Excellent documentary about religious and spiritual belief -- Derren Brown

aidan24326

dalk wrote:

Haven't seen that program since it was aired, but wasn't the point this; that what a lot of people consider to be psychic or religious experiences/demonstrations, can be re-created as convincingly by a magician. And by a magician who does not claim to be psychic or a channel to god or whatever some of these people claim.

Yeah I think that was the whole point of it. Which bits were real and which might have been staged we'll never know but either way there's no doubt a clever magician/manipulator like Brown could comfortably pass himself off as one of these new-age fakers simply by understanding the sort of trickery they use (often simpler than most people realise) and by the fact that their audience is obviously gullible to begin with.

Whatever about the veracity of his own 'powers of suggestion' it's hardly a stretch to think that gullibe suggestible people could be made to believe just about anything by a skilled manipulator. Religion has proved that there's no limits to what some people will believe however ridiculous.

No doubt someone like Keith Barry would see through most of Brown's tricks from a mile away but then that's a skill in itself. I bet few people copped the queens trick with the poker cards until Simon Singh mentioned it.

I suppose ultimately until he converts us all into jesus lovers and boards.ie have to shut down the A/A forum we shall remain sceptical, but I don't think he'd want it any other way.

stevejazzx

Fallen Seraph wrote:

stevejazzx, you seem to speak with some authority; is this simply speculation on your part, or have you read this somewhere? I ask out of curiousity?

I just read bits here and there. It's also the most logical. You can't forget occams razor when trying to figure these tricks.

basic ones revelaed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4qJe4si1nc

this one shows how much editing there is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsutU4U4Vls

good explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybmOlQRuaYM&mode=related&search=

explanation of dog track but it's fake anyway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdMaZzL_a90



some ones for fun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSodHW3QAiw&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4Iyo6qMTGo&mode=related&search=

Zombrex

Must say I felt rather annoyed when I found out that a lot of DB stuff was bullsh!t

I know when I see a magic trick that "magic" wasn't really involved despite what the magician claims.

But Browns act of being a champion of materialism, claiming to be debunking the mystical nonsense out there, gave his performance more authority. When I found out that Brown was as guilty as any magician claiming magic powers I felt a bit cheated, because there is always an unwritten acceptance between a magician claiming magic powers and the audience that we don't really accept the magic. But with Brown people would accept the explanation of this being "science".

As Signh says Brown is giving a false idea of what science can and cannot do. He is tricking people who, unlike in a magic show, don't expect to be tricked. This risks giving science a bad name, as people feel cheated.

I'm not a fan anymore. Of course it could be claimed that is his ultimate trick.

aphex™

Wicknight wrote:

But Browns act of being a champion of materialism, claiming to be debunking the mystical nonsense out there, gave his performance more authority. When I found out that Brown was as guilty as any magician claiming magic powers I felt a bit cheated, because there is always an unwritten acceptance between a magician claiming magic powers and the audience that we don't really accept the magic. But with Brown people would accept the explanation of this being "science".

Could you just name exactly the bits you have a problem with so people can deal with them, otherwise your post appears to be a ramble and you seem confused as to what you're trying to rubbish. Your only point seems to be "I read Simon Singh".

Please define "magic". Did you mean "slight of hand" for magic or what?

Zombrex

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Please define "magic". Did you mean "slight of hand" for magic or what?

Ok, calm down

What I'm talking about is when Brown says something like (using Singh example) "What I'm doing here is reading the tells of a person to tell what card he has in his head" when in fact what he is doing nothing of the sort, it is a simple magic trick where he has set the cards up in the first place so the person cannot win.

What Brown is doing is no different from a magician saying "I will now read your mind. Woohoo" except Brown is using "the science of psychology" instead of the supernatural to explain how is trick is being done. But he isn't actually doing this. It is a trick, as in that the audience and the person involved are given false explanations as to what is happening.

The issue with that of course is that Brown and Channel 4 present his program as a demonstration of what psychology can actually do. Brown spends a lot of time debunking people who claim to use "supernatural" powers, but he is guilty of claiming to use scientific powers to achieve something that is simply not possible. He is tricking his audience. But at least when a magician does this there is always the realisation that what the magician is claiming isn't true. But because of Browns insistence that this is psychology the audience is left with the impression that it actually is true.

aphex™

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, calm down

What I'm talking about is when Brown says something like (using Singh example) "What I'm doing here is reading the tells of a person to tell what card he has in his head" when in fact what he is doing nothing of the sort, it is a simple magic trick where he has set the cards up in the first place so the person cannot win.

What Brown is doing is no different from a magician saying "I will now read your mind. Woohoo" except Brown is using "the science of psychology" instead of the supernatural to explain how is trick is being done. But he isn't actually doing this. It is a trick, as in that the audience and the person involved are given false explanations as to what is happening.

The issue with that of course is that Brown and Channel 4 present his program as a demonstration of what psychology can actually do. Brown spends a lot of time debunking people who claim to use "supernatural" powers, but he is guilty of claiming to use scientific powers to achieve something that is simply not possible. He is tricking his audience. But at least when a magician does this there is always the realisation that what the magician is claiming isn't true. But because of Browns insistence that this is psychology the audience is left with the impression that it actually is true.

Yes, fair enough. Derren DOES lie in card trick cases, some of them at least.

I would point out however that Derren has card tricks video for other magicians entitled "devil's picturebook" which is 3 hours long, and at least 50% of the tricks do contain some levels of psychology eg. getting people to consistantly select certain cards or exploiting the fact that if given 6 shapes people will almost always select the star.

It could be argued that if people are told one trick was sleight of hand then they would believe they all are, and this would take away from the rest of his tricks which do not rely on this and are (on some levels) psychological.

However, on the Messiah show (the reason this thread was created) there is almost no sleight of hand. I think people on this forum would do well to look for commentaries of the Messiah show on youtube to see how Evangelicals suck people in.

pH

aphex&#8482 wrote:

I would point out however that Derren has card tricks video for other magicians entitled "devil's picturebook" which is 3 hours long, and at least 50% of the tricks do contain some levels of psychology eg. getting people to consistantly select certain cards or exploiting the fact that if given 6 shapes people will almost always select the star.

You're doing what's called a 'bait and switch' here. Yes we all know that a higher percentage of people will choose the star in a from a set of Zener cards, and that people have favourite cards and numbers, and to be fair Derren has shown some of this in his programs, so when he he says that his shows are a mixture of psychology and misdirection, technically he isn't lying.

However no one is really debating this, people are talking about his classic effects here, probably his most famous ones:

• Dog track payout on losing ticket
• Ad execs influenced to draw his logo
• Sleep in phonebox
• Always winning Rock/Scissors/Paper
• Guessing which hand a coin is in

A substantial percentage of people who watch these really believe what they're watching is a display of some form of advanced psychology or NLP. Whether this is Derren's fault (or theirs for being gullible/open minded) is open for debate.

As for the "Devil's picturebook", I'm presuming you mean the 'mental forces' of cards - this is a very clever piece of work by Derren! - a real mentalist who understands instant stooges and dual reality will see its true meaning, whereas someone who downloaded it from bittorrent to find out how Derren does his tricks will come away with a false explanation - very clever eh?

humanji

Isn't the point, that most people here are missing, is that it's entertainment? When I watch Star Trek, I don't assume humans are exploring far off galaxies. Derren Brown is an entertainer who does it for money. And he's damn good at what he does (as opposed to Keith Barry who just recycles everyone elses tricks, but that's just me hating him more than anything else!). It's just a bit of fun.

And anyway, don't they say that the smarter you are, the harder it is to figure out magic tricks, because you'll always be looking for the complex answer! Therefore, I can't figure out any tricks, because I'm ever so smart

Zombrex

humanji wrote:

Isn't the point, that most people here are missing, is that it's entertainment? When I watch Star Trek, I don't assume humans are exploring far off galaxies.

True, but when you watch a science show (which for a while Channel 4 were billing Brown as, until they moved him to entertainment most likely because people complained) would you mind if what you were watching was actually something else.

This all reminds me of the Disney wildlife "documentary" in the 60s that showed a whole load of Lemmings suicidally running off a cliff (which is credited with starting the wide spread adoption of the incorrect myth that Lemmings do this). Now again it could be argued that this was a Disney production, so people shouldn't have taken it at face value. But again it was presented as reality, present to the audience that what they were watching was real. Not in a "obviously not actually real"way that a magician does, but really real. And people accepted it as such. Which lead to the myth that Lemmings suicide.

Acid_Violet

Does anyone else remember what happened with his Russian Roulette? He went on This Morning the next morning and the sergeant of the police station in the isle of Wight (or whatever) rang up the show and said the bullets were all blanks.

Zombrex

Acid_Violet wrote:

Does anyone else remember what happened with his Russian Roulette? He went on This Morning the next morning and the sergeant of the police station in the isle of Wight (or whatever) rang up the show and said the bullets were all blanks.

Really? How did he respond (was this live?)


... just found this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3169388.stm

which follows on from this ... I like the "Mind control expert Derren Brown ..." bit at the start

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3162636.stm

aphex™

Even a blank to your temple would kill you.

Acid_Violet

Really? Well that's what I saw, the reason twas blanks was because there'd be NO WAY they'd let live bullets be used, obviously. He justy laughed and smiled, and awkward silence ensued. I'm not sure, try an array of words on google/youtube to find it.

stevejazzx

To his credit he has succesfully tricked well known celebrities who certainly weren't 'stooges' for Brown.
The most baffling one is here
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DiDIXoIAkcg

they're not double sided cards unless heavy editing has been used and i imagine the ross's would've copped it even it was...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NmilV9TXQvo

swapped deck and shuffle

http://youtube.com/watch?v=befugtgikMg
gives his own explanation that may be correct however there is one other very possible explanation.....

aidan24326

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Even a blank to your temple would kill you.

That's quite true, could certainly do you alot of damage.

Just the explosion from a blank round can cause alot of harm and even kill when used up close, so I wonder if he was allowed use real blanks considering they're almost as dangerous at such close range? Against the temple he'd certainly have been badly hurt at a minimum. He appeared to blast a blank round at the sandbags?

Acid_Violet

Maybe the chambers were even empty. Basically, it was an awful hoax. We know this because he wouldn't have been allowed to do it, let alone air it on channel 4 otherwise, not a snowball's chance in hell he would've been allowed.

aphex™

aidan24326 wrote:

Against the temple he'd certainly have been badly hurt at a minimum. He appeared to blast a blank round at the sandbags?

Yes, so there was real danger involved.

stevejazzx

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Yes, so there was real danger involved.

No, becasue Derren has admitted that it was a trick, dramatised for TV. So there was never a chance of him blowing his head off. That's the gripe people have, the claim of some form of authenticity when it's always just a trick apart from the odd possible genuine NLP or cold reading.

aphex™

stevejazzx wrote:

No, becasue Derren has admitted that it was a trick, dramatised for TV. So there was never a chance of him blowing his head off. That's the gripe people have, the claim of some form of authenticity when it's always just a trick apart from the odd possible genuine NLP or cold reading.

Where did he admit it was a trick? Got a link?

Tar.Aldarion

Brown himself defended the programme, saying, "It probably sounds odd. But as a magic-related performer to have that even being asked: Was it real? Was it not real? That lifts it to a level that I'm very comfortable with. What's left is the fact that it was a terrific piece of television."

I think people are missing the point of his shows here and that quote sums it up.
If he is pretending that he is using pyschology, so? He is still a great entertainer and I don't see why people are let down if his tricks...are tricks.


edit: from his book.

'I am often dishonest in my techniques, but always honest about my dishonesty. As I say in each show, "I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship". I happily admit cheating, as it's all part of the game. I hope some of the fun for the viewer comes from not knowing what's real and what isn't. I am an entertainer first and foremost, and I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people's real-life decisions or belief systems'.

Also, in response to the accusation that he unfairly claims to be using NLP whenever he performs, Brown writes "The truth is I have never mentioned it".

Derren also commented that if he used actors, he would have to pay them and would be more trouble than he would like.

stevejazzx

If a blank round is used, there is no bullet to seal the barrel, and the combustion gases exit through the muzzle without building up enough pressure to rechamber the next round


from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3169388.stm

"There was no live ammunition involved and at no time was anyone at risk," said Lenny Harper, Detective Chief Officer for the States of Jersey police.

He said it on TV interview that it was genuine in that he was controling his assistant but his life wasn't at risk.

Zombrex

I think the issue is heightened because this is TV

Even if something is completely fake during a stage show the audience is still impressed because making something fake look real during a stage show is tricky.

But you can pretty much do anything you like on TV.

Tar.Aldarion

You can, he uses frisbees in his live shows for voluteers, throws them into the crowd.

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You can, he uses frisbees in his live shows for voluteers, throws them into the crowd.

Yes but also apparently edits his tricks to make them look more impressive than they are, such as the phone booth trick. Because we the audience are not there watching we cannot pick up on this.

David Blane does the same thing, such as his levitation trick, where the shot on him of him moving up is actually a re-shoot of him attached to a massive crane. When he is actually doing the trick all he is doing is lifting himself up by his left foot which is hidden behind his right one.

People get annoyed by things like this because it is seen as cheating the audience.

Tar.Aldarion

Well, What do they expect, to be tricked in a diferent way and that is ok? :P
I have never seen his phone booth trick, Blaine's one was obvious.
On TV, I expect to be cheated, as it were, live I expect to be dazzled.

pH

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Well, What do they expect, to be tricked in a different way and that is ok? :P
I have never seen his phone booth trick, Blaine's one was obvious.
On TV, I expect to be cheated, as it were, live I expect to be dazzled.

The point remains that many people don't think they're watching conjuring tricks, there are bulletin boards full of people discussing pattern interrupts and mirroring, even in this thread links were posted to youtube videos where Derren's extraordinary abilities are 'explained' using NLP and hypnosis.

Derren has done little if anything to remedy this, in fact he probably couldn't. How many magicians get a series on UK TV these days? The only reason that he gets on is that a substantial percentage of his audience really believe that they're watching 'mind control'. This is not totally Derren's fault, but his refusal to disabuse people of these notions and continuing to offer psycho-babble explanations for his tricks doesn't help.

Russian Roulette is a good example, it's a conjuring trick, similar in theme to the bullet catch performed by many stage magicians - and its success relies in no way on Derren's ability to read the volunteer and know what chamber they would pick - that whole selection process was just flavour - the trick just works because its an illusion.

I have to say the Jonathan Ross trick is absolutely amazing, so damned good I'm tempted to call foul, though I can't help but wonder if the long drawn our storytelling in the middle and the heavily table-clothed table are more integral to the trick than they appear.

Tar.Aldarion

I don't see why he would try to get people to not believe in him, as you say it gets him a series and is his living.
I don't see the problem with these fora, just because he doesn't do it this way, doesn't mean it is not possible, he could inspire! (:

I haven't see the jonathan ross one or this messiah one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown#Messiah
Was it good?

pH

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I haven't see the jonathan ross one or this messiah one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown#Messiah
Was it good?

A link to a google video of Messiah is in the 1st post.

Here's a bit from the wikipedia page you linked:

wikpedia wrote:

Psychic Powers
Derren Brown asked a leading figure at a psychic training school to go into another room and draw a number of simple pictures on any topic she wished. After each picture had been completed, Derren would have his prediction of what the picture was written down by the other members of the training school in the room with him. He was 100% correct. On one occasion when Derren was telling the participant to draw the next picture, he instructed the lady to "let some ideas sail into your mind" and not to go "overboard on detail". She drew a boat in water.

I've highlighted that bit - which again seems to imply that Derren can 'influence' you to draw a certain picture by using key words hidden in sentences.

Now watch the video (it's linked in the OP) - this bit is about 8:00 min into the video. So you saw him say that did you? Rewind and watch it again. Did you 'see' him say that

Tar.Aldarion

I can't watch these videos in work you see! That's why I haven't seen it yet.
Must have a look if I ever get a home connection.

So, I assume he did not say it, I think things like that would have a small affect(if they were ever said), but I wonder if they ever have enough of an effect to influence a drawing.