Darren Brown's explinations are just more mis-direction?

pH

okden wrote:

(pH you should do some research on hypnosis instead of waiting for a one line answer from an entertainment show)

I'm quite happy with my research on hypnosis, and I wan't for once instant saying that one line on a TV show constitutes an answer, I was merely saying it's refreshing to hear DB debunk hypnosis for what it is (a parlour game) rather than his previous statements which tended to sit on the fence.

I agree that everyone should do a little research to come to that conclusion, just don't take a line from DB as anything more than his opinion.

okden

pH wrote:

I was merely saying it's refreshing to hear DB debunk hypnosis for what it is (a parlour game)...........

this is a misrepresentation of what derren said and his views on hypnosis, you debunked hypnosis here, derren did not debunk hypnosis on his show.

pH wrote:

..........I agree that everyone should do a little research to come to that conclusion

or a lot of research and come to a better one.

your understanding of his words is filtered by your own previous conclusions about hypnosis. he didnt debunk it, you just percieved what filtered thru as debunking.
firstly he was explaining the trick not hypnosis, secondly he was using lay mans terms not defenitions, but if it has shifted you from the position of saying things like " the bogus art of hypnosis" to a position of agreement with him (even though the agreement is about 2 different things) then the purpose behind the explanation of his trick has worked somewhat, even though the explanation itself has passed you by. perhaps from this newer filter of agreement re-rsearching hypnosis will result in different interpretations of the words you read before.

i dont want to drift away with the topic but it is important to be skeptical of the skeptics aswell, yes.

and there is a simitary to all this

......a man sees an explanation of a trick.....so he presumes he used science to explain it.....but latter he thinks is the explanation a trick?.....so who can he trust.....the skeptics of course......so he goes to a skeptic forum.......and the skeptic explains the trick.....so he presumes he used science to explain it......but latter he thinks is the explanation a trick?.....

pH

odken wrote:

this is a misrepresentation of what derren said and his views on hypnosis, you debunked hypnosis here, derren did not debunk hypnosis on his show.

I'm not sure how you can misrepresent the phrase "It's only a kind of play acting" ... explain

or a lot of research and come to a better one.

Well then, explain your research, and maybe share what exactly there is evidence than hypnosism is, if it's not a kind of play acting.

......a man sees an explanation of a trick.....so he presumes he used science to explain it.....but latter he thinks is the explanation a trick?.....so who can he trust.....the skeptics of course......so he goes to a skeptic forum.......and the skeptic explains the trick.....so he presumes he used science to explain it......but latter he thinks is the explanation a trick?.....

But the answer is out there somewhere. Eliminate the impossible and all that ...

okden

i dont which to appear argumentative (although it is encouraged here), and certainly dont want to go down the road of claims and counter claims of x and y to be true or false according to research z, its tedious and ultimatly a futile process.

but the quote atributed to derren may not be word for word correct, its certainly not my interpretation of what was said, and given it is derren it may of course be a lie.

the hypnosis camp is generaly split into 2 camps, one believe hypnosis is about inducing an altered state of conciousness the hypnotic/trance state, the other believe all states of conciousness are trance like in the first place where the classical hypnotic state is a subsection of all trance states (this is closer to derrens position).

i thought the quote was (closer too ) " they were not hypnotised in the traditional(/classical?) sense, they were mearly performing in a kind of play acting" this can be interpreted as him expressing which camp he is in rather than as debunking both camps.

either quote is an entertainment device anyway, it sets up what follows and increases the entertainment value.
he could have said "everyone is in a trance most of the time, and never no what is going on in front of their eyes, your probably in one now, and the people your about to see are in one which i have carefully created over a long time, such that i can predict with some certainty how they are likely to react to certain stimuli i put before them." but its not as entertaining now is it?

did you read the artical linked in my post?

okden

pH wrote:

But the answer is out there somewhere. Eliminate the impossible and all that ...

by the way this went over my head can you elaborate

Spacedog

You can see exactly how Darren Brown does his tricks by recording a show and watching a trick a few times.

Example...

"draw what ever you want, clear your mind, draw what ever SAILS into your mind, NOW"

later he 'guesses' by drawing a sailboat.


He carefully uses tone and language to mislead the audience (a tecnique used also by many politicians). Get a blank tape and give it a try, if you practise long enough I'd imagine you can also recreate the tricks.

pH

but the quote atributed to derren may not be word for word correct, its certainly not my interpretation of what was said, and given it is derren it may of course be a lie.

The quote is word for word perfect.

"Hypnosis isn't really what it appears to be, it's only a kind of play acting"

He also says :

"I encourage them to believe that hypnosis is a real tool which I'm using ..."

Also from your link:

His performances challenge widely held notions about both human behaviour and what hypnosis really is. For many years, an academic debate has raged over whether hypnosis is a distinct state, or simply a collection of compliant behaviours. Brown’s performances, and his statements about them, suggest that he subscribes to, and demonstrates, the latter viewpoint.

I'm still not clear exactly what you're claiming hypnotism is .. care for a definition that you think is true?

Spacedog wrote:

"draw what ever you want, clear your mind, draw what ever SAILS into your mind, NOW"

later he 'guesses' by drawing a sailboat.


He carefully uses tone and language to mislead the audience (a tecnique used also by many politicians). Get a blank tape and give it a try, if you practise long enough I'd imagine you can also recreate the tricks.

Absolutely not, this was covered already in this thread, suffice to say the 'trick' has 2 parts. The first is the long established trick of recreating a drawing in a sealed envelope. The second is an audio overdub of the "sail phrase" done in a studio long after Derren knew what she had drawn.

okden

the quote you choose from the artical was written by the jouralist. heres derrens quotes on hypnotism, nlp and debunkers.

I performed hypnosis for a couple of years, but I didn’t want to do full-time stage hypnosis as some of it struck me as a little tacky

Hypnosis is just a mixture of social conformity, suggestion, response expectancy, charisma, and a whole load of quite ordinary surface phenomena given a shorthand name.

It’s about getting people in a psychological pattern of response which has to do with their belief in the situation and the way they are being handled. This can happen very quickly as opposed to taking half an hour with an induction script.

I’ve attended NLP courses and things like that, and although there’s some interesting and useful aspects to them, they’re generally so evangelically packaged and full of self-fulfilling nonsense that it put me off.

Hypnotic phenomena can be quite fascinating because it’s so difficult to know whether a person is really experiencing what they’re expressing, or whether they’re really playing the role of a person who’s experiencing that. There’s such a wide range of experience with hypnosis

My performance does rely on people’s willingness to be deceived, but at the same time, the message is that though it may look paranormal, it’s actually based on ordinary, everyday things that we do all the time. I’m just good at them. I’ve practised a lot. However, people are resistant to changing their beliefs.

But, when you look at it, there are huge moral problems with the psychics and a lot of witless unpleasantries associated with the debunkers.

I’m not interested in debunking spiritualist claims about contact with the afterlife, so much as replicating some of these techniques and providing alternative explanations.

Debunking is essentially negative, and not as interesting.

these views would lead me to beleive that derren brown did not debunk hypnosis on his last show as you said he did, and as you yourself have done.

i also quoted these extracts because most people here would be more interested in derrens views then mine ......but my views would be very similar to derrens.

im not sure i do care for a definition that i think is true as it would lead to a debate on the symatics of the words i choose and i wouldnt realy believe in them fully anyway. but as part of my definition it is word used to define a whole load of stuff we do everyday with our minds and eachothers minds when we communicate with eachother.

can you elaberate on your bogus art claim.

Eoghan-psych

Spacedog wrote:

Get a blank tape and give it a try, if you practise long enough I'd imagine you can also recreate the tricks.

Not entirely true, in my opinion.

There is no doubt that the way tricks are *presented* as having been done is, just like the Daniels and Copperfields of this world, mostly nonsense. That leaves us two options:
1. He's a post pubescent Harry Potter, magically shrunken several inches
or
2. There's a sensible explanation for what he does.

Now, we know from the history of psychology that it is remarkably easy to mislead, misdirect etc. It's even possible to do this in ways the 'victim' doesn't even realise - their memory of an even can be modified simply by the way in which questions about it are phrased. Much of DB's work relies on these principles - e.g. convince two obvious half wits, and the sensible third person will tend to go along with them.

On top of that is the *expectation*. The public at large know what the DBs of the world are about, know what's going on. This opens them up to serious and blatant misdirection [consider a standard sleight-of-hand trick, like vanishing a coin from a hand. Most people know now that the magician simply holds the coin in the other hand - reverse the trick, so they're looking at the hand where the coin *should* be according to common knowledge instead of the 'obvious' hand which is where the magician has put the coin]. Many tricks actively play on the expectation of the mark that they are about to be tricked.

The Balls Factor - a fair whack of the effects do depend on the sheer brazenness of the performer in telling downright lies.

I had a point when I started this, but I've been awake for about 36 hours so I can't remember what it is anymore. Ah well.