have you watched derren browns "the experiment"

LondonJohn · Nov 23, 2011

tsig said:
Actually that alone disqualifies your opinion.

ETA: If I told you I was a fan of Jesus would that give my words more or less weight about my thoughts on him?

That's an utter straw man. If I told you I was a fan of Richard Dawkins, would that diminish my opinion that the theory of evolution was accurate and valid? What if I told you I was a fan of James Randi?

tsig · Nov 23, 2011

LondonJohn said:
Another incisive and on-topic contribution to the debate. Well done.

:

Praise from such a source is valued indeed.

tsig · Nov 23, 2011

LondonJohn said:
That's an utter straw man. If I told you I was a fan of Richard Dawkins, would that diminish my opinion that the theory of evolution was accurate and valid? What if I told you I was a fan of James Randi?

The theory of evolution can be demonstrated from many disparate sources, DBs' story has only his word.

Did you intentionally use a straw man argument just to show how it's done?

Stray Cat · Nov 23, 2011

LondonJohn said:
If I told you I was a fan of Richard Dawkins, would that diminish my opinion that the theory of evolution was accurate and valid?

I dunno, does Dawkins claim not to use stooges?

John Albert · Nov 23, 2011

banquetbear said:
He claims he doesn't use stooges.

...Yet we find that a woman who appeared in one of his segments (the star of the performance, no less) is actually an actress. In her filmography on IMDB, she even cited her work as a theatrical role. When that fact became public due to a blogger, the entry was not merely edited for accuracy to reflect the fact she wasn't acting but removed outright from the IMDB page and even scrubbed from the Wayback machine.

Now this might not be proof positive that Derren Brown used her as a stooge, but it ought to be more than adequate evidence to at least raise suspicion.

To this we can add that the use of stooges is a very common and accepted practice throughout the history of mentalism, whether you want to believe it or not. Name me a world-reknowned mentalist act from the last half of the 20th Century to the present day that has not been known to employ stooges. Even Uri Geller has been caught using them. It's part of the repertoire of a mentalist.

On the other hand, what evidence have we seen in favor of him not using stooges?

Zero.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're arguing a mentalist doesn't use stooges, then you better at least come up with an explanation for how they achieved a complex hypnotism trick like that "voodoo doll" effect without it being pre-rehearsed. If you admit you have no idea how the trick was done and you still find yourself unable to rule out he used a stooge, then you're clearly in denial and not thinking rationally.

banquetbear said:
He states he doesn't use NLP.

...Yet I have posted excerpts from his writings that show not only that he doesn't deny it outright (he only denies "mentioning it" by name), but he actually admits to using NLP techniques without naming them as NLP. If you deny this, then look at the quotes I posted on the previous page of this thread.

banquetbear said:
It isn't up to Azrael 5 to prove that Brown is telling the truth. You need to prove that he is a liar.

Nonsense. This is not a court of law, and I'm not making an extraordinary claim like he has supernatural powers or something. The proof that he uses stooges is that he is a mentalist, performing classic mentalist acts that are known to involve stooges (or at least "instant stooges").

Imagine I showed you a live, healthy young kitten and said, "this kitten refuses to play with a ball of yarn. No matter how much you try, you will never get this kitten to play with yarn." Knowing what you know about kittens, would you just believe me on my word? Or would you want me to actually get a ball of yarn and prove it?

You might be willing to grant Derren Brown the benefit of the doubt just on his word, but I'm not. He's a magician. His job and vocation is to trick people into being fascinated by the effects he presents on his shows, and I expect everything he says in public to support that purpose, over and above telling the truth. If you deny that, then I say you're a credulous rube.

banquetbear said:
The evidence provided so far in this thread that Brown is lying is pathetic.

He's been repeatedly shown to be a liar. You might handwave that away as "misdirection" or whatever, but I don't buy it. As I see it, there's a big difference between a mentalist saying something within the context of his act, like "Now the spirits will tell me what card you chose..." and a mentalist performing the trick on TV and then presenting an aside wherein he gives the audience some half-baked pop-psych "explanation" intended to make it appear that some popular pseudoscience woo is responsible.

The difference is this: In traditional magic, the magician presents the effect as something otherworldly that only the magician has the ability to perform. Where Derren Brown differs is that he presents it as some fake pseudoscience woo that (if he is to be believed) anyone can learn to do, if they invest the time (and money) in learning the pseudoscience.

So lots and lots of people see him performing these NLP techniques on TV, then they go and invest loads of money on NLP seminars to learn the "Derren Brown Mind Control methods." But the fact is, the audience will never learn his tricks that way, because that's not how he does it. He's lying, while throwing a bone to the NLP swindlers at the same time.

banquetbear said:
We have been given a link to IMDB: we've had to twist his words, we've been given millions of google links, but absolutley no proof.

I haven't twisted anything. I presented his quotes in the context they were stated in the book. The IMDB entry was there until it was removed. Plenty of people saw it, even Azrael admitted seeing it (though with his track record fore honesty, I'm sure he'll deny it).

banquetbear said:
So how weak is the evidence in this thread? It has been asserted many times that "Tony Corinda also clearly promotes the use of stooges in his 13 Steps series", yet when I google "Tony Corinda" "stooges", the very first link is to this very thread.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q="Tony+Corinda"+"stooges"

Thre is nothing wrong with citing book sources, but considering that Derren Browns plain words are being obviously misrepresented I won't trust the above assertion until it is quoted chapter and verse.

You're lying. I have not misrepresented his words. If you're alleging that I am, you'd better show proof. I even quoted the title of the book and the page number. Your implication that I didn't is blatantly dishonest. Look it up, if you don't believe me.

banquetbear said:
Brown has contributed more to fighting woo than anyone participating in this thread.

John Albert · Nov 23, 2011

LondonJohn said:
Secondly, I have an interest in magic, mentalism and associated areas stretching back many years. Since I'm of the firm belief that there are no such things as "paranormal" powers (ESP, spiritualism, telekinesis etc), I also hold an interest in how these effects can be achieved through standard, "non-paranormal" methods.

Me too.

LondonJohn said:
But thirdly I do, however, believe that humans (particularly those who exhibit particular suggestibility or a susceptibility to persuasion/authority) are capable of being manipulated using psychological techniques. For an example, I believe that one need look no further than established religion to see this happening through the entire spectrum of outcomes.

You're comparing two very different things. A magician performing a trick in front of an audience is very different from a religion that is culturally ingrained in a society and taught to children from a very young age. There is no comparison at all.

LondonJohn said:
So, with that in mind...

With that very obvious, very false analogy in mind...

LondonJohn said:
...back to Derren Brown. It's important to point out early on that magicians who have an academic interest in their craft strongly dislike the word "trick", not only because it has connotations of an unfair or sleazy deception of the audience, but also because it's misleading to use a single word to describe two separate elements of a performance. Instead, the preferred descriptors split the performance into two elements: the effect, which is what the audience experiences (or is directed/misdirected to experience by the performer); and the method, which is the set of techniques through which the performer achieves the desired effect, and which the performer usually hopes the audience does not divine. The cognitive dissonance experienced by the audience who witness the effect, but who (hopefully) cannot conceive of the method used to achieve the effect, is the very essence of magic.

Magicians might dislike the word "trick," (preferring more dignified-sounding terminology that separates the appearance from the actual doings, like "effect" and "method") but that's exactly what it is. The fact is, the mechanisms behind magic are sometimes ingenious and elaborate, but just as often they're quite mundane. This is especially true of mentalism, a generally low-tech form of magic (except for the occasional use of hidden radio systems and the like). For every elaborate memorization technique, pattern-matching exercise or clever shortcut to impressive mathematical feats, there are a dozen cheap and dirty scams. The most obvious are "mind control" -type tricks, which have often involved the use of stooges, audience plants and the like.

LondonJohn said:
I know that all of the above is of huge interest to Derren Brown.

I would hope so. "The above" constitutes the curriculum of the first day of "Magic 101" class. I'd certainly hope he has an "interest" in it, considering it's his chosen career after all.

LondonJohn said:
He's written extensively about it, and refers to it both directly and obliquely in many of his TV shows. I believe that there is a fundamental honesty to his work

That's because you aren't looking at it critically. No offense meant, but just because the guy is a captivating performer, that certainly does not make him honest.

LondonJohn said:
There is a huge difference between a) performing an effect on an audience, but leaving them guessing as to the method behind the effect, and b) performing an effect, but then earnestly claiming a bogus "method" behind that effect. The former is the stock-in-trade of any magic performer, whereas the latter is often employed by frauds who claim to have paranormal powers. The former is honest, and the latter is dishonest.

Exactly. And the latter is precisely what Derren Brown does.

LondonJohn said:
My experience of Derren Brown is that he has never tried to claim a bogus method behind any given effect.

He does it all the time. He claims "psychological manipulation" to implant suggestions, which is completely BS on the level that he's doing it. He did it for the Simon Pegg Birthday Present trick, he did it all the time in Mind Control. The most egregious examples of him doing it are in his current program, The Experiments.

LondonJohn said:
In fact, I think he likes to toy with the audience, by hinting at various methods - sometimes throwing in a few red herrings - but to my knowledge he has never said anything along the lines of "and here's how I did it" without that explanation of the method being essentially accurate.

You're wrong about that. For examples, see the "Simon Pegg BMX Bike Birthday Present" and "Lotto prediction method reveal" videos. The methods he describes are always "inaccurate," and always based in some form of impossible pop-psychology woo. The Lotto reveal was actually the same scam they did in The movie The Sting, except done with high-tech split-screen camera trickery.

Again, no offense meant. There's no shame in being wrong, only in willfully refusing to learn from your mistake.

LondonJohn said:
I therefore think that programmes such as the recent four-part "The Experiments" series are in essence real (although hardly scientifically-rigorous) investigations into certain areas of the use of magic/mentalism to affect human behaviour.

Then I'm sorry, but you're being tricked. The things he's claiming to do are not what he's actually doing.

LondonJohn said:
My understanding of psychological techniques, including "hypnosis" (which, as Brown himself readily accepts, is far more complex a process/method than the simplistic "put someone into a trance" trope), the powers of group conformity or anonymised groupthink, and certain elements of NLP, lead me to two firm conclusions: 1) The effects demonstrated by Brown in these Experiments shows are eminently achievable using his stated methods, and b) Brown did in fact use these stated methods to achieve the witnessed effects.

Then your understanding of those things is faulty. The methods behind Derren Brown's effects are all tricks. "NLP" and "hypnosis" are not what he's actually doing. Those are the fake, bogus explanations you mentioned above, but are unwilling to believe Derren Brown would stoop to.

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is the a priori assumption that Derren Brown is being honest and up-front about his methods.

LondonJohn said:
Lastly, as some others have pointed out, anyone familiar with public broadcasting content regulation in the UK will know that deliberate deception of a TV audience is currently a hot topic and a big focus of regulator activity. Derren Brown's programmes as shown on Channel 4 (and its sister channels), which is classed as a public service broadcaster (C4 receives public funding), and which is therefore regulated especially stringently. It is extremely unlikely that the regulator, Ofcom, would allow C4 to get away with a deliberate deception of audiences. For example, if the subject of the Assassin show was a stooge who was in on the whole thing, that would be a massive and clear breach of regulatory guidelines. Broadcasters have been given strict ex-ante instructions that no deception of this type is allowable, and that any "magic" effects should be strictly defined as such. This is one reason why Brown's regular TV output contains the well-known disclaimer at the start of every show.

Can you provide citations for these regulations, please? I'd very much like to read them in their entirety.

LondonJohn said:
There are no disclaimers at the start of special shows such as The Experiments.

Thank you for being honest about that, unlike Azrael and other Derren Brown supporters in this discussion.

LondonJohn said:
In short, I believe that the Experiments shows were essentially real, and that the effects shown in the shows were indeed achieved through the methods used in the programmes. Obviously the shows were edited for impact and pace, but I think that fundamentally what appeared on screen was not in any way fraudulent or mendacious.

Again, you're being fooled. Which is not something to be ashamed of, by the way. Derren Brown's entire schtick is intended to achieve exactly that result from his audience. He's a brilliant magician.

Thanks also for providing proof that intelligent and lucid adults are being fooled by DB, and not just blithering nincompoops as some other, less honest debaters in this thread have alleged.

Matthew Best · Nov 23, 2011

tsig said:
:

Praise from such a source is valued indeed.

Looks like another sore loser. They're all over the place!

Stray Cat · Nov 23, 2011

John Albert said:
Can you provide citations for these regulations, please? I'd very much like to read them in their entirety.

I doubt it, they don't exist as described. I think this myth has arisen because DB said it was so.

And for information, Channel 4 although classed as a 'public service broadcaster' under it's broadcasting licence, is not funded using public money at all and is not "regulated especially stringently" by Ofcom . It's revenue comes entirely from on air advertising, sponsorship and sale of it's output to other stations.

AdMan · Nov 23, 2011

John Albert said:
Can you provide citations for these regulations, please? I'd very much like to read them in their entirety.

I had raised the question earlier about whether what DB was saying about the regulations was accurate or not.

Here is the Ofcom broadcasting code. Haven't gone over everything, but all I've found so far with regards to "due accuracy" refers to news programming, not entertainment:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/guidance/programme-guidance/bguidance/

ETA: This is the actual code. Link above is to the "guidance" section.

John Albert · Nov 23, 2011

John Albert said:
Can you provide citations for these regulations, please? I'd very much like to read them in their entirety.

Stray Cat said:
I doubt it, they don't exist as described. I think this myth has arisen because DB said it was so.

And for information, Channel 4 although classed as a 'public service broadcaster' under it's broadcasting licence, is not funded using public money at all and is not "regulated especially stringently" by Ofcom . It's revenue comes entirely from on air advertising, sponsorship and sale of it's output to other stations.

AdMan said:
I had raised the question earlier about whether what DB was saying about the regulations was accurate or not.

Here is the Ofcom broadcasting code. Haven't gone over everything, but all I've found so far with regards to "due accuracy" refers to news programming, not entertainment:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/guidance/programme-guidance/bguidance/

So I'm guessing it's yet another lie intended to lend credibility to his pseudoscience claims, that will no doubt be explained as mere "misdirection."

Stray Cat · Nov 23, 2011

John Albert said:
So I'm guessing it's yet another lie intended to lend credibility to his pseudoscience claims, that will no doubt be explained as mere "misdirection."

I wouldn't like to speculate at the motivation behind such false information being offered.

John Albert · Nov 23, 2011

Stray Cat said:
I wouldn't like to speculate at the motivation behind such false information being offered.

Far be it from me to speculate about anything! How dare I?

Azrael 5 · Nov 23, 2011

Why do you John Albert keep beating the NLP stick?. You already admit Derren has never said he uses it,bizarrely saying "he hasnt said he doesnt either"! So on that basis can I assume you are a evil child murderer? Becuase you havent said you arent?

In Tricks of the Mind he is honest about his brief involvement with it in his early career(pre-fame).

"I started to use NLP in my hpnsosis shows and any low level therapeutic help I may give.."

And that is the only vague admission. From 20 years ago.
Nowhere in any of his performances does he claim to use it. Whether what he does with gestures or whatever appears to be NLP is irrelevant,it's giving viewers something they can accept as an explanation.The Simon Pegg BMX bike example featured in a show with magic misdirection disclaimer.
The Experiments arent promoted as science nort documentary:there is no Professor Joe Bloggs from Harvard saying "Yes assaination by hypnosis is a real issue..."
He merely asks a question and leaves public to make up their own minds,credits them with an intelligence to know real from fantasy.
Can a man be progrmmed to asasinate?
Can a statue of a dog bring good luck?
Can a man confess to a murder he didnt commit?

All questions.If he was on a cable channel no doubt the show would be knee deep in woo production values with some creepy medium. Its on mainstream TV(and in UK we dont have woo on mainstream TV).

If people want to believe Derren is a guru/shaman/mind controller/NLP expert they will. People leave his live shows convinced he's psychic. Common sense and general public aren't best friends.

tsig · Nov 23, 2011

Stray Cat said:
I wouldn't like to speculate at the motivation behind such false information being offered.

Well maybe it has to do with that misdirection thing that magicians do.

John Albert · Nov 23, 2011

Azrael 5 said:
Why do you John Albert keep beating the NLP stick?. You already admit Derren has never said he uses it,bizarrely saying "he hasnt said he doesnt either"! So on that basis can I assume you are a evil child murderer? Becuase you havent said you arent?

You're totally missing my point. Considering how many times I've restated it in various different ways, I can only assume you're misrepresenting it on purpose.

When talking in his own book about NLP, Derren Brown had the perfect opportunity to say, "No, I never use it." But did he do that? NO.

What he said was:

I now have a lot of NLPers analysing my TV work in their own terms, as well as people who say that I myself unfairly claim to be using NLP whenever I perform (the truth is I have never mentioned it).

Why do you think he phrased (the highlighted part) that particular way instead of outright flatly denying it? He's clearly making it sound like he's "letting you in on a little secret," considering that the chapter in which that line appears is entitled "Neurolinguistic Programming" and he spends the following 40-some odd pages explaining how various NLP techniques can be used to read and control peoples' minds.

Doesn't that pretty much indicate that the NLP believers were nonetheless able to identify his "techniques" as NLP, even though (as he says) he never mentioned it?

Azrael 5 said:
"I started to use NLP in my hpnsosis shows and any low level therapeutic help I may give.."

Click to expand...

And that is the only vague admission. From 20 years ago.

If you actually read the book (as you claim to have done), you'd know he went on to say that he'd studied NLP under its founders Richard Bandler and John Grinder, and said he learned some valuable things about human perception from their books and seminars, but was put off that they seemed more concerned with making money by issuing certifications instead of studying and investigating the phenomena.

Then he added:

Can I not choose to learn from other people in this way without calling it NLP? Don't we model ourselves on people or emulate mentors all the time? Of course, the answer is 'yes'.

-Derren Brown, Tricks of the Mind, pp. 177

What does that tell you about DB and his attitude toward the practice of NLP, as opposed to the business franchise surrounding it?

What does it tell you about his level of honesty about said practice?

If Derren Brown has no faith in NLP techniques, and no use for them in his own work, then why do you suppose he dedicated that entire chapter (itself entitled "Neurolinguistic Programming") to his experience with it, and spent the following 40 or so pages to outlining aspects of NLP that he claims to use for reading minds and controlling peoples' behavior?

Azrael 5 said:
In Tricks of the Mind he is honest about his brief involvement with it in his early career(pre-fame).

Why do you assume his involvement was brief, or that it was a thing of the past?

Why do you not acknowledge that he still uses those techniques in his act?

Knowing what you (presumably) know from (allegedly) reading his books, don't you see enough proof just by watching his shows and listening to his woo-woo explanations for his methods?

Do the NLP promoters' analysis of his videos not indicate that they're also recognizing his techniques and accurately describing them in NLP terms?

Azrael 5 said:
Nowhere in any of his performances does he claim to use it. Whether what he does with gestures or whatever appears to be NLP is irrelevant,it's giving viewers something they can accept as an explanation.

As he said in that statement from Tricks of the Mind, he never identifies them as NLP outright. But the people who've studied NLP (formally at the seminars, or informally on the Internet, as I have done) will recognize them for what they are.

Have you never even looked into any of the techniques that Derren Brown claims in his "explanations"? If not, then how can you claim to know so much about Derren Brown and his methods? The more you talk about the subject, the more and more clueless you appear about it.

I looked into NLP a few years back after reading Tricks of the Mind, and the techniques are clearly recognizable in many of Derren Brown's explanations for how he does his tricks. Of course I don't believe any of that garbage is real. Those explanations are total BS, but that doesn't mean they're not immediately recognizable as the same claptrap that the NLP people promote.

Azrael 5 said:
The Simon Pegg BMX bike example featured in a show with magic misdirection disclaimer.

Did that show actually have a disclaimer? I don't know, as I've only seen the clip of that one segment, never the entire show as it was aired on TV. And I'm certainly not going to take your word for it, considering how you've lied about that very same thing several times already in this thread.

Azrael 5 said:
The Experiemnts arent promoted as science nort documentary:there is no Professor Joe Bloggs from Harvard saying "Yes assaination by hypnosis is a real issue..."

That's a misconception of what constitutes a documentary. Documentaries don't require the testimony of Harvard profs. "Documentary" is a program format in film and broadcast media. It's the format of presentation that Derren Brown uses for nearly all of his TV work. He very rarely produces a TV show that is presented as a traditional magic stage show.

Azrael 5 said:
He merely asks a question and leaves public to make up their own minds,credits them with an intelligence to know real from fantasy.

That's wrong. That is not all he does.

In The Experiments, he heavily promotes the woo angle while disregarding the skeptical angle. While the American TV woo docus (like Ghost Hunters, Ancient Aliens and Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura) present lopsided evidence skewed toward the woo, they at least show both sides and basically leave the question open, whereas Derren Brown tells the audience what to think about it, and then presents fake evidence intended as proof. That's way further than the American woo documentaries go.

Azrael 5 said:
All questions.If he was on a cable channel no doubt the show would be knee deep in woo production values with some creepy medium. Its on mainstream TV

The Experiments does have all those things. The only differences are, it has pop psychology BS instead of ghosts and UFOs, and it's Derren Brown spouting the woo instead of Jesse "The Body" Ventura and Giorgio "Big Hair" Tsoukalos.

Why do you think being on cable would make any difference?

Azrael 5 said:
(and in UK we dont have woo on mainstream TV).

Guess again.

John Albert · Nov 23, 2011

AdMan said:
Here is the Ofcom broadcasting code. Haven't gone over everything, but all I've found so far with regards to "due accuracy" refers to news programming, not entertainment:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/guidance/programme-guidance/bguidance/

ETA: This is the actual code. Link above is to the "guidance" section.

The following quote is the only section I've found that specifically relates to what we've been discussing regarding Derren Brown's shows. I took the liberty of highlighting the parts I consider most applicable:

Exorcism, the occult and the paranormal

2.6 Demonstrations of exorcism, the occult, the paranormal, divination, or practices related to any of these that purport to be real (as opposed to entertainment) must be treated with due objectivity. (See Rule 1.27 in Section One: Protecting the Under-Eighteens, concerning scheduling restrictions.)

2.7 If a demonstration of exorcism, the occult, the paranormal, divination, or practices related to any of these is for entertainment purposes, this must be made clear to viewers and listeners.
2.8 Demonstrations of exorcism, the occult, the paranormal, divination, or practices related to any of these (whether such demonstrations purport to be real or are for entertainment purposes) must not contain life-changing advice directed at individuals. (Religious programmes are exempt from this rule but must, in any event, comply with the provisions in Section Four: Religion. Films, dramas and fiction generally are not bound by this rule.)

Meaning of "life-changing":
Life-changing advice includes direct advice for individuals upon which they could reasonably act or rely about health, finance, employment or relationships.

Hypnotic and other techniques, simulated news and photosensitive epilepsy

2.9 When broadcasting material featuring demonstrations of hypnotic techniques, broadcasters must exercise a proper degree of responsibility in order to prevent hypnosis and/or adverse reactions in viewers and listeners. The hypnotist must not broadcast his/her full verbal routine or be shown performing straight to camera.
2.10 Simulated news (for example in drama or in documentaries) must be broadcast in such a way that there is no reasonable possibility of the audience being misled into believing that they are listening to, or watching, actual news.

2.11 Broadcasters must not use techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred.

2.12 Television broadcasters must take precautions to maintain a low level of risk to viewers who have photosensitive epilepsy. Where it is not reasonably practicable to follow the Ofcom guidance (see the Ofcom website), and where broadcasters can demonstrate that the broadcasting of flashing lights and/or patterns is editorially justified, viewers should be given an adequate verbal and also, if appropriate, text warning at the start of the programme or programme item.

Those prohibitions against hypnotizing the TV audience are especially amusing. My guess is they put that in there for legal reasons more than anything else.

These rules might appear rather cut-and-dried at first glance, but they're obviously pretty open to interpretation.

Come to think of it, that vague wording might actually suggest some reasoning why Derren Brown has chosen to walk this fine line of invoking pop-psychology pseudoscience instead of more traditional paranormal explanations for what he's doing.

For example, how do they define "paranormal"? Would practices of "NLP" qualify, or would it be seen as a legitimate psychological technique? Would it matter if he actually invoked "NLP," instead of claiming to use the techniques without mentioning it by name?

Azrael 5 · Nov 23, 2011

John Albert said:
You're totally missing my point. Considering how many times I've restated it in various different ways, I can only assume you're misrepresenting it on purpose.

When talking in his own book about NLP, Derren Brown had the perfect opportunity to say, "No, I never use it." But did he do that? NO.

Does he say he doesnt use sleight of hand? Does he say he does? Oh of course you dont know as youve only read a snippet!

So we now judge people on what they dont say? I see...

What he said was:

Why do you think he phrased (the highlighted part) that particular way instead of outright flatly denying it? He's clearly making it sound like he's "letting you in on a little secret," considering that the chapter in which that line appears is entitled "Neurolinguistic Programming" and he spends the following 40-some odd pages explaining how various NLP techniques can be used to read and control peoples' minds.

Rubbish. Thats just your agenda speaking,and the chapter doesnt speak of controlling anyones minds,it discusses basic cognitive psychology.
The "mind reading" I assume (as youve mentioned it before) is eye cues? I nwhich Derren states: "If eye cues were as relaible as NLPers state there would be more positive results in tests" Yet again you misrepresent and twist quotes.
Easy when you have the book

Doesn't that pretty much indicate that the NLP believers were nonetheless able to identify his "techniques" as NLP, even though (as he says) he never mentioned it?

No one has denied he uses mock NLP signs,to fool the viewer,but he doesnt use NLP(just magic tricks).

If you actually read the book (as you claim to have done), you'd know he went on to say that he'd studied NLP under its founders Richard Bandler and John Grinder, and said he learned some valuable things about human perception from their books and seminars, but was put off that they seemed more concerned with making money by issuing certifications instead of studying and investigating the phenomena.

Then he added:

What does that tell you about DB and his attitude toward the practice of NLP, as opposed to the business franchise surrounding it?

What does it tell you about his level of honesty about said practice?

If Derren Brown has no faith in NLP techniques, and no use for them in his own work, then why do you suppose he dedicated that entire chapter (itself entitled "Neurolinguistic Programming") to his experience with it, and spent the following 40 or so pages to outlining aspects of NLP that he claims to use for reading minds and controlling peoples' behavior?

Perhaps because its inrtersting and people would liek to read it and perhaps aovid NLP seminars?

Why do you assume his involvement was brief, or that it was a thing of the past?

Because he didnt liek their practices he siad so in th ebook? Odd question.

Why do you not acknowledge that he still uses those techniques in his act?

I dont. He pretends to.Its misdirection.Havent you figured that out yet?

Knowing what you (presumably) know from (allegedly) reading his books, don't you see enough proof just by watching his shows and listening to his woo-woo explanations for his methods?

See above.

Do the NLP promoters' analysis of his videos not indicate that they're also recognizing his techniques and accurately describing them in NLP terms?

See above above.

As he said in that statement from Tricks of the Mind, he never identifies them as NLP outright. But the people who've studied NLP (formally at the seminars, or informally on the Internet, as I have done) will recognize them for what they are.

So? He doesnt use NLP. See above above above.

Have you never even looked into any of the techniques that Derren Brown claims in his "explanations"? If not, then how can you claim to know so much about Derren Brown and his methods? The more you talk about the subject, the more and more clueless you appear about it.

Er because Ive studied magic for 35 years,and I know what he is doing in his shows are magic tricks presented for TV using (invisible compromise)and faux methods to hide the real method.

I looked into NLP a few years back after reading Tricks of the Mind, and the techniques are clearly recognizable in many of Derren Brown's explanations for how he does his tricks. Of course I don't believe any of that garbage is real. Those explanations are total BS, but that doesn't mean they're not immediately recognizable as the same claptrap that the NLP people promote.

The majority of UK TV viewing public have no idea what NLP is,and since Derren never claims to use NLP there is no problem. A few delusional people spread the NLP rumour on the internet as they buy into his misdirection,at worst Derren doesnt disencourage it(all publicity etc).

Did that show actually have a disclaimer? I don't know, as I've only seen the clip of that one segment, never the entire show as it was aired on TV. And I'm certainly not going to take your word for it, considering how you've lied about that very same thing several times already in this thread.

If you dont know dont comment on things.Ive lied about nothing.

That's a misconception of what constitutes a documentary. Documentaries don't require the testimony of Harvard profs. "Documentary" is a program format in film and broadcast media. It's the format of presentation that Derren Brown uses for nearly all of his TV work. He very rarely produces a TV show that is presented as a traditional magic stage show.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/themes/derren-brown
See in big letters where it says "illusionist" ??

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-the-experiments/4od#3242945

Each stand-alone episode asks and answers a single question, featuring the inventive and jaw-dropping Derren Brown mixture of stunts, suggestions and thought-provoking entertainment.

Couldnt be any clearer.

Maybe you should...

Guess again.

Im out of this topic for good,you are clearly delusional.

John Albert · Nov 24, 2011

Azrael 5 said:
Does he say he doesnt use sleight of hand? Does he say he does? Oh of course you dont know as youve only read a snippet!
So we now judge people on what they dont say? I see...

Why can't you quit babbling like a crank-addled retard and just address the arguments I'm actually making, instead of misrepresenting them every single time and forcing me to reword the same damn statements over and over again?!?

Azrael 5 said:
No one has denied he uses mock NLP signs,to fool the viewer,but he doesnt use NLP(just magic tricks).

↑

THAT RIGHT THERE

is what I've been saying all along!!!

Except that you're lying through your teeth when you say "nobody has denied" it, because until now you've been swearing up and down denying it!

Azrael 5 said:
I dont. He pretends to.Its misdirection.Havent you figured that out yet?

It's not simple misdirection when he says it after the fact, taking great pains to make some NLP woo look like a real explanation of how the trick is done.

When he does that, it's no better than what John Edward or Uri Geller do. The only difference is he's promoting a pop-psychology pseudoscience scam instead of claiming supernatural powers.

Azrael 5 said:
So? He doesnt use NLP. See above above above.

Of course, now you're back to misrepresenting what I said again.

Azrael 5 said:
Er because Ive studied magic for 35 years,and I know...

[BLAH BLAH BLAH]

Azrael 5 said:
The majority of UK TV viewing public have no idea what NLP is,and since Derren never claims to use NLP there is no problem. A few delusional people spread the NLP rumour on the internet as they buy into his misdirection,at worst Derren doesnt disencourage it(all publicity etc).

Delusional people like your buddy LondonJohn there who obviously "buys into the misdirection" and thinks the stuff DB is doing is real.

Derren Brown's posturing is every bit as dishonest as any other woo promoters on TV.

Azrael 5 said:
Im out of this topic for good,you are clearly delusional.

tsig · Nov 24, 2011

John Albert said:
Why can't you quit babbling like a crank-addled retard and just address the arguments I'm actually making, instead of misrepresenting them every single time and forcing me to reword the same damn statements over and over again?!?

↑

THAT RIGHT THERE
is what I've been saying all along!!!

Except that you're lying through your teeth when you say "nobody has denied" it, because until now you've been swearing up and down denying it!

It's not simple misdirection when he says it after the fact, taking great pains to make some NLP woo look like a real explanation of how the trick is done.

When he does that, it's no better than what John Edward or Uri Geller do. The only difference is he's promoting a pop-psychology pseudoscience scam instead of saying he has supernatural powers.

Of course, now you're back to misrepresenting what I said again.

Delusional people like your buddy LondonJohn there who obviously "buys into the misdirection" and thinks the stuff DB is doing is real.

Derren Brown's posturing is every bit as dishonest as any other woo promoters on TV.

Trolls iz az trolls roll.

From where the sun now stands now I will post no more in this thread forever.

except for lj

Stray Cat · Nov 24, 2011

These are not the droids you are looking for.

John Albert · Nov 24, 2011

Jedi mind tricks will not work on me. Only money.

Azrael 5 · Nov 24, 2011

Just popped back,cant be bothered responding to childish post that have come since. I poste dthe following interview snippets many pages ago(as usual it was ignored by fantasisst who cannot decipher entertainment from woo).
I feel it's important and a very importnat stance on what Derren is about.I doubt it will make much difference to John Albert and Stray Cat but anyways.;

DERREN: Well, it depends on whose course you take. In the same way I've taken NLP courses and learned some NLP.
JAMY: Well, there are differing opinions on NLP. There's not a shred of scientific support for it, outside of its own self-sustaining industry, plus a lot of mentalists.
DERREN: Well, I not a big a fan of it, but I've done it and think in some contexts there's some use--that's a whole other conversation--but it's a dirty word as far as I'm concerned. If somebody came up to me and said, "Look, I really liked your show, and I'm going to go to an NLP course," which I've had happen, I would say to them, "Well, if you want to do that, do that, but here's what you'll get out of it. It's not what I do. It's part of what I do," which is I think true, I think that's fair enough to say.

What's In a Claim
http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html

Read it absorb it and stop posting such rubbish on a topic you know nothing about.

Tomtomkent · Nov 24, 2011

Now I hate to point this out, but a lot is being made of the "honest" claims Brown makes. Now on the one hand we should note that anybody who goes to see any performer of that ilk, and yes, I enjoy it greatly, expects to be tricked. On the other hand we have to remember he is out to trick us, and I have no more reason to assume he is being "honest about his dishonesty" than he will be about anything else.

If a magician tells you he isn't about to use Cheap Tactic X, that is as much a sleight of hand as anything else. There is no code of honour between performer and viewer, and offering a false explanation to let the audience think they are in on the trick can be a good device.

Seriously, even Penn and Teller don't explain everything. The Masked Magician only gave away stuff that was used by stage craft as often as magic acts. John Albert is managing to make the distinction between the guy and his stage persona.

He may use them, he may not. If he does, and he convinced you he didn't I like him more. It's a testament to his skill as a magician. But you know what? I doubt Brainwashing and NLP are the real answer.

Stray Cat · Nov 24, 2011

Azrael 5 said:
Just popped back,cant be bothered responding to childish post that have come since. I poste dthe following interview snippets many pages ago(as usual it was ignored by fantasisst who cannot decipher entertainment from woo).
I feel it's important and a very importnat stance on what Derren is about.I doubt it will make much difference to John Albert and Stray Cat but anyways.;

What's In a Claim
http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html

Read it absorb it and stop posting such rubbish on a topic you know nothing about.

This is not the interview you were looking for.

And you'd probably be best not to drag me into the discussion about Derren and NLP, (read what you've just quoted) so far I have only pointed out the weakness of your argument about stooges.

tuoni · Nov 24, 2011

Tomtomkent said:
If a magician tells you he isn't about to use Cheap Tactic X, that is as much a sleight of hand as anything else. There is no code of honour between performer and viewer, and offering a false explanation to let the audience think they are in on the trick can be a good device.

I would point out, he doesn't only use that in his explanations to "the viewer"; he also uses the word "repugnant" in conjunction with stooges in his discussions at conventions and presentations to magicians. FWIW.

Stray Cat · Nov 25, 2011

tuoni said:
I would point out, he doesn't only use that in his explanations to "the viewer"; he also uses the word "repugnant" in conjunction with stooges in his discussions at conventions and presentations to magicians. FWIW.

Yes, but apparently according to Azrael 5's last post, DB also says NLP is part of what he does.

Which we know isn't true.

An interview for the premier magicians magazine surely wouldn't try to fool people would it.

John Albert · Nov 25, 2011

Azrael 5 said:
Just popped back,cant be bothered responding to childish post that have come since. I poste dthe following interview snippets many pages ago(as usual it was ignored by fantasisst who cannot decipher entertainment from woo).
I feel it's important and a very importnat stance on what Derren is about.I doubt it will make much difference to John Albert and Stray Cat but anyways.;

DERREN: Well, it depends on whose course you take. In the same way I've taken NLP courses and learned some NLP.

JAMY: Well, there are differing opinions on NLP. There's not a shred of scientific support for it, outside of its own self-sustaining industry, plus a lot of mentalists.

DERREN: Well, I not a big a fan of it, but I've done it and think in some contexts there's some use--that's a whole other conversation--but it's a dirty word as far as I'm concerned. If somebody came up to me and said, "Look, I really liked your show, and I'm going to go to an NLP course," which I've had happen, I would say to them, "Well, if you want to do that, do that, but here's what you'll get out of it. It's not what I do. It's part of what I do," which is I think true, I think that's fair enough to say.

Click to expand...

What's In a Claim
http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html

Read it absorb it and stop posting such rubbish on a topic you know nothing about.

So what do we see Derren Brown "doing" here? Let's set aside our personal feelings of both admiration and criticism about the performer and the man, and objectively deconstruct and analyze what he's saying:

Out of one side of his mouth, he describes "NLP" as "a dirty word," but out of the other he says it's "part of what I do."

In other words, he has no qualms about using NLP in his act, but just not calling it "NLP" by name, right?

Now as astute, critical thinking skeptics, we know that NLP is pseudoscience bunkum that does not work, so we can safely rule out that NLP nonsense as a plausible method for how he's achieving his tricks. Therefore, his statement that it "is part of what he does" is a misleading admission at best. While it may be "part of what he does," it's certainly not the method that achieves the effect, right? Therefore it must be part of what he considers the misdirection element.

Clearly he's not above stooping to distasteful tricks, he only balks at openly admitting as much. He's obviously not about to admit that NLP techniques are not the actual method; he just wants you to think they're the method.

Now consider this: as tuoni pointed out above, just as he says "NLP" a "dirty word," he also describes the use of stooges as "aesthetically repugnant."

In light of what we have just observed about how Derren Brown misleads us through the use of language, what does that tell you about the possibility that he might also be lying about the use of stooges?

Think about it.

Azrael 5 · Nov 25, 2011

I havent studied NLP ,only briefly know of it since Derren furore,but my understanding is Derren feels NLP as a whole has little use but little bits/ideas from it feature within his pyschology suggestion banner. Like NLP mixed with magic techniques. So it becomes a mixed,a watered down version. Which is entirely possible.
He still doesnt use stooges.

John Albert · Nov 25, 2011

Azrael 5 said:
I havent studied NLP ,only briefly know of it since Derren furore,but my understanding is Derren feels NLP as a whole has little use but little bits/ideas from it feature within his pyschology suggestion banner. Like NLP mixed with magic techniques. So it becomes a mixed,a watered down version. Which is entirely possible.

So you admit you don't even know what NLP is or what it entails, yet you assert it's "possible" that Derren Brown uses it as a method in some of his effects? That argument makes no sense.

I have looked into NLP, and I can tell you that it's mostly a bunch of psychobabble couched in a lot of run of the mill self-help pep talk BS. Derren Brown employs some of the more sensationalistic aspects of NLP in his fake, pseudoscience explanations for what he's doing, but that's it. There's nothing in those techniques of NLP that would really enable him to achieve the effects he's ascribing to them. Those explanations are all just a smokescreen. If you think there's any truth at all to Brown's "psychology" claims, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Azrael 5 said:
He still doesnt use stooges.

Evidence has been shown that strongly suggests the opposite. You can choose to ignore it or handwave it away, but the fact remains that you haven't shown a single bit of evidence or even presented a reasonable explanation to back up your position that he doesn't use stooges.

You've even admitted you have no idea what specific methods he's using to accomplish some of his effects, but still maintain that you're somehow able to know what methods he's not using. That argument makes no sense.

That illogical conclusion, along with your ad nauseam assertions, total lack of evidence, and your entreaties to believe him at his word are evidence of nothing but your own credulity.

As far as I'm concerned, stooges remain a distinct possibility.

Stray Cat · Nov 26, 2011

Azrael 5 said:
Read it absorb it and stop posting such rubbish on a topic you know nothing about.

And then

Azrael 5 said:
I havent studied NLP

Lol!

Azrael 5 · Nov 26, 2011

Stray Cat said:
And then

Lol!

Now stray cta you do know my first quote didnt refer to NLP? Didnt you? Youwoudlnt be so silly to jump in and try a put down without knowing that?

Maybe you would

Azrael 5 · Nov 26, 2011

John Albert said:
So you admit you don't even know what NLP is or what it entails, yet you assert it's "possible" that Derren Brown uses it as a method in some of his effects? That argument makes no sense.

Did i say that? you make a habit of twisting my words.

I have looked into NLP, and I can tell you that it's mostly a bunch of psychobabble couched in a lot of run of the mill self-help pep talk BS. Derren Brown employs some of the more sensationalistic aspects of NLP in his fake, pseudoscience explanations for what he's doing, but that's it.

So youve only "looked into it" but that makes you right and me wrong? From wikipedia it seems NLP fetures suggestion and some psychology. Now i dont think for one moment any of this enables Derren to read minds,but maybe it has some bearing on dealing with participants.

There's nothing in those techniques of NLP that would really enable him to achieve the effects he's ascribing to them. Those explanations are all just a smokescreen. If you think there's any truth at all to Brown's "psychology" claims, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

I DO know what im talking about (regarding magicians at least more so than you-ooh argument from authority again!!) Many magician/mentalists use psychology(as you have admitted) Luke Jermay and Kenton Knepper more than most. A bit more advanced than others.

Evidence has been shown that strongly suggests the opposite. You can choose to ignore it or handwave it away, but the fact remains that you haven't shown a single bit of evidence or even presented a reasonable explanation to back up your position that he doesn't use stooges.

If I were ignoring it I wouldnt be replying. I have seen no evidence to suggest a stooge. One person on IDMB as ive said is no smoking gun despite your wishes for it to be so.
You claim in this thread to know mentlaist use stooges..Yet all you can offer is Corinda and you "think" Kreskin. Not very convincing.

You've even admitted you have no idea what specific methods he's using to accomplish some of his effects, but still maintain that you're somehow able to know what methods he's not using. That argument makes no sense.

Where did I say that? I will say on TV it is hard to know his (magic tricks)methods as he edits out the "before" stuff. With regard his specials its not magic tricks what is there to know?

That illogical conclusion, along with your ad nauseam assertions, total lack of evidence, and your entreaties to believe him at his word are evidence of nothing but your own credulity.

As far as I'm concerned, stooges remain a distinct possibility.

I didnt make an illogicla conclusion as shown in para above.What evidence have you got for anything? You cannot seem to grasp he is an entertainer and does not, has not ,and wont ever promote woo! If you can show me anywhere he claims what happens on his shows is real,that you can hypnotize to kill etc- It would be great. Its not science its entertainment.As stated on Channel 4 website.If you bothered to read.
You havent even proven stooges-before you cry "I havent proven against",you made the claim.Show me the money!!
One IDMB ref that is open to interpretation and a bunch of "I read on a forum" leads youto think its a possibility?!! Easily convinced.
It doesnt bring the house down for sensible thinking people.
Must try harder.

John Albert · Nov 27, 2011

Settle down, now. You're making typos all over the place. Why don't you take a deep breath and just relax?

Again, I'm not twisting anything. I'm just quoting your posts and pointing out the glaring inconsistencies. That's all.

When I said I'd "looked into" NLP, I meant that I read a bunch of stuff about it but never took a seminar or course or anything like that.

You said yourself you haven't studied NLP and "only briefly know of it since Derren furore," which is a strange thing to say, considering that earlier on, you'd asserted bombastically that you had read all of Derren Brown's books, followed his blog and twitter, and have done so since the start of his career. Remember that?

Certainly, if you'd read all his books way back when, you'd have known about NLP more than "briefly," long before this thread even started. But whatever; I'm not going to press the issue any further.

You've admitted you don't know how he does the tricks, yet you vehemently claim to know he doesn't use stooges. That right there is enough to tell me you're talking out of your ass. If you don't know how he does it, how can you say you know how he doesn't do it? It makes no sense.

Aside from asserting that Derren Brown has never had Iggy Pop's backing band on any of his TV shows, you can't rule out the fact that he might have used stooges in some cases.

You've been shown evidence that Derren Brown used a stooge at least once; you have shown neither evidence nor even a plausible explanation indicating he doesn't use stooges. Handwaving away the evidence you don't like is not evidence. The fact that he denies doing it is not evidence; he's been shown to lie often regarding the methods behind his act. You have brought nothing to this discussion but a load of pretension and medacity.

Stooges remain a distinct possibility.

Stray Cat · Nov 27, 2011

Azrael 5 said:
Now stray cta you do know my first quote didnt refer to NLP? Didnt you? Youwoudlnt be so silly to jump in and try a put down without knowing that?

It doesn't matter if the first quote was about NLP or not.
First you ask people not to post about stuff they apparently know nothing about and then you start teaching your grandmother to suck eggs by trying to tell us about NLP when you clearly state you haven't studied it.

You wouldn't be so silly as to not see this feat of mental gymnastics...

... Or maybe you would.

In fact I'd go further than that and clearly state you are outright lying as your original "Read it absorb it and stop posting such rubbish on a topic you know nothing about." Was about NLP, it was pointing us to an interview that you quoted a snippet from directly regarding NLP.So you fail twice with one post.... well done.

Azrael 5 · Nov 27, 2011

John Albert said:
Settle down, now. You're making typos all over the place. Why don't you take a deep breath and just relax?

What have typos go tto do with being calm or not? Im cant type ok?

Again, I'm not twisting anything. I'm just quoting your posts and pointing out the glaring inconsistencies. That's all.

When I said I'd "looked into" NLP, I meant that I read a bunch of stuff about it but never took a seminar or course or anything like that.

You said yourself you haven't studied NLP and "only briefly know of it since Derren furore," which is a strange thing to say, considering that earlier on, you'd asserted bombastically that you had read all of Derren Brown's books, followed his blog and twitter, and have done so since the start of his career. Remember that?

Yep I remember, the Derren furorew has being going a few years, since Simon Singh which was what 2002-3?

[quote[Certainly, if you'd read all his books way back when, you'd have known about NLP more than "briefly," long before this thread even started. But whatever; I'm not going to press the issue any further. [/quote]
Not really, I know what Derren has written,its not particularly of interest(NLP) so I havent researched it deeply,as Ive no reason to, I have looke dinto more since this discussion. Maybe my research is no more than yours.?

You've admitted you don't know how he does the tricks, yet you vehemently claim to know he doesn't use stooges. That right there is enough to tell me you're talking out of your ass.

Again you misquote me. I haven't said I do not know how he does his tricks. Here is what I said:

Where did I say that? I will say on TV it is hard to know his (magic tricks)methods as he edits out the "before" stuff. With regard his specials its not magic tricks what is there to know?

I said its hard to know ,not that I dont know. His methods arent obvious as he edits out the secrets.

If you don't know how he does it, how can you say you know how he doesn't do it? It makes no sense.

See above and dont misquote and youwill know I make sense.Regarding stooges I have stated my opinions and what I base them on previously and got slated as "argument from authority" so re-read what I wrote prior.

Aside from asserting that Derren Brown has never had Iggy Pop's backing band on any of his TV shows, you can't rule out the fact that he might have used stooges in some cases.

Same as you cannot assert he has. But then I see no evidence and also no reason for them.I cannot state 100% ,again neither can you for your case he does.

You've been shown evidence that Derren Brown used a stooge at least once; you have shown neither evidence nor even a plausible explanation indicating he doesn't use stooges. Handwaving away the evidence you don't like is not evidence. The fact that he denies doing it is not evidence; he's been shown to lie often regarding the methods behind his act. You have brought nothing to this discussion but a load of pretension and medacity.

Stooges remain a distinct possibility.

As I dont really think that is evidence.I dont need to show evidence he doesnt,and how would I anyway? You want to think a IMDB ref is a smoking gun, its not. Its you parroting what you read by someone else who wrote it online. She was an actress and removed show from her resume. You dont know why ,nor I,so you create a conspiracy theory because you are convinced he does use stooges. That's all you got.Right?
Well I hope you never get on a jury.

Did you found any proof of mentalists using stooges that you claim happens regularly? Or is it you who is talking out of his ass?

Azrael 5 · Nov 27, 2011

Stray Cat said:
It doesn't matter if the first quote was about NLP or not.
First you ask people not to post about stuff they apparently know nothing about and then you start teaching your grandmother to suck eggs by trying to tell us about NLP when you clearly state you haven't studied it.

Im not trying to tell you about N

at all,Im telling you about Derren Borwns claims.

In fact I'd go further than that and clearly state you are outright lying as your original "Read it absorb it and stop posting such rubbish on a topic you know nothing about." Was about NLP, it was pointing us to an interview that you quoted a snippet from directly regarding NLP.So you fail twice with one post.... well done.

No it wasnt about NLP,it was about Derren's claims an what he does. Hence link "whats in a claim"?
Do keep up.

John Albert · Nov 27, 2011

Azrael 5 said:
Certainly, if you'd read all his books way back when, you'd have known about NLP more than "briefly," long before this thread even started. But whatever; I'm not going to press the issue any further.

Click to expand...

Not really, I know what Derren has written,its not particularly of interest(NLP) so I havent researched it deeply,as Ive no reason to, I have looke dinto more since this discussion. Maybe my research is no more than yours.?

If you'd really read all his books as you'd claimed, you would at least have known what DB himself had said about NLP, which you clearly demonstrated in your arguments in this thread that you didn't have the slightest clue about. You also would have known exactly what I was talking about when I said he uses the techniques without identifying them as NLP, which you argued I was wrong about for over 5 pages before finally changing your tune.

Same goes for Corinda. You challenged my statement that mentalists used stooges until I pointed out to you that Corinda explicitly advocated the use of stooges in his definitive text 13 Steps to Mentalism.

So much for your repeated boasts about your own superior knowledge of all things magic.

Azrael 5 said:
Again you misquote me. I haven't said I do not know how he does his tricks. Here is what I said:

I said its hard to know ,not that I dont know. His methods arent obvious as he edits out the secrets.

Close enough. You've never demonstrated any knowledge of Derren Brown's methods at all; all you've done is express doubt about how they're done because of the fact he uses TV editing to hide aspects of his methods.

Azrael 5 said:
See above and dont misquote and youwill know I make sense.

I'm not misquoting and it still doesn't make sense. You've proven yourself unable to provide any alternative explanation for how he might plausibly have pulled off an effect like the "Voodoo Doll" without employing a stooge. Yet you claim you know for a fact he doesn't employ a stooge.

That makes no sense.

Azrael 5 said:
Regarding stooges I have stated my opinions and what I base them on previously and got slated as "argument from authority"

Stating something on your own authority without providing evidence is an argument from authority.

In this thread, you've offered nothing more than repeated arguments from authority. No evidence, not even a plausible explanation. Your persistent failures are not my fault.

Azrael 5 said:
Same as you cannot assert he has.

I've cited evidence that he has. I'm not asserting that he has, just that it's a very distinct possibility which you fail to recognize.

Azrael 5 said:
But then I see no evidence and also no reason for them.

That's an argument from ignorance/incredulity.

The evidence has been presented, you simply refuse to acknowledge it.

Azrael 5 said:
I cannot state 100% ,again neither can you for your case he does.

The difference is, I never claimed 100% certainty but you did.

Azrael 5 said:
As I dont really think that is evidence.I dont need to show evidence he doesnt,and how would I anyway? You want to think a IMDB ref is a smoking gun, its not.

What would it take to convince you that DB has employed stooges in his TV and/or stage acts?

I mean, short of him coming out and publicly admitting as much, what evidence would you require to be convinced?

Azrael 5 said:
Its you parroting what you read by someone else who wrote it online. She was an actress and removed show from her resume. You dont know why ,nor I,so you create a conspiracy theory because you are convinced he does use stooges. That's all you got.Right?

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's simply looking at evidence and reaching a plausible conclusion.

The evidence is:

She was on the show, there's no doubt about that. It is definitely the same girl.

She was not identified as an actress in the context of the show, only as a "young woman."

Turned out she is indeed a professional actress.

She listed the appearance in her IMDB filmography, not as "herself," but as a role called "Vudu Mind Player."

This role was listed on her CV until a magic enthusiast blogged about it and it became public. Then, suddenly, it disappeared from IMDB.

The page has even been removed from the Internet Archives of the Wayback Machine, something the Internet Archive does at the request of the website owner.

Derren Brown's career is intact and unscathed, contrary to his claims that such a relevation would be a "career ender" for him.

Azrael 5 said:
Did you found any proof of mentalists using stooges that you claim happens regularly? Or is it you who is talking out of his ass?

http://forums.theory11.com/showthread.php?31689-Is-it-alright-to-use-a-stooge

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=427412&forum=27&40

http://ezinearticles.com/?5-Mentalism-Secrets-Revealed---Welcome-to-the-Art-of-Illusion&id=3556509

A simple Google search will reveal lots and lots of examples and endorsements of stooges being used in mentalism. By denying they're commonly used, you're betraying of your own ignorance of the subject.

Stray Cat · Nov 27, 2011

Azrael 5 said:
Im not trying to tell you about N at all,Im telling you about Derren Borwns claims.

Yes, regarding DB's claims about NLP, which judging by your comprehension of what he's saying, you know nothing about.

Azrael 5 said:
No it wasnt about NLP,it was about Derren's claims an what he does. Hence link "whats in a claim"?
Do keep up.

Yes in regard to NLP, which judging by your comprehension of what he's saying, you know nothing about.

You don't have to keep up with my posts, but please do at least keep up with your own.

Azrael 5 · Nov 27, 2011

John Albert said:
If you'd really read all his books as you'd claimed, you would at least have known what DB himself had said about NLP, which you clearly demonstrated in your arguments in this thread that you didn't have the slightest clue about.

Incorrect.

You also would have known exactly what I was talking about when I said he uses the techniques without identifying them as NLP, which you argued I was wrong about for over 5 pages before finally changing your tune.

Semantics.Incorrect again.

Same goes for Corinda. You challenged my statement that mentalists used stooges until I pointed out to you that Corinda explicitly advocated the use of stooges in his definitive text 13 Steps to Mentalism.

So much for your repeated boasts about your own superior knowledge of all things magic.

Where did I challenge Corinda?

Close enough. You've never demonstrated any knowledge of Derren Brown's methods at all; all you've done is express doubt about how they're done because of the fact he uses TV editing to hide aspects of his methods.

So the PM i sent about BMx trick was an hallucination? Im not going to reveal Derrens repetoire,I gave you one.Dont like it? Tough.

I'm not misquoting and it still doesn't make sense. You've proven yourself unable to provide any alternative explanation for how he might plausibly have pulled off an effect like the "Voodoo Doll" without employing a stooge. Yet you claim you know for a fact he doesn't employ a stooge.

That makes no sense.

Did I say it was a fact? I think I said I dont believe he needed her to be a stooge. Indeed my last post said I cant 100% rule out stooges.But I doubt it. Go study mentalism if you wnat to know stuff Im not force feeding you.I dont care if you believe me or not.

Stating something on your own authority without providing evidence is an argument from authority.

Cool. So be it.
[quote[
In this thread, you've offered nothing more than repeated arguments from authority. No evidence, not even a plausible explanation. Your persistent failures are not my fault. [/quote]
Youll get over it

I've cited evidence that he has. I'm not asserting that he has, just that it's a very distinct possibility which you fail to recognize.

No you are of the "I dont know how he does it so it must be a stooge" camp. IDDMB is not evidence of a stooge. I'll move onto that bit now.

That's an argument from ignorance/incredulity.

The evidence has been presented, you simply refuse to acknowledge it.

I dont acknowledge conspiracy theories.

What would it take to convince you that DB has employed stooges in his TV and/or stage acts?

I mean, short of him coming out and publicly admitting as much, what evidence would you require to be convinced?

reated claims. Just like the MDC doesnt take one demonstration as proof nor do I.And we havent even go tone demonstration.No-one in the magic community has asserted Derren uses stooges.No-one.
I dont mean 5 or 6 people on Magic cafe either.I mean respected names in mentalism who know their stuff.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's simply looking at evidence and reaching a plausible conclusion.

The evidence is:

She was on the show, there's no doubt about that. It is definitely the same girl.

Correct. Have a brownie.

She was not identified as an actress in the context of the show, only as a "young woman."

Click to expand...
Very few-if any-participants in his tricks shows are given names or professions,only in his one off speicals.Hardly proof.

Turned out she is indeed a professional actress.

Click to expand...
Wow.Just a job.Your conspiracy makes it more.

She listed the appearance in her IMDB filmography, not as "herself," but as a role called "Vudu Mind Player."

Click to expand...
So? That is what she participated in on the show.

[quote[This role was listed on her CV until a magic enthusiast blogged about it and it became public. Then, suddenly, it disappeared from IMDB.[/quote]
Conspiracy theory.

The page has even been removed from the Internet Archives of the Wayback Machine, something the Internet Archive does at the request of the website owner.

Click to expand...
Futher consipiracy. Ooh dark forces are at work.No one knows why she removed it. You think its legal threats blah blah because she was acting. When it could be quite the opposite(as Ive said before).

Derren Brown's career is intact and unscathed, contrary to his claims that such a relevation would be a "career ender" for him.

Click to expand...

Probably becuase it isnt true?

http://forums.theory11.com/showthread.php?31689-Is-it-alright-to-use-a-stooge

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=427412&forum=27&40

http://ezinearticles.com/?5-Mentalism-Secrets-Revealed---Welcome-to-the-Art-of-Illusion&id=3556509

A simple Google search will reveal lots and lots of examples and endorsements of stooges being used in mentalism. By denying they're commonly used, you're betraying of your own ignorance of the subject.[/quote]
I didnt deny. I asked you to prove it. I think you will recall I cited two well know n magicians using them pages ago? But as usaul you forget things to suit your agenda.

If he used stooges regular it would be wellknow by now,a UK tabloid tried to claim same thing on guy who was hypnotized and taken to Marrakech(sp)in awheelchair(cant recall programme)and found no proof.
UK tv doesnt not have NDA's, youneed to live here and read tabloids to see that.

Anyhow this conversation is going in circles,I came back to it foolishly. There is athread in movies I think on this topic(you linked it )many others share my view,and again if IMDB is all you got ,its lame.
You can live happily ever after with stray cat in stooge land.
Or troll land.

Stray Cat · Nov 27, 2011

Azrael 5 said:
UK tv doesnt not have NDA's, youneed to live here and read tabloids to see that.

I'm presuming your atrocious typing is responsible for your double negative here and that you thought you were saying that UK TV doesn't have Non Disclosure Agreements?

Well once again you are talking out of your hat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/policy/legalbusi.shtml
You might like to check out clause 2.

This is only (well I say "only") for supplying TV programmes to the BBC and makes a major part of their terms and conditions. Similarly other small production companies have their own NDAs. To state that they don't exist in the UK is... well just silly.

But not surprising as you've got nearly every factually verifiable piece of information you've offered wrong so far.

have you watched derren browns "the experiment"

Penultimate Amazing

a carbon based life-form

a carbon based life-form

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

a carbon based life-form

Illuminator

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

a carbon based life-form

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Critical Thinker

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher