer, out to entertain people. Nothing more.

Irrelevant, and not an excuse. What's obvious to you is obviously not obvious to everybody. For some obvious evidence of this, go back about 12-15 pages and read LondonJohn's posts.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Quote:

You don't need to say it outright. You frequently talk as if you think you know what everyone else is thinking.

Oh please get real.

Just look at your posts. You do it all the time.

From now on, I'm going to point out every time you do it, just so you can see how often you tend to make these broad, sweeping generalizations about what people think, feel and believe.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Quote:

You claimed to know the general motives and feelings of all Derren Brown's fans;

I do? When?

You've done it quite a few times. You just did it in two of the excerpts I quoted above. Scroll up a few lines.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Err.... you do know what the word "guess" means right?????

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that you're invoking your own subjective opinion about another person's subjective opinion as proof of something or other, and that's silly.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Funny, I recall saying several times on this thread that I can't read minds.....

Yet you keep making these statements regarding the thought processes of people you don't even know— even entire hypothetical groups of people—without even a shred of evidence.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

And you say I suck at being a mind reader? I guess I was right. People are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what evidence you give them. You just proved that John. I've said several times I'm not a mind reader, yet you are convinced I am one, though a "sucky" one, but you still called me a mind reader.

I was merely mocking you for main broad generalizations about the thoughts, beliefs, motivations, etc. of people you've never met.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Answer this question:

Quote:

DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW IF CARA COULDN'T PULL APART HER HANDS BECAUSE SHE REALLY BELIEVED SHE COULD, OR SHE WAS SAYING TO HERSELF THE WHOLE TIME "I'D BETTER PLAY ALONG FOR X REASON"?

I already answered that question. But I'll answer it one more time, for the last time. After this, I'm going to ignore your repeated questions that I've already answered.

I have no reason to believe that she was actually unable to pull her hands apart, because (given the situation as presented on TV) I have no reason to believe that such a thing is even possible at all.

That effect as presented was an extraordinary thing, and I have never seen any evidence that a person can really be made paralyzed in that way with just a few words. Therefore, the most reasonable and logical conclusion is that she was merely acting the part, for reasons best known only to herself.

Now let me turn that around and ask you:

Do you actually have any evidence that Cara couldn't pull apart her hands?

Do you have any evidence that such a thing is even possible at all?

Do you have any evidence that she wasn't simply playing along with the show, as so many people are wont to do when an entertainer calls them into the spotlight in front of a crowd of people?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Stop dodging and pointing fingers. It's annoying and making you look like you don't want to answer for...whatever reason.

As I've said many times before, I'm not dodging anything.

I'm challenging your extraordinary claims that a stage magician can assume control of a person's entire perception with the snap of a finger, put them to sleep by pulling out of a handshake, make them impervious to pain, and render them unable to move various parts of their body, all with a mere suggestion.

Do you have any evidence to support your extraordinary claims, or are you willing to retract those unsupported claims for lack of evidence?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Please remember, because you twist what I've been saying all along, that my point has been all along, that people will follow suggestions on stage, some will "play along". "Play along" means that they KNOW they are following a suggestion, that they hear it and think to themselves, for example, "Oh, he said 'sleep'. I better collapse and play along (pretend) to sleep".

I'm not twisting anything.

I am demanding that you provide evidence to support your extraordinary claims. Are you going to do that, or are you going to retract the claims?

If you're not going to do that, then there is nothing more to discuss along this line of inquiry.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

But some will follow suggestion and say they don't know why or say they don't remember.

Are those people lieing?

As I have stated before, I'm not re-answering any more of these questions you keep on repeating after I've already answered them. From now on I'm just snipping and ignoring them.

I'll say it one last time: until you either provide evidence to support your extraordinary claims, or else retract them, I'm through with this line of pointless bickering. From now on, I'm responding to any and all of this nonsense with just a familiar one word question for you.

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

That starts very Jamaican and ends up a bit Scottish.


Yes, I know I'm the one that's been paying attention here.


And if you don't see the irony of you mentioning a name who has left stage hypnotism and started promoting woo age life coaching, nonsensical hynotherapy and NLP, that is your failing not mine.
That you would pick his name as an example to refute the claim of "superpowers" when his own website is like a smorgasbord (or cheese board if you'd prefer) of examples of him claiming to have them is shooting yourself in the foot.

To me it's just a name to use as an example,it ws unintenionally ironic as I didnt know any of his history.But thanks for the cheese.

[Azrael 5]

JFRANKA with respect,its pointless debating with John Albert he cant even tell the truth as demonstrated numerous times in this thread. Seems it's just an an argument over semantics anyhow.

[John Albert]

I have not lied.

It's not an argument about semantics.

It's a simple matter of him providing evidence to back up his extraordinary assertions, nothing more.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Beaver Hateman

I feel I should post something that competes with your level of wit and repartee though, so....

No, you!

There, that's done it.

You handled that quite Caerphilly.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

But thanks for the cheese.

There's Stiltons of it left.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Then you either recall wrong or you misunderstand the concern.

Most likely it's both. My apologies, this has been a looooooooooooong thread.

Quote:

My concern is that Brown's experiments series can be taken by woos and used to further their own silly wooish claims and beliefs therefore causing damage by ripping people off etc.

I understand that, but it seems to me, and I do not mean any insult, that this concern is over protection. It's worry of what someone might do after seeing the show.

And it's my opinion that if someone is going to take one show from a performer' as a true thing, even when there's evidence he's just a performer, even when he's done other shows and has interviews and books, etc, saying that he is just tricking people. If that person is taking that one show to heart, then that person is looking for an excuse to believe.

I'm sorry to say, there are some people one just cannot help.

Quote:

Yes, I think DB has some responsibility in it, but I'm not saying he is causing the damage, only that belief in woo causes damage in a variety of ways that I've already pointed out and which could be countered by DB not being so ambiguous about it all.

That's fine. I agree he does have some responsibility in making sure people know that he's just a performer. It's the difference between Edward and Brown. It's a clear difference.

[John Albert]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

There's Stiltons of it left.

It just o Curd to me what Edam shame it is that in most Quesos, it'll never be as Goudas that.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by JFrankA

If that person is taking that one show to heart, then that person is looking for an excuse to believe.

Well it's more than just one show, it's a developing general misunderstanding of what DB actually does. The experiments being the most overtly wooish.
As for the "excuse to believe" I know people will always look for and find excuses to believe nonsense, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to educate them and as a magician, I'd prefer if their excuse wasn't a magician.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I'm sorry to say, there are some people one just cannot help.

OK, so you and Azrael 5 don't want to even try helping. We get that.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

That's fine. I agree he does have some responsibility in making sure people know that he's just a performer. It's the difference between Edward and Brown. It's a clear difference.

It's clear to you... not to the ones who are looking for those excuses.

It's clear to me that aliens don't zip around our planet in flying saucers but apparently some people genuinely believe they do.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Well it's more than just one show, it's a developing general misunderstanding of what DB actually does. The experiments being the most overtly wooish.

Okay. It seems to me, though, that this thread is focused solely on the "assassination" show. I haven't seen anyone up-in-arms in the guilty show or the game show or the luck show.

Still, I know I keep harping on this, but they are just shows. And I think that in all his other shows prior to this, except for "Miracles for Sale", I think, he gives his disclaimer.

But, I'm sorry, it really doesn't take much effort to look up Derren Brown and see references that he's a performer, no matter what shows are.

So I ask you, not out of spite or anything, just want to know your opinoin. What is your line? What do you feel Derren should do to a) show he is just a performer, and b) keep the tricks amazing.

It seems to me that the real problem in this kind of stage magic is that it's a very fine line. Derren has to walk it carefully. And, depending on one's point of view, he's crossed it, not even close or walking it perfectly.

I ask in all seriousness, without any insult or meaness, how does such a performer walk that line and still keep his to responsibility? (And yes, I completely agree with you that any performer has such a responsibility).

Quote:

As for the "excuse to believe" I know people will always look for and find excuses to believe nonsense, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to educate them and as a magician, I'd prefer if their excuse wasn't a magician.

Quote:

OK, so you and Azrael 5 don't want to even try helping. We get that.

No. That's not the point we are trying to make. Let me put it this way:

You can't save everybody. You just can't. You do your best with what you have to work with with your own limitations, and yes, your own beliefs and try your best.

But I'm sorry, the reality is that the JREF cannot help everyone. There is going to be a time when someone has to make that realization on their own and no amount of evidence will prove them otherwise.

Quote:

It's clear to you... not to the ones who are looking for those excuses.

Oh agreed. But again, you try as much as you can, with what you have, with the limitations you have and the circumstances you're in. One can do only what one can. After that it's up to the individual.

Quote:

It's clear to me that aliens don't zip around our planet in flying saucers but apparently some people genuinely believe they do.

And people believe in Creationism and people believe that Climate Change isn't real, and people believe in a god and people believe in ghosts and ...on and on.

Look at it this way. To get a bunch of people to realize that going to a church is woo, and they shouldn't donate waste their money on that church, what do you do?

You try your best to show why it's woo.

And no matter how hard you try, no matter what evidence you give, no matter even if the leader of said church says "I am a phony!" There's going to be a range of reactions. Some will say "Bah!" and leave, some will stick around for whatever reason, some will just slip away from said church quietly on their own, some will stay to test it for themselves, some will stay devote to the church and some people will believe the church even more out of spite for what you did. Plus a whole bunch of other reactions too numinous to mention.

I may sound defeatist, and I'm sorry if I do, I don't mean to. To me, it's just realistic. One does the best they can, with their own limitations and circumstances and personal beliefs and experiences. You do your best. That's all you can do. You can't stop everyone.

[John Albert]

Originally Posted by JFrankA

But, I'm sorry, it really doesn't take much effort to look up Derren Brown and see references that he's a performer, no matter what shows are.

It doesn't take much effort to look up John Edward and see what he's all about, either. But people still believe. If anything, that supports the idea that the performer himself has a responsibility not to misrepresent himself and his abilities. People seem to trust in personalities more than they do in critical stuff they read on the Web about the personalities.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

You can't save everybody. You just can't. You do your best with what you have to work with with your own limitations, and yes, your own beliefs and try your best.

But I'm sorry, the reality is that the JREF cannot help everyone. There is going to be a time when someone has to make that realization on their own and no amount of evidence will prove them otherwise.

Sounds like a cop-out to me.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

But again, you try as much as you can, with what you have, with the limitations you have and the circumstances you're in. One can do only what one can.

...and how does this support your position that Derren Brown does not promote woo? Or that he should not be taken to task for it when he does?

Originally Posted by JFrankA

You try your best to show why it's woo.

...and then you get a bunch of people jumping down your throat, fighting you tooth and nail in defense of their beloved idol. You get people calling you names, accusing you of being hysterical, telling blatant lies, misrepresenting your words as things you never said, and demanding that you prove the woo isn't real.

All that nonsense is coming from self-described "skeptics," and then those same people tell you not to bother because it's a lost cause to try and expose liars, frauds and charlatans.

[JM85]

Derren Brown must be a popular subject around here, even though his show doesn't air in the states anymore. Or does it? Anyway, if he did deceive the audience in the way speculated by JFrankA then that's pretty unimaginative. Were the people in the restaurant superimposed onto the screen, or were they in on the trick?

Another thing: Brown has admitted to pick pocketing people and pulling other scams in the past, (maybe it was in just) so is it really past him to lie about him thinking there's legitimacy to hypnosis?

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by John Albert

It doesn't take much effort to look up John Edward and see what he's all about, either. But people still believe.

Here you go again with the John Edward comparison,Edward doesnt portray himself as a magician/entertainer.He is lying from the outset Derren Brown isnt.

Quote:

If anything, that supports the idea that the performer himself has a responsibility not to misrepresent himself and his abilities. People seem to trust in personalities more than they do in critical stuff they read on the Web about the personalities.

A magician should be exempt from any responsibilty, it's a trick,a stunt,a show.Derren is a performer, and judging by amount of threads on here ,doing well.
He takes a responsibility in interviews,in books etc; when someone take his showmanship too far and is "hurt" i'll change my stance. I doubt it will ever happen.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by John Albert

What I said was practically the same thing. I even quoted your own post wherein you said it. You're mincing words, just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

"practically", by definition is not exactly.

Quote:

...and you were using that argument to support what position? That we ought to call Derren Brown on it whenever he promotes woo, or that we ought to stop criticizing him?

I don't remember saying that either.....

Quote:

Why don't you go out on a limb and try being honest for a change?

Right back at you buddy. And I have been honest. Every word.

...seems your own lines are good for when you are looking in a mirror....

Quote:

You apparently don't know what a null hypothesis is, or what it's for.

I have no need for an "out."

Yet you are using one. Funny that.

Quote:

The burden of proof is not on me to prove that people called onstage to participate in a show often choose to participate in the show of their own free will. That's a given.

Often? Often? Wait. What?

I will state this, which I have stated before, that people choose to participate in the show of their own free will. That is NOT what I am asking you. In fact, I'm not asking for a burden of proof from you now. I am asking you answer some simple questions.

Quote:

You've made a number of extraordinary claims about what stage hypnotism can do, yet you refuse to back them up with any evidence. Instead, you just repeat the same tired rationalizations over and over. Rationalizations are not evidence.[/b]

Once again, I am trying to show you what my point of view is. I am trying to get you to understand my point.

You clearly, either on purpose or not, I don't know, I'm not a mind reader, but you clearly miss my point.

I'll try to provide proof but I can't if you don't understand what I want to prove. Let's start with answering my questions without dodging them.

See if you can be honest with yourself to start with that.

Quote:

I know exactly what you're saying. You keep repeating it over and over. You're saying you don't really have control, you just convince them that you do, and then you use that pretense to exercise control over them.

You're claiming this technique can be used to literally cause paralysis in parts of their bodies, make them impervious to pain, and make them instantly fall asleep with a handshake or the snap of a finger... Yet you've offered absolutely no evidence to prove those extraordinary claims.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Nope. Wrong again!

That ties the score at"correct about statements I made" - 5, "wrong about statements I made" - 5

Let's continue the game.

Quote:

"Play acting" is something human beings are known to do in certain situations, like when they're onstage in a show. That's the completely mundane behavior people are expected to do when they're onstage. That's why "playing along" is the null hypothesis. You haven't offered any evidence whatsoever to prove otherwise, so the null hypothesis has not been falsified.

Continue the definition or "play acting" please. You are leaving out the key to my point.

And don't say semantics. It's not semantics.

Oh. Never mind. I did your homework for you. You're welcome.

Quote:

Definition of PLAYACT

transitive verb
: act out 1a
intransitive verb
1
a : to take part in theatrical performances especially as a professional
b : to make believe
2 : to engage in theatrical or insincere behavior

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/playact

ETA: Hint: By definition, if a person is play acting, and then says that they followed a suggestion in a stage hypnosis show and didn't know why, or that they don't remember following a suggestion, then they are lieing.

Quote:

On the other hand, you're alleging that something extraordinary is going on when these people get called onstage for this particular kind of show.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Wrong again!!!!! I'm sorry, John, you're now at "correct about statements I made" - 5, "wrong about statements I made" - 6

Quote:

What evidence do you have that your extraordinary claims are true, and that they're not just "playing along" as people normally do in any other kind of show?

Now correct me if I'm wrong. I am no mind reader. But just to be sure that I have your stance right, you are saying that:

Everyone who participates in a stage hypnosis show is play acting, i.e. that everyone who is participating in the show, when the performer says "sleep" or "your hands are stuck", for example, they know for a fact that they are not asleep, or that their hands are not really stuck, and are just pretending that they are for..whatever reason.

Is this correct that this is your "null hypothesis"?

..as a side note, why are you yelling? Calm down, John. Breathe. It's okay. It's only a forum. Here. Have a chair.

Quote:

Unfortunately, I have been reading, comprehending, and considering everything you've been saying,

You have? Oh. Okay. Thanks for telling me! Since you have been "reading, comprehending, and considering everything" I've been saying,when you twist and misrepresent some of my posts, and when you don't addressed my questions at all, it seems to me that you are saying that when you do twist and misrepresent what I say and dodge my questions, you are doing it on purpose!

Thank you so much for making that clear.

Quote:

and a lot of it amounts to nothing but hot air. You've shown no evidence whatsoever for anything you've said. You just keep talking around in circles, saying a lot of crap, but showing nothing substantial.

I haven't given evidence because you have not been comprehending my point.

Oh. Wait. You just said you have been comprehending my point. Let me re-word that.

I haven't given evidence because you have been purposely twisting and misrepresenting what I have been saying.

Once you stop, then we can have an honest debate.

Quote:

I'm through wasting my time with this nonsense until you start backing up your claims with evidence.

Oh good. Does that mean you're going to stop purposely twisting and misrepresenting my statements?

...remember the score, John: "correct about statements I made" - 5, "wrong about statements I made" - 6

Quote:

Yet you have shown absolutely no evidence that such a thing is even possible.

Well, if you REEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLLY want to hear my evidence, then you have to start by answering my questions without dodging them and stop purposely twisting and misrepresenting my statements.

Quote:

So you find yourself in the same quandary as the UFO guys who say, "How do you expect me to prove that all the people were telling the truth when they said they were abducted by outer space aliens?" That's your problem, not mine. You figure it out. I already gave a few hints on the last page.

Oh. Another ad hom.

That's okay, John. I'm generous. I'll forgive you yet again.

You're welcome.

Quote:

It's not the skeptic's burden to prove they were lying. It's your burden to prove your own extraordinary claims. Simple as that.

So wait. Did you answer my question in a sneaky way? Are you saying that Cara was lieing when she said she couldn't pull her hands apart? Clarify it for me, John. I can't read minds.

Quote:

Quit with the ad hominems.

Wait. I'm confused. Are you talking to yourself here?

Quote:

I already warned you about those lame accusations about my understanding. I've been reading, comprehending, considering, and addressing everything you've been saying.

And as I said, if that is true, and if I believe you are telling the truth, then the conclusion has to be that you are purposely twisting and misrepresenting what I am saying.

But then you are making one little lie too, John. Because by your own claim you do read, comprehend, consider my questions which I have posted several times, but you have yet to address them.

Your patter is quite interesting.

Quote:

You just keep trying to sidetrack the discussion by repeating the same assertions over and over, because you're too weaselly to admit you have no evidence to back up your extraordinary claims.

John. John. John. Yet again, I forgive your ad hom. You're welcome again.

Quote:

No matter how many times you keep repeating it, it still won't constitute evidence.

It is difficult as long as you keep twisting and misrepresenting my posts

Quote:

Yup. There they are on the page. Good!

Quote:

You're making the extraordinary claims about what stage hypnotism can do, yet you refuse to back it up with any evidence. Instead, you just repeat the same tired explanations over and over.

Well, I was hoping you were just misunderstanding me. But now that you've made it clear that you are twisting and misrepresenting me on purpose, I won't repeat as much.

Quote:

It's like arguing with a CTM proponent who keeps blathering about chi energy and chakras and meridians even after the hundredth time I ask for evidence for their extraordinary claims.

Wow, John. I've lost count as the ad homs in this post alone. Where are we now? I think we're at four in this post. I'll have to go back and count.

No matter. I'll continue to forgive your ad homs. I know that someday, you'll be ready to have an honest debate. I can wait.

Quote:

Wrong. I've been holding a steady course, insisting that you produce the evidence for your claims.

....and purposely twisting and misrepresenting what I have been saying. Don't forget, you've been holding a steady course in that too.

Quote:

Lacking evidence, you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to support your conclusion that you must be actually tricking these people into believing you have control over their minds when you tell them to "go grab that girl's tits" or whatever. As far as you know for sure, that guy wanted to grab those tits all along, and you're just offering him a pretense to do it in front of everybody.

Wow, John. For someone who prides themselves on giving evidence and willing to go back and show me where I have said something, and that you "read, comprehend, address" what I have typed, you really are wrong here.

I've never said anything about "grabbing tits". In fact, "grabbing tits" is not in my act at all.

I guess it was an assumption on your part based on your experience.

I'm afraid I have to deduct another point:

"correct about statements I made" - 5, "wrong about statements I made" - 7

Quote:

You sure have. What you haven't done is present evidence to back up your extraordinary claims.

You haven't knocked any holes in anything. I haven't dodged anything, because it's not my responsibility to disprove your BS.

You've been talking a lot of garbage, making extraordinary claims about how you can hypnotize somebody with a handshake and subconsciously fool people into not having any control over their own bodies. You've shown absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support anything you've said, yet you're trying to blame me for that.

You've misrepresented my arguments as claims to "know what people are thinking" (something I never, ever claimed to do, ever), and then you try to say I have the burden of proving your strawman.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Therefore, I am finished with discussing this point with you until you can start debating honestly. The next step for you is obviously to either present evidence to back up your wild-ass claims, or else retract the claims.



My "assertions" are nothing more than the rejection of your extraordinary claims as bunk, until you provide evidence.

YOU keep avoiding the burden of proof by trying to make me prove you wrong.

...sorry, I've stepped out to get popcorn. What did I miss? More pontificating?

Quote:

I don't need to prove that people "play along with the show" when they're called onstage by a magician, because it's a given that that's what people do. Audience participants called up onto a stage generally obey what the performer tells them to do, unless they decide not to.

WOAH!!! WE HAVE AN ANSWER!!!! John. I-I-I'm stunned!!!! You finally committed! Wow!

So let me make sure this is right: When a suggestion is given to all participants in all stage hypnosis shows, they KNOW FOR A FACT that they are play acting.

And if someone asks any and all participants in any and all hypnosis shows if they were knew they were play acting, that at the time of the suggestion, they thought "I will follow the suggestion", if any participants claims they were not play acting, and didn't know why they followed the suggestion, or said they don't remember what happened, all those people are lairs.

...do I have that right?

Quote:

The fact that your entire act revolves around a pretense that you have attained some extraordinary control over their minds, when in fact they're just playing along with you for the fun of it, is not my problem.

...I don't recall that I made this your problem. I'm sorry if I had given you that impression. You can rest assured. I don't want it to be your problem. I'm fine. But thanks anyway!

Seriously, I just wanted an honest debate. I would like to give you the evidence you ask for, and I will once you stop purposely twisting and misrepresenting my statements.

Quote:

I don't need to prove that your act is a hoax.

Good. I didn't ask you to. Again, thanks for the offer for the help, though.

Quote:

You need to present evidence to prove that it's real.[/b]

Well, I could go onstage and perform my act, but since you are sure that anyone who goes on any stage hypnosis act is play acting, and if anyone who participated in any stage hypnosis act says that they weren't play acting is lieing, how do you purpose I prove it to you?

Quote:

I don't need to do that. I'm not the one making the extraordinary claims here, I'm the one challenging them.

Nope. You're right! You don't need to prove that any participant in any stage hypnosis show who claims that they were not play acting is a liar.

Quote:

But Derren Brown does not admit it. He presents his show in a documentary format, as an "experiment" to determine the truth in a scientific way, then uses magician's patter and magic tricks to mislead the viewer into believing woo, without any disclaimer to say it's not actually true. You look on his website, and he says:

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2011/11/claim-claim-2/

So you see, he even lies about it on his website. That being the case, I don't see how you can absolve him of any culpability in people believing the woo he promotes on his show.

Wow. Your powers of knowing who is lieing and who is not is amazing. You know it without question.

What an amazing ability you have!!!!!

Quote:

Saying it's "your humble opinion" does not give you license to make a statement of fact about the thoughts and intentions of thousands or even millions of people. Again, like Azrael, you're trying to pretend you know what's inside the minds of all Derren Brown's viewers, without presenting any evidence whatsoever to prove any of it.

Funny. I thought saying that it was an opinion showed that I wasn't claiming it as a fact. Please tell me, what word should I use to convey I'm making an opinion?

Should I use the same words you use when you make a statement of fact about the thoughts and intentions of thousands or even millions of people?

Quote:

I also find it somewhat ironic that you're talking as a skeptic about people believing or not believing the woo, when you've clearly stated that you in fact believe at least some of the nonsense in DB's patter about hypnosis.

I'm sorry. Like you, I am basing that on my experience of actually being onstage.

I'm sorry my experience means nothing compared to yours.

I promise to watch it next time.

Quote:

Even if it were true that most people who go to a Derren Brown show know that none of it is real and it's all just a magic show, that's irrelevant to the fact that he's presenting lies as facts on national TV. Even if most of the people in John Edward's studio audience knew it was an act, would that make it OK for John Edward to present his woo claims as fact?

Wait. One second. Let me look at what he is called on Wiki:

Quote:

John Edward McGee, Jr. (born October 19, 1969) is an American television personality and professional psychic medium.

I wonder what Derren Brown's Wiki calls him? NLP Mentor? Hypnosis Master? Mind Controller?

Quote:

Derren Victor Brown (born 27 February 1971)[citation needed] is an English illusionist, mentalist, painter, writer and sceptic.

Illusionist? Mentalist? PAINTER?????

Oh. Well. No matter. How someone defines themselves in real life does not matter.

What only matters is how it's presented on television!!!!!!

Quote:

Again, you arbitrarily purport to know the mindset of large numbers of people you've never even met.

I'm sorry. I'm wrong in doing so. I should know I can't do it nearly as good as you can.

It was wrong for me to assume to think that people would do a little research and see that he is a magician, when the right assumption is think that people would just watch television and believe that instead.

Quote:

Anyway, even assuming you're right, and your hypothetical curious few go to Derren Brown's website. Once there, they read:

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2011/11/claim-claim-2/

So they're misled by Derren Brown to believe that all the stuff in his patter is true, because the TV standards board won't allow him to lie. ...which is itself a lie.

Wow. I'm impressed. That's the most twisted misrepresentation yet. Oh. I'm sorry.

:smclap

You out did yourself! That's amazing! Since he is not allowed to lie, that is a lie itself so everything he says is a lie.

You're special ability to know lies from truth in everyone is so amazing. Where did you learn to do that? Did you have to take a special course? Do you give lessons???????

Quote:

Irrelevant, and not an excuse. What's obvious to you is obviously not obvious to everybody. For some obvious evidence of this, go back about 12-15 pages and read LondonJohn's posts.

Oh. You're right. One person's postings on one forum plus the fact that it's on television means that mostly all the people will be convinced that it's not just a magic show and that Derren has powers and....

...wait. Aren't you arguing that there is no way someone could have that kind of ability?

Quote:

Just look at your posts. You do it all the time.

Oh, but you do!!! You KNOW when someone is lieing. You know that when Derren said in his post that he had to tell the truth that he was lieing so he was lieing in his post.

You know you do.

...I wish I could learn your abilities. Where did you learn?

Quote:

From now on, I'm going to point out every time you do it, just so you can see how often you tend to make these broad, sweeping generalizations about what people think, feel and believe.

I'm sorry. I know I was wrong. I know that your broad, sweeping generalizations about what people think, feel and believe is right.

I know that now. Oh. I was so wrong in having an opinion!!!!!!

Quote:

You've done it quite a few times. You just did it in two of the excerpts I quoted above. Scroll up a few lines.

I know. I know.

By the way, what was that score again?

"correct about statements I made" - 5, "wrong about statements I made" - 6

Oh, that's right.

But then again, you admitted you are doing it purposely....

Quote:

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that you're invoking your own subjective opinion about another person's subjective opinion as proof of something or other, and that's silly.

Of course, your subjective opinion about another person's subjective opinion IS proof.

Because you have that ability, don't you?

Quote:

Yet you keep making these statements regarding the thought processes of people you don't even know— even entire hypothetical groups of people—without even a shred of evidence.

I know. I'm sorry. Of course your statements regarding the thought processes of people you don't even know--even entire hypothetical groups of people -- is COMPLETELY right!

Quote:

I was merely mocking you for main broad generalizations about the thoughts, beliefs, motivations, etc. of people you've never met.

Oh, and I would never mock you. Not one bit.

Quote:

I already answered that question. But I'll answer it one more time, for the last time. After this, I'm going to ignore your repeated questions that I've already answered.

I have no reason to believe that she was actually unable to pull her hands apart, because (given the situation as presented on TV) I have no reason to believe that such a thing is even possible at all.

That effect as presented was an extraordinary thing, and I have never seen any evidence that a person can really be made paralyzed in that way with just a few words. Therefore, the most reasonable and logical conclusion is that she was merely acting the part, for reasons best known only to herself.

Oh, I see. With your special ability you know for a fact she was lieing when she said that she couldn't pull her hands apart, that they were stuck.

Quote:

Now let me turn that around and ask you:

Do you actually have any evidence that Cara couldn't pull apart her hands?

Okay. I will answer: No, I do not have any evidence - save for the fact that she said that she couldn't.

I don't know if she was telling the truth or not. She could've been.

Or she could have been lieing and been able to do it all along.

Here's my point: GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL AND DO NOT TWIST OR MISREPRESENT IT:

I don't know if she's telling the truth or not. All I have to go by is her statement.

I do know that people do believe in things so much that they actually rationalize it somehow to make it real for them. People thinking that prayer actually worked, for example, or that "tingling feeling they got when they were touched by the Lord". Those experiences, real or not, is very real to that person because they fooled themselves into thinking it's real, so when someone says that it's true, in their world, in their mind, it is.

My point is I don't know what is running through a person's mind, but I do know we have the capability to fool ourselves into believing things so much, that they seem real. You said it yourself, one can into a book so much, that they hear the voices, see the scene, feel the emotions. The heart beats faster during the exciting parts, a scary book can make someone feel fear so much they could get nightmares (of course, they are fooling themselves into giving their own nightmares), a thread like this can make one agitated and type in all bolding.

But those are ways we fool ourselves and we do it everyday. What any hypnotist does, therapeutic or stage, is play on that kind of belief, make a suggestion because they are in a setting where it's alright to follow it, and they are in the right frame of mind, they trust the hypnotist, they want something to happen, so they allow a hypnotist's words and suggestion to fool themselves into believing what is suggested is happening to them.

THAT IS MY CLAIM. That is clearly different that what you keep wrongfully repeating.

I do not know how to prove that. I would love to if I could.

Quote:

Do you have any evidence that such a thing is even possible at all?

Here is the only evidence I can give right now that suggestion is possible.

I do know that if I walk up to a bunch of people who are focused at work and point to the window and say "LOOK!", there's a percentage of them who WILL look and not know why.

I do know that if I am doing a card trick, and if I want the audience to not look at my left hand, I can make a movement with my right, thereby silently suggesting people to look at my right hand instead. Most of them follow that suggestion and I didn't even utter a word.

I do know that if I walk up to someone holding a piece of paper and say "take this", some of the people will take the paper without knowing why.

I do know that people can fool themselves with heightened emotions, for example, they watch a horror film, hear a noise in their house and swear that they've seen a ghost, though nothing of the sort exists.

That's what I am going on. And I admit that these examples of suggestions are very minor forms compared to stage or "real" hypnosis. But they are there. We do this everyday to each other and to ourselves. And with stage hypnosis or a therapeutic hypnosis or even a stage magic a setting, I do know that people are more open to suggestion because the setting is one of no consequence for action, trust in the hypnotist, relaxed, focused, throw in a little confusion, and a desire to have something special happen. Indeed, that's part of your own point, and one I have been agreeing with you since the first time we talked.

Quote:

Do you have any evidence that she wasn't simply playing along with the show,

I do not know if she was simply playing along. All I have to go by is the fact that she said she can't pull them apart.

I can trust her that she is telling the truth, but tell me how do I prove that?

Can you prove to me that when she said that, she was lieing?

Quote:

as so many people are wont to do when an entertainer calls them into the spotlight in front of a crowd of people?[/b]

Can you prove to me that everyone who participates in a hypnosis show is play acting and there is not one person, not one, who isn't?

I'm sorry. That's an extraordinary claim too. It means you know what everyone is thinking at the moment the suggestion is given.

Quote:

As I've said many times before, I'm not dodging anything.

Say it all you want. You ARE dodging. You are twisting and misrepresenting.

Quote:

I'm challenging your extraordinary claims that a stage magician can assume control of a person's entire perception with the snap of a finger, put them to sleep by pulling out of a handshake, make them impervious to pain, and render them unable to move various parts of their body, all with a mere suggestion.

Once again, you are misrepresenting what I am saying.

Each. And. Every. Time.

Quote:

Do you have any evidence to support your extraordinary claims, or are you willing to retract those unsupported claims for lack of evidence?

Once you stop twisting what I am trying to say, I will.

Quote:

I'm not twisting anything.

I've caught you several times twisting and misrepresenting what I have been saying and what I have said, and shown you when you did.

Quote:

I am demanding that you provide evidence to support your extraordinary claims. Are you going to do that, or are you going to retract the claims?

If you're not going to do that, then there is nothing more to discuss along this line of inquiry.

Oh. Of course. You and your special abilities. Are you trying to suggest it out of me, John?

Quote:

As I have stated before, I'm not re-answering any more of these questions you keep on repeating after I've already answered them. From now on I'm just

going to continue

Quote:

snipping and ignoring them.

Fixed it for you. You've never answered anything directly. You've dodged, twisted, misrepresented, given more ad homs to me (but that's okay, I still forgive you) throughout this entire thread.

You claim on one hand that I am making an assumption of what everyone is thinking based on my experience, yet you do the same thing often in the same paragraph as your claim.

Quote:

I'll say it one last time: until you either provide evidence to support your extraordinary claims, or else retract them, I'm through with this line of pointless bickering. From now on, I'm responding to any and all of this nonsense with just a familiar one word question for you.

So instead of actually being honest, and facing up to the questions you never answered, you are giving up. Well, at least you are no longer going to twist and misrepresent me.

Thank you for the favor.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by John Albert

It doesn't take much effort to look up John Edward and see what he's all about, either. But people still believe. If anything, that supports the idea that the performer himself has a responsibility not to misrepresent himself and his abilities. People seem to trust in personalities more than they do in critical stuff they read on the Web about the personalities.

Wait. If someone sees John Edward, looks him up, sees that he claims he psychic, sees that he sells readings, and the person believes the woo from that proves that they ignore what's is on the web?

I'm sorry. I am sure I am missing you point. Please clarify.

Quote:

Sounds like a cop-out to me.

Oh. Right. We should convince EVERYBODY! Right? If one person still believes in woo, we fail? We should have that goal? I agree that we shouldn't stop, that we should keep educating people against woo, but convincing everyone?

I'm sorry, John. That is simply not realistic.

Quote:

...and how does this support your position that Derren Brown does not promote woo?

I wasn't talking about Brown. I was talking about people in general. Sheesh.

Quote:

Or that he should not be taken to task for it when he does?

"taken to task"????

Tell me John, you are the great skeptic. How do we "take him to task"? What should we do to him?

Quote:

...and then you get a bunch of people jumping down your throat, fighting you tooth and nail in defense of their beloved idol. You get people calling you names, accusing you of being hysterical, telling blatant lies, misrepresenting your words as things you never said, and demanding that you prove the woo isn't real.

Yes, I've experienced that. In this very thread. Your point...?

Quote:

All that nonsense is coming from self-described "skeptics," and then those same people tell you not to bother because it's a lost cause to try and expose liars, frauds and charlatans.

Is this another example of you "reading, comprehending and addressing" what I said? Should I take this as you twisting and misrepresenting what I said on purpose then?

ETA: Didn't you say "From now on, I'm responding to any and all of this nonsense with just a familiar one word question for you."

...that promise didn't last long, did it?

[John Albert]

Evidence?

None of your International Wall of Waffle™ posted above contained any evidence to prove any of your extraordinary claims.

Sorry.

[John Albert]

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Wait. If someone sees John Edward, looks him up, sees that he claims he psychic, sees that he sells readings, and the person believes the woo from that proves that they ignore what's is on the web?

I'm sorry. I am sure I am missing you point. Please clarify.

If they can type his name into Google and read the results with a critical mind, they'll also see that a significant percentage of information out there is also skeptical in nature.

Whether they still choose to believe in his extraordinary claims is entirely up to them, but nobody can argue that he is not complicit in the tendency of people to believe his false claims.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Oh. Right. We should convince EVERYBODY! Right? If one person still believes in woo, we fail? We should have that goal? I agree that we shouldn't stop, that we should keep educating people against woo, but convincing everyone?

We should continue to promote the skeptical view, despite the fact that we'll never convert everybody, because it is very important.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

"taken to task"????

Tell me John, you are the great skeptic. How do we "take him to task"? What should we do to him?

All we need to do is discuss his material from a skeptical point of view, and honestly, intelligently debate and debunk the pseudoscientific claims he promotes. I'm confident that if we keep on doing that, then plenty of intelligent people will come across it in their searches, they will read our discussions and consider the skeptical viewpoint. Maybe some of them will learn to question and think for themselves, instead of just taking everything he says (and the things the NLPers say about him) at face value.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by John Albert

If they can type his name into Google and read the results with a critical mind, they'll also see that a significant percentage of information out there is also skeptical in nature.

Whether they still choose to believe in his extraordinary claims is entirely up to them, but nobody can argue that he is not complicit in the tendency of people to believe his false claims.

All I am saying is that don't expect a 100% rate. There are going to be people who will not listen and no matter what you say or do, they will not listen no matter what.

So you do your best.

Quote:

We should continue to promote the skeptical view, despite the fact that we'll never convert everybody, because it is very important.

I agree. Sheesh. I never said anything about giving up.

Quote:

All we need to do is discuss his material from a skeptical point of view, and honestly, intelligently debate and debunk the pseudoscientific claims he promotes. I'm confident that if we keep on doing that, then plenty of intelligent people will come across it in their searches, they will read our discussions and consider the skeptical viewpoint. Maybe some of them will learn to question and think for themselves, instead of just taking everything he says (and the things the NLPers say about him) at face value.

Fine. Good. But we haven't had an honest debate here. What we've had was argument. And I'll step up to the plate and say I'm just as guilty of it as you are.

Can we start at the beginning, please? If you want an honest, intelligent debate, then please drop the high-and-mighty act, and so will I, okay?

[Senex]

There isn't a single person on this thread arguing Brown promotes insightful NLP power.

I look at Derren Brown like I look at a puzzle, just try and deconstruct his act if you can and just enjoy it if you can't. If you ever had the pleasure of watching David Copperfield perform he can fly. I didn't see any wires -- he looked like he was flying. It was amazing. Everyone knew wires must have been involved -- but who cared?

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by John Albert

Evidence?

None of your International Wall of Waffle™ posted above contained any evidence to prove any of your extraordinary claims.

Sorry.

If you read it, and actually tried to comprehend it, you'd see that I was trying to, yet again, tell you what I was going to try to give evidence to, and I was also trying to ask how to get it.

Now I'll be fair. I know most of it I was playing with you. But in the spirit of fairness and intelligent debate I'll try to boil it down my point of view.

But understand this: If I'm going to give you evidence you need to know what I am going to give you evidence of. Right now, you have this preconceived notion as to what it is, and every time try to explain it, you ignore it or twist it into whatever you want it sound like.

And, I'm sorry, John. That is no way to have a skeptical debate. That's a way of driving people who believe in woo to ignore you.

Here it is, as simply as I put it.

All hypnosis is, all of it, is simply suggestion.

A person can believe in something so strongly, that they fool themselves into obeying a suggestion and thinking an experience is true.

Hypnosis is a way to play on that person's trust, desires, heightened emotion and imagination to convince them that it's true. It's a way to use language and very specific conditions to seduce people into, for a moment until they really think about what is being said or done instead of just reacting, fooling themselves to follow a suggestion given and believe that what is happening is true.

So when some people say, for example, that they cannot pull their hands apart, they are believing it's true. In their minds, they can't. They are not play acting - because play acting by definition is knowing that they faking. They believe it. So for them, it's a real thing happening to them.

And don't get me wrong. This doesn't work for a lot of people, and it is not powerful at all. It relies on the desire of the person, a safe setting, how much they trust the hypnotist, how relaxed they are and being so focused on something that a person allows their imagination to "take over", and just react without bothering to think why, and "letting themselves go" like watching a movie.

Once any of those conditions are stopped, and considering that the "allowing imagination to take over" one is very fragile, the experience ends, but the person might be fooled enough so that the belief in what happened might still be there.

Evidence?

I don't know how to prove it completely. You're asking me to prove something that science and psychology has been trying to prove for years.

I don't know how to prove whether a person is telling the truth or not. You and I both know that's impossible.

But.

I can prove that the process of what you call "real hypnosis" (therapeutic hypnosis) and stage hypnosis are exactly the same thing. What a hypnotist does in getting a person into a "trace" in "real hypnosis" is exactly the same thing. There is no difference. So what is true in therapeutic hypnosis is also true for stage hypnosis.

I can prove that simple suggestion exists.

I can prove that a person can let their imagination go enough to feel and see things that are not really there, given that the setting is safe one to do so.

I can prove that if someone has a desire for something, that their desire will drive them to confirm what they want to believe is true.

I can prove that with the proper language one can trick someone into doing something without thinking.

I can prove that language can sway a person's thinking, generate a powerful emotions in people and word things in such a way that the absurd makes sense, if they don't think about it too hard.

That, simply is my stance. Not at all what you thought I was claiming.

Can you see how different what you thought my stance was compared to mine?

Now if you are willing to accept my stance as it is, I will go and provide proof of what I said I can do. Then we go from there. Step by step, testing as much as we can together as we go.

Let me say one more thing: I would rather we work together to get to the truth of this. It starts with seeing where each other stands.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by Senex

There isn't a single person on this thread arguing Brown promotes insightful NLP power.

I look at Derren Brown like I look at a puzzle, just try and deconstruct his act if you can and just enjoy it if you can't. If you ever had the pleasure of watching David Copperfield perform he can fly. I didn't see any wires -- he looked like he was flying. It was amazing. Everyone knew wires must have been involved -- but who cared?

Agreed, Senex.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Okay. It seems to me, though, that this thread is focused solely on the "assassination" show. I haven't seen anyone up-in-arms in the guilty show or the game show or the luck show.

I think that the implication of the actual uses of hypnotism (and lack of any critical thought into it's limitations) is the biggest problem. All the experiments shows contain elements of 'magic tricks' that were disguised as pseudo-science though.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Still, I know I keep harping on this, but they are just shows. And I think that in all his other shows prior to this, except for "Miracles for Sale", I think, he gives his disclaimer.

But, I'm sorry, it really doesn't take much effort to look up Derren Brown and see references that he's a performer, no matter what shows are.

It doesn't take much effort to look up Ian Ridpath's website to find that the Rendlesham Forest UFO was a lighthouse, but people still insist it was aliens in flying saucers.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

So I ask you, not out of spite or anything, just want to know your opinoin. What is your line? What do you feel Derren should do to a) show he is just a performer, and b) keep the tricks amazing.

Honestly; I don't think he has to do anything.
It would be great to see him use his position to really educate people about the sillyness of woo and he has in the past gone some way towards doing this with his shows, but he always stops short. This is because his show and his persona depend to a large extent on the ambiguity he's created from the outset.
Personally, I think his tricks have become a lot less amazing over the years anyway and have relied more and more upon that persona.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

It seems to me that the real problem in this kind of stage magic is that it's a very fine line. Derren has to walk it carefully. And, depending on one's point of view, he's crossed it, not even close or walking it perfectly.

I ask in all seriousness, without any insult or meaness, how does such a performer walk that line and still keep his to responsibility? (And yes, I completely agree with you that any performer has such a responsibility).

Well people like Max Maven manage it. He takes his onstage persona very seriously and yet probably wouldn't draw the same fire that DB does.
I think that hanging around at the fringes of scepticism isn't a good idea whilst being so ambiguous about the position one holds and Derren has gone to some lengths to provide explanations for his tricks that go against any critical thinking and scepticism whilst attempting to somehow align himself with sceptics. He is almost giving the impression that scepticism accepts his pseudo scientific explanations, which of course it doesn't.
This in turn empowers the promoters of woo even more because they can start claiming "even the sceptics accept this".

Originally Posted by JFrankA

No. That's not the point we are trying to make. Let me put it this way:

You can't save everybody. You just can't. You do your best with what you have to work with with your own limitations, and yes, your own beliefs and try your best.

But I'm sorry, the reality is that the JREF cannot help everyone. There is going to be a time when someone has to make that realization on their own and no amount of evidence will prove them otherwise.

The main thrust of this thread has been to highlight the potential problems involved in believing DB has wooish powers.
I think you realise that there are people out there who do believe this?

And yet most of thread has involved people denying it's even happening.
If people are in denial about it in the first place, the first step to addressing it isn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Oh agreed. But again, you try as much as you can, with what you have, with the limitations you have and the circumstances you're in. One can do only what one can. After that it's up to the individual.

Of course it's up to the individual and mostly when woos come here with their claims, no one is actually trying to make them change their mind, but more provide information for them (and more importantly the lurkers) that will empower them with real information on which to make a decision.
Again, that wouldn't happen if we all simply denied there was a problem in the first place.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I may sound defeatist, and I'm sorry if I do, I don't mean to. To me, it's just realistic. One does the best they can, with their own limitations and circumstances and personal beliefs and experiences. You do your best. That's all you can do. You can't stop everyone.

I don't think anyone is trying to "stop everyone". I for one have no problem with people believing anything they want to believe. The problem arises when people act upon those beliefs. So believing Derren has super powers isn't a problem in itself, but when a believer then signs up for a BS course in NLP or something similar it become less about a belief issue and more about a practical scam issue. In much the same way that anyone signing up for one of Paul Mcenna's "Think yourself thin" DVD sets is being robbed... And that is something that can and should be fought against.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

I think that the implication of the actual uses of hypnotism (and lack of any critical thought into it's limitations) is the biggest problem. All the experiments shows contain elements of 'magic tricks' that were disguised as pseudo-science though.

I understand that. To be honest, the show that I thought would get the most criticism like this is the "guilty" show.

Maybe the assassination show got more criticism because he linked it to the assassination of JFK? Maybe if he didn't do that, it would've been less....irresponsible (for lack of a better word)?

If that is the case, I'd agree.

Quote:

It doesn't take much effort to look up Ian Ridpath's website to find that the Rendlesham Forest UFO was a lighthouse, but people still insist it was aliens in flying saucers.

That's kind of what my point is. The evidence is shown that it was lighthouse, yet people still believe it was a UFO. This is what I mean by "you just do the best you can".

Quote:

Honestly; I don't think he has to do anything.
It would be great to see him use his position to really educate people about the sillyness of woo and he has in the past gone some way towards doing this with his shows, but he always stops short. This is because his show and his persona depend to a large extent on the ambiguity he's created from the outset.
Personally, I think his tricks have become a lot less amazing over the years anyway and have relied more and more upon that persona.

Actually, and this is my opinion based on what he said in "Miracles for Sale", I think he's going that way to get a person to really think about what he's presenting.

In "Miracles for Sale" he says that he that sometimes one has to be a hypocrite to expose the truth. In fact, that became a theme in the show. He was being a hypocrite to the religious community to show them how easily they can be fooled.

He might be doing the same thing here. As I said, there were something things in the assassination episode that were "off". The biggest one to me was the in-studio audience reaction to the "assassination" of Stephen Fry. It was just really wrong. No audience who didn't expect an assassination happen before their eyes would be dead quiet and un-moving. I don't care how "British" they are , there was nothing. No murmurs, no gasps, no movement, just ...waiting.

It seems to me that a magician who wants to fake an assassination and make it seem real would go have an actual audience reaction to the event. But there was none. Absolutely none. And Derren is a profession magician, I believe he would've known that detail.

Which leads me to think two things. A) It was a dual reality situation, and B) he purposely left it "wrong" to get us to think how wrong the whole show is. And, in fact, for those really interested, to get them look into it further by whatever means and ways they can, ask questions, and make their own decision.

Now, of course, this is merely speculation on my part based upon what I know of Derren's style and my experiences and I'm sure a lot of other people wouldn't see it the same way. But I saw elements of "wrong" like that in all four of his shows, and that's how I took it. I would hope that someone seeing a show done by a well known magician would look at this with a skeptical eye.

Quote:

Well people like Max Maven manage it. He takes his onstage persona very seriously and yet probably wouldn't draw the same fire that DB does.

I understand your point, but Max Maven's act is a little over the top, too. And not every magician can do Max's act.

Quote:

I think that hanging around at the fringes of scepticism isn't a good idea whilst being so ambiguous about the position one holds and Derren has gone to some lengths to provide explanations for his tricks that go against any critical thinking and scepticism whilst attempting to somehow align himself with sceptics. He is almost giving the impression that scepticism accepts his pseudo scientific explanations, which of course it doesn't.
This in turn empowers the promoters of woo even more because they can start claiming "even the sceptics accept this".

They can claim it, but they'll soon see it's wrong, and they are basing that on the performance of a stage show. I think it would then be easier to break their foundation in that case. But I do see your point.

Quote:

The main thrust of this thread has been to highlight the potential problems involved in believing DB has wooish powers.
I think you realise that there are people out there who do believe this?

Of course. I don't deny that.

Quote:

And yet most of thread has involved people denying it's even happening.
If people are in denial about it in the first place, the first step to addressing it isn't going to happen.

Indeed, I've never denied it. In fact, I said people believe what they want to believe no matter what. This includes belief in woo from DB's shows.

All I'm saying is that if someone investigates, and/or listens to a skeptic give reason, and/or finds out that they have been tricked by a stage magic performance, and/or has the secret exposed to them and still believes the woo, we have done the best we've can for that person. They have to make the final decision themselves. That's all.

Quote:

Of course it's up to the individual and mostly when woos come here with their claims, no one is actually trying to make them change their mind, but more provide information for them (and more importantly the lurkers) that will empower them with real information on which to make a decision.
Again, that wouldn't happen if we all simply denied there was a problem in the first place.

I don't think anyone is trying to "stop everyone". I for one have no problem with people believing anything they want to believe. The problem arises when people act upon those beliefs. So believing Derren has super powers isn't a problem in itself, but when a believer then signs up for a BS course in NLP or something similar it become less about a belief issue and more about a practical scam issue. In much the same way that anyone signing up for one of Paul Mcenna's "Think yourself thin" DVD sets is being robbed... And that is something that can and should be fought against.

I agree with "going after" Paul Mcenna. I do think he's crossed the line, which is sad because he was a great performer.

But you know, sometimes people sign up for those NLP course, see the bullmess going on, and never go near it again. Some people do fall for it, yes.

The thing is on one hand we do have a responsibility to try to educate people to what woo is. One the other hand, which I think people on this thread are missing, sometimes a person has to go and make the mistake to realize it was a mistake.

It seems to me that it's the same incorrect notion that one you've tried drugs, you're an addict, you know? Once a person, for example, goes to an NLP course, they may spend more, or, they may not.

My point in this is sometimes you have to let a person make a mistake see it was a mistake. All we can do is offer education as much as we can.

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by Senex

There isn't a single person on this thread arguing Brown promotes insightful NLP power.

I look at Derren Brown like I look at a puzzle, just try and deconstruct his act if you can and just enjoy it if you can't. If you ever had the pleasure of watching David Copperfield perform he can fly. I didn't see any wires -- he looked like he was flying. It was amazing. Everyone knew wires must have been involved -- but who cared?

Agreed x2.
Poeple should stop compalining and just enjoy it for what it is :entertainment.What's this pseudo science malarky? I dont even see it all probably.Hypnosis? I assume so as he has never mentions NLP on TV.Whose to say his audience grasp it? All I see is a bunch of NLP videos by NLP "believers".
People are supposed to believe his patter but again I say who goes home after his shows(or acts after his tv shows)and researches what exactly? How to hypnotize someone to kill?(ridiculous) How to buy things with blank paper?(a good one to learn but unlikely) How to rob a bank?(no)How to get someone to stick their hands together?!(good party trick so maybe,not going to be a 5 minute thing to learn I doubt).
C'mon Stray Cat and Co. what possible harm is Derren promoting above any other performing hypnotist(dont say Mckenna ) Are people going to rushout and buy a NLP course? Very unlikely.
What of the opposite effect? People who see Derren's shows and stop belief in psychics and religion(extreme point) Im sure this has happened.He's not just there for the woo clan

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by JFrankA

That's kind of what my point is. The evidence is shown that it was lighthouse, yet people still believe it was a UFO. This is what I mean by "you just do the best you can".

Yes, but my point is that people don't go looking. The people who believe in Aliens in flying saucers don't read sceptics websites. They are not interested in being challenged, they only want conformation.
It's the same with all brands of woo believers, they will only take in that which confirms their belief.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

They can claim it, but they'll soon see it's wrong, and they are basing that on the performance of a stage show.

That's not the way believers work. They don't look beyond that which confirms their belief.
How many people come here claiming to be sceptics all except for this [insert silly unevidenced belief here]?
It is not only our duty to educate people against woo but also to educate them as to what scepticism actually is. This task is not helped when woo's are misled about the sceptics position and people who are not sceptics at all are going around claiming to be.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

All I'm saying is that if someone investigates, and/or listens to a skeptic give reason, and/or finds out that they have been tricked by a stage magic performance, and/or has the secret exposed to them and still believes the woo, we have done the best we've can for that person.

But where are they going to investigate?
Whilst people like Azrael are denying that there is even a problem.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I agree with "going after" Paul Mcenna. I do think he's crossed the line, which is sad because he was a great performer.

But you know, sometimes people sign up for those NLP course, see the bullmess going on, and never go near it again. Some people do fall for it, yes.

People learning from theor own mistakes is OK to a point. But by the time they've made their mistake, they are already out of picket and the scammers are laughing all the way to the bank.

DB could be a real positive force in countering the need for people to make their own mistakes and it's a disappointment that he doesn't do anything except an occasional token jesture in that direction.

Originally Posted by JFrankA

The thing is on one hand we do have a responsibility to try to educate people to what woo is. One the other hand, which I think people on this thread are missing, sometimes a person has to go and make the mistake to realize it was a mistake.

It seems to me that it's the same incorrect notion that one you've tried drugs, you're an addict, you know? Once a person, for example, goes to an NLP course, they may spend more, or, they may not.

My point in this is sometimes you have to let a person make a mistake see it was a mistake. All we can do is offer education as much as we can.

As much as that is true, when you're the one standing right next to the fire, if someone goes to put their hand in it, you should really be the one to advise them not to.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Agreed x2.
Poeple should stop compalining and just enjoy it for what it is :entertainment.What's this pseudo science malarky? I dont even see it all probably.Hypnosis? I assume so as he has never mentions NLP on TV.Whose to say his audience grasp it? All I see is a bunch of NLP videos by NLP "believers".
People are supposed to believe his patter but again I say who goes home after his shows(or acts after his tv shows)and researches what exactly? How to hypnotize someone to kill?(ridiculous) How to buy things with blank paper?(a good one to learn but unlikely) How to rob a bank?(no)How to get someone to stick their hands together?!(good party trick so maybe,not going to be a 5 minute thing to learn I doubt).
C'mon Stray Cat and Co. what possible harm is Derren promoting above any other performing hypnotist(dont say Mckenna ) Are people going to rushout and buy a NLP course? Very unlikely.
What of the opposite effect? People who see Derren's shows and stop belief in psychics and religion(extreme point) Im sure this has happened.He's not just there for the woo clan

As usual, this is just one long 'argument from incredulity' and as such isn't worth responding to.

Pretending there is no problem whilst at the same time saying "hard cheese if it causes any problems" is a silly, contradictory and irrational position.
I have already pointed out the harm it could cause, you ignored it, denied it and got the cheese out.
Well I'll Brie here as soon as you want to start discussing it rationally.

[Senex]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Yes, but my point is that people don't go looking. The people who believe in Aliens in flying saucers don't read sceptics websites. They are not interested in being challenged, they only want conformation.
It's the same with all brands of woo believers, they will only take in that which confirms their belief.

And what website is this? Not this one.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Senex

And what website is this? Not this one.

Sorry Senex, as your question makes no sense in relation to the quote you put with it I can't even guess what the answer may be.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Yes, but my point is that people don't go looking. The people who believe in Aliens in flying saucers don't read sceptics websites. They are not interested in being challenged, they only want conformation.
It's the same with all brands of woo believers, they will only take in that which confirms their belief.

Most, yes. Not all. I went from Catholic to atheist. So some do.

Quote:

That's not the way believers work. They don't look beyond that which confirms their belief.
How many people come here claiming to be sceptics all except for this [insert silly unevidenced belief here]?
It is not only our duty to educate people against woo but also to educate them as to what scepticism actually is. This task is not helped when woo's are misled about the sceptics position and people who are not sceptics at all are going around claiming to be.

Mostly, yes. But honestly, and I hate to word it this way, but we can only educate those who are willing to listen. Those people who won't, those people who are looking for confirmation of their beliefs will do so until they make a decision to listen.

For example, as long as he's been on this forum, all the education we've given him, Epic still hasn't learned a thing and stopped believing because he refuses to.

We can (and should) continue to try, but if he decides to leave and not come back, what more can we do?

Quote:

But where are they going to investigate?
Whilst people like Azrael are denying that there is even a problem.

They have to do their own investigation, but if they are going for confirmation, that's what they are going to find.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. There is a problem, we should continue to try to educate. The point is if the person isn't going to listen, all the education in the universe isn't going to make a difference.

Quote:

People learning from theor own mistakes is OK to a point. But by the time they've made their mistake, they are already out of picket and the scammers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Sadly, some people have to get to that point, fortunately, some people don't. All we can do is try and do our best. The final choice is up to that individual.

Quote:

DB could be a real positive force in countering the need for people to make their own mistakes and it's a disappointment that he doesn't do anything except an occasional token jesture in that direction.

I'm not sure what he could do off stage. People are critical of him for being a skeptic off stage because it reinforces his on stage patter as true.

I will agree that if he didn't link the assassination episode with the murder of Kennedy, it would've been far better, in fact, I'd say it's preferable than the way he presented it.

But to be honest, I'm not sure what he can do off stage.

Quote:

As much as that is true, when you're the one standing right next to the fire, if someone goes to put their hand in it, you should really be the one to advise them not to.

That reminds me of a story I heard when I was very young:

"As a child, wanted to touch a hot stove. My mother warned him not to touch the stove because it was hot and I could get burned. I insisted that I wanted to touch the stove. Once again my mother warned me not to because I could get hurt, and then told me not to touch the stove. So I threw a tantrum, screaming and kicking that he wanted to touch the stove. My mother, in anger yelled "Fine! Touch the stove!"

So I touched the stove.

..and I learned that there are consequences to my own actions without listening to advice.

Sadly, there are people who need to touch the stove.

[Azrael 5]

StrayCat

Quote:

But where are they going to investigate?

Whilst people like Azrael are denying that there is even a problem.

Yoare assuming they need to investigate, but his website would the obvious plae to start. Ive continually said people who see Derren Brown may well believe he is using body language.psyhcology hypnosis,I do not concede they will believe he is doing NLP.Your average person has no idea what NLP is.

So given that,what are they going to believe?That body language,suggestion hypnosis can be used to read peoples minds? Unlikely. That it can be used to "read" a person?Maybe.And in some cases it can(to a degree). A course in psychology(body language ,speed reading etc)isnt going to harm anyone. Even a legitimate course in NLP may be useful for them. Nor a course in hypnosis.
When they find out they cannot do what Derren achieves they'll have a rude awakening and learn not to be so stupid.
Derren is a performer,a showman like Houdini and Robert Houdin and Mesmer and others of that era. If skeptics have to go around educating people not to believe everything a magician says then it's pathetic.
So yes Im denying there is a problem. I haven't seen any proof there is.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by JFrankA

For example, as long as he's been on this forum, all the education we've given him, Epic still hasn't learned a thing and stopped believing because he refuses to.

We can (and should) continue to try, but if he decides to leave and not come back, what more can we do?

Part of the big problem is that we spend too much time having to encourage people to unlearn the nonsense they have picked up.

DB is in the ideal position to be able to nip much of the nonsense in the bud.
I'm guessing it's his avoidance of doing that that draws the fire on this forum.

Whilst he allows (and in some ways encourages) people to believe nonsense, it's down to other people to counter it and then we come across Derren Brown fanboys who won't hear a bad word against him.

I'll say again, I'm not anti-DB at all, I've met him in social settings and in a professional capacity several times and found him to be very personable. I've watched him at work filming one of his shows on location and recognise the pressure the production team are under to get what they need, but like with everyone, he isn't perfect.
Threads like this one only go on for so long because people like Azrael (actually when I say "people like", I mean just him) won't hear the slightest criticism against his hero.

I'd rather be educating people against woo than having to spend time arguing against people like that who don't care about anything except the reputation of their idol. And for that reason, I don't see much point in investing any more time than is absolutely necessary (or for some light hearted mockery) continuing in this discussion.

But thanks for at least framing your posts in a way that allowed for more than one opinion and I think we are in agreement about more than we disagree on or at the very least understand each others PoV.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Yoare assuming they need to investigate,

Should I read that in a Somerset accent?

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Ive continually said

You've been continually wrong.

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

So yes Im denying there is a problem. I haven't seen any proof there is.

[Azrael 5]

Stray Cat
1. He's not my idol.
2. I will agree with criticism when it is neccasary. So far it's not.
Instead of silly icons why not address the post. Summarize 31 pages of nonense and show me what harm Derren Brown has done.

[Azrael 5]

Maybe refresh your memory with this thread Stray Cat,possibly teh same one where you said it wasn't Derren's fault if people believed his patter.These quotes sum it up nicely.

Originally Posted by teacher

Concerning Derren Brown's ethics - do I really need to be saying this?

Because James Randi is so heavily involved with scepticism, he tends to emphasise the 'it's just a trick folks' aspect.

When magicians perform their tricks, it isn't plausible to keep referring to the 'just a trick folks' and winking throughout the show in a knowing way and constantly reminding people that she/he has no psychic powers.

The lies, deception, concentration (as though building an inner power force) and misdirection which all magicians do as a necessary part of the show, IS 90% of the trick. Without a major part of most of these aspects, most tricks don't work. Yes I said lies and deception. They want to convince you to believe or see something that really is not there. I'm sure Mr Randi himself would (and I think has) confessed this openly.

Now the absolution (confession or justification for the foolery) is in the TV/show slot itself -an 'entertainment' show. MOST magicians do not tell the viewers before, during or after, that it was NOT psychic. David Blaine, David Copperfield, Kris Angel, Paul Daniels (an outspoken sceptic) even Penn and Teller sometimes I think. Do men go around reminding people that they are breathing, male, made of flesh? No. Why? It's a given.

Now Derren Brown is not only an outspoken sceptic, but he tells viewers at the beginning of EVERY show that he is not psychic and he even explains HOW he does what he does. He does not give a percentage of what is magic or deception or showmanship or misdirection or mentalism etc. I mean, he's just explained how, now give him a break and let him amaze viewers (using the very misdirection techniques and no psychic ability, just like he said). Are you expecting him at every stage to break it down? Some posters here seem to.

He even did a one hour special in the US (entitled 'Messiah') specifically decrying the gullibility of people generally and exposed 5 of the main biggest paranormal claims of today. He has worked with Dr Richard Wiseman - a former award winning magician turned psychologist and of couse a sceptic (known and well respected by Mr Randi by the way).

Another special called Seance exposed mediums. He's also duplicated Geller and other routines (apparently well convincingly) and also says he is not a psychic.

To those who accuse him of deceiving audiences, I feel you are not doing him justice. He does not have to justify himself or confom to any methodology that some viewers may prefer. Having said that, I know of no other magician who is so regular and clear in saying, in effect, that it is just a show. Independently, and without a need to, he is a great advocate of scepticism.

He is refreshing and puts a great slant on deception. If one magician direct/deceives you to believe he is using his mind to elevate a pack of cards rather than a piece of string and another magician has you believe that mentalism is the main aspect when it is a conjuring tick, it's a great idea.

At the end of the day, like all magicians, he deceives audiences like you and I, just as he claims he will at the start of the show. Not that this would make any difference, but I know James Randi is in contact with him and having corresponded with Mr Randi, I get the impression that he is a fan/supporter, but you might want to ask him yourself if you feel you need the permission or support of such a well respected man before endorsing him.

I have no axe to grind and I'm not working for Brown, I just feel (for the reasons I've stated) that this needed to be said. I hope this helps and that others will point unjustified negative proponents either to this E-Mail or watch him (again if needed) yourself.

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Hear hear! I was about to write something similar but you have done a much more thorough job of it. I saw DB's live show last year and he gave spiritualism such a thorough debunking, it was delightful.

Unfortunately, in the foyer afterwards there were still some audience members who chose to believe in a paranormal explanation! I overheard comments like "say what you like, but he must be psychic, how else would he "know" those things about strangers". Some folks want to be fooled, it seems.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Instead of silly icons why not address the post.

Because there is nothing except your dishonest argument from incredulity to address.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Maybe refresh your memory with this thread Stray Cat,possibly teh same one where you said it wasn't Derren's fault if people believed his patter.These quotes sum it up nicely.

Again attempting to bring up comments that were written about a different subject 4 or 5 years before the Experiments, is dishonest, especially since I have already explained this to you.

Of course, just more of your deny, demand, deny, demand, rinse, repeat.

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Again attempting to bring up comments that were written about a different subject 4 or 5 years before the Experiments, is dishonest, especially since I have already explained this to you.

Of course, just more of your deny, demand, deny, demand, rinse, repeat.

They are about Derren Brown as a performer,that he promotes woo like Uri Geller and indeed that thread is not about a particular show so your comment is invalid.WHat is written there still applies.
I dont hear you moaning about Secret of Luck or The Gameshow,its a TV show get over it.
Still waiitng for proof that believing Derren's patter has led to anyone's "harm".

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Part of the big problem is that we spend too much time having to encourage people to unlearn the nonsense they have picked up.

DB is in the ideal position to be able to nip much of the nonsense in the bud.
I'm guessing it's his avoidance of doing that that draws the fire on this forum.

Whilst he allows (and in some ways encourages) people to believe nonsense, it's down to other people to counter it and then we come across Derren Brown fanboys who won't hear a bad word against him.

I'll say again, I'm not anti-DB at all, I've met him in social settings and in a professional capacity several times and found him to be very personable. I've watched him at work filming one of his shows on location and recognise the pressure the production team are under to get what they need, but like with everyone, he isn't perfect.
Threads like this one only go on for so long because people like Azrael (actually when I say "people like", I mean just him) won't hear the slightest criticism against his hero.

I'd rather be educating people against woo than having to spend time arguing against people like that who don't care about anything except the reputation of their idol. And for that reason, I don't see much point in investing any more time than is absolutely necessary (or for some light hearted mockery) continuing in this discussion.

But thanks for at least framing your posts in a way that allowed for more than one opinion and I think we are in agreement about more than we disagree on or at the very least understand each others PoV.

Agreed. And, if I may say, that's the beginning of learning.

One last thing, if I may. I don't think you hated DB, and honestly, it wasn't part of what I was thinking. Now I like him as a performer, maybe even want emulate and learn the performing talents he has, but I do not idolize him. I know he's "just this guy, you know".

It bothers me somewhat that it seems like in this dicsussion, defending DB automatically means "idolizing". I'm not saying you said this specifically, but it seems like a theme in this thread.

And for me, there's a clear difference between idolizing and just liking the guy or defending him even if you don't like him.

Just so we're clear, I don't idolize Brown. I will put him up there as someone I'd love to meet and talk to, learn how to perform from, maybe even say look up to as a magician. But I can say that about Randi, Penn & Teller, Max Maven, Banachek, and a few others.

Sorry, just wanted to be clear, you know?

[Azrael 5]

I'd like clear proof Derren has encouraged "woo" and further if anyone has thus acted upon it.

No "Ifs" "buts" "may do in the future" rubbish.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

I'd like clear proof Derren has encouraged "woo" and further if anyone has thus acted upon it.

No "Ifs" "buts" "may do in the future" rubbish.

You've been shown websites were people are using his name to promote woo.
Your reply was "hard cheese"

Now you demand again?

So you can say hard cheese again?

No thanks.