Pharyngula: An enlightening series

#1

This basic idea would make for a great psychology experiment if performed under controlled conditions.

Posted by: Jason Failes | June 2, 2008 1:42 PM

#2

More brits on bullshit. This stuff makes people cry down south.

Posted by: danley | June 2, 2008 1:43 PM

#3

Derren Brown is really cool, he has several series in the UK where he shows how he can manipulate people with mere suggestion and slight of hand

Posted by: Nathan | June 2, 2008 1:45 PM

#4

Nice stuff, it's all very sad though. Reality is nothing to these people, they have their fantasies and will live them out regardless.

Posted by: Dutch Delight | June 2, 2008 1:45 PM

#5

Derren Brown is awesome. You shuld check out his book as well that is a really entertaining Randi-style explanation of mental tricks, foibles habits and the like.

Sweeeeeet!!

Oli

Posted by: Mystic Olly | June 2, 2008 1:47 PM

#6

Okay, I just saw the second one where a psychic draws a few pictures in a room and he "psychically" tells what they are.

Um... How the *FUCK* did he do that! He *did* say "draw what sails through your mind" and she drew a sail-boat but otherwise...

Yes, I know there are "soft reads" but:

1) "abstract... religious symbol ... organic ... a tree" => star of david and a tree

2) "curve like a banana" => banana-shaped cresent as an abstract

3) "water something moving on water" => sail-boat

4) "warm ... face ... sun" => The sun with a face on it

... is significantly *more* than power of suggestion.

I mean, honestly, if I were to question and question hard I'd have to conclude he really is a psychic. I simply can not fathom other then having cameras or a stooge how that could be done.

Any ideas?

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 1:55 PM

#7

Oops! Careful danley at #2, your prejudice is showing.

Posted by: AllanW | June 2, 2008 1:57 PM

#8

As much as I like Derren Brown and enjoy his shows, it seems all is not as it seems with him. Simon Singh reckons Derren is a little dishonest about how he achieves most of his tricks.

http://www.simonsingh.net/Derren_Brown_Article.html

Posted by: Sam | June 2, 2008 1:58 PM

#9

My goodness - in part 4, I was so relieved when they showed the caption that "all these people were 'de-converted' later on".... that was really sickening, the suggestiveness and all.

Putting the feet together for instability - using what little echolocation humans have, the lability of the human psyche, proprioception etc...

How many people fall for that every day? One would be too many.

Posted by: MPhil | June 2, 2008 2:16 PM

#10

I love Derren Brown. And accusing a magician of being dishonest is a little like accusing a fat cat of being lazy. It's what they do.

Posted by: Jay | June 2, 2008 2:18 PM

#11

@6:woozy

He SAYS it is a "trick" - that means he has some way of getting the information - that he is not sharing. What else do you expect from a stage magician?

Many, many years ago, I went to some hel-fire and brimstone church - more like as a dare. Afterwards, I was asked if I had "ever seen anything like it?" - I replied yes, I had - on stage with Kreskin (look him up if you are too young - I have been onstage with him three times)

The answer was not well received :-)

JC

Posted by: JackC | June 2, 2008 2:23 PM

#12

I wish we had the BBC in the States, then I might start watching television again rather than just BBC episodes I download.

Posted by: Doug | June 2, 2008 2:24 PM

#13

PZ, just curious, but had you heard of Derren Brown before? I understand he's not too well known in the States.

Posted by: D | June 2, 2008 2:28 PM

#14

You know what's funny? I have a Christian Fundie friend who is pretty smart, a magician and an absolute fan of this series. Now, I was already able to give this guy serious doubts about the Bible, but now that I've seen a couple of episodes of this guy I'm going to try to either make him an atheist or at least admit to the blatant attacks on his religion that this guy does practically every show.

Should be fun, I'll let you guys know if there's any progress.

Posted by: Santiago | June 2, 2008 2:34 PM

#15

I never heard of Darren Brown. I'm a bit confused though. If we honestly believe he isn't using any "tricks" or "stooges" but using keen power of suggestion. Isn't "keen power of suggestion" every bit as amazing and uncanny as the thing being debunked.

What I mean is, I do not believe telepathy exists and I not believe anyone can read my mind to see that I am thinking about the grapefruit juice I was drinking this morning as I contemplated calling my building contractor. As well, although I believe body language and power of suggestion *do* exist, I do not believe anyone can be so attuned to them so as to deduce anything to such a degree of accuracy. Thus if someone *were* to deduce my thoughts to such a degree of accuracy I'd be utterly stunned and consider such a skill every bit as valuable and astonishing as telepathy. To explain it as "just" power of suggestion is to transfer one impossibility to another.

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 2:38 PM

#16

I'll second the "how did he do that?" call.

I watched the remote reading one, and the "conversion" one.

How is this stuff done? Pretty cool.....

Posted by: Atomicmutant | June 2, 2008 2:38 PM

#17

I liked the guy with the horses at the end w/ the credits. (Part 8) I doubt any of that stuff would work on him. :-)

Posted by: S.Scott | June 2, 2008 2:40 PM

#18

Oh, if anyone is wondering how he did the pictures thing, it was through suggestion. It's edited so that you don't get to hear much of the dialogue prior or during the drawing session, but the boat on water one is blatant:

He says, (paraphrasing) "ok, do the next one, just do the first thing that *sails* through your head and please, don't go *overboard* on details.

Pure genius.

Posted by: Santiago | June 2, 2008 2:40 PM

#19

If you want to hear the "boat on water" suggestion, it's at the 1:49 (ish) minute mark on the second video.

Posted by: santiago | June 2, 2008 2:41 PM

#20

What do we make of
"Tags: sin messiah false prophet lies bush antichrist"?

Posted by: Matt Heath | June 2, 2008 2:43 PM

#21

Oh, if anyone is wondering how he did the pictures thing, it was through suggestion. It's edited so that you don't get to hear much of the dialogue prior or during the drawing session, but the boat on water one is blatant:

He says, (paraphrasing) "ok, do the next one, just do the first thing that *sails* through your head and please, don't go *overboard* on details.

Yes, I caught that but that's utterly no guarentee that she's going to draw a sail-boat or give into power of suggestion. And the other three pictures had no such suggestions. I find "power of suggestion" attuned to *such* a degree to be every bit as impossible as "telepathy".

Here's a trick. Think of a soft-drink. ....oooooh.... Are you claiming that I can *absolutely* guarentee that you are going to think coca:cola?

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 2:50 PM

#22

As far as i can tell, his mindreading technique is really just feeding certain images into the minds of his subjects. When he speaks to them just before they draw a picture og think of something, he is using words, they'll associate with what he wants them to think about, without them knowing it.
The most obvious one is the boat:
"Let different images _sail_ through your mind. Don't go _overboard_ on detail".

Posted by: Tycho | June 2, 2008 2:54 PM

#23

@woozy,

Erm, absolute success is not guaranteed, but it's not needed, and he was very careful to include things that where boat like (rocking motions, water, curves) but that, in a pinch, could still be related to something inspired by "sails" and "overboard". And, as I said in my original post, we have no idea what else he said, what the full dialogue was between Brown and the drawing lady, because it was cut and edited, possibly deliberately so that the suggestions wouldn't be obvious.

And, well, when you said soft drinks I did think of Fanta, which is a pretty solid coke brand, and it would be reasonable to assume I would think of, say, aluminium bottles.

It is an amazing ability this guy has, and I was skeptical, but seeing so many *other* magicians, even speaking with other magicians, do or talk about how to do, it does just turn out we're massively prone to even casual influences.

Posted by: Santiago | June 2, 2008 2:58 PM

#24

He's got a live show on in London right now, although it's coming to an end and there are no tickets left, sorry.

I went last Thursday night, and it was fantastic. Lots of great mind reading, all sorts of stuff.

However, a previous poster is correct, in that a lot of the stuff he says he's doing by "reading" people, or by "neurolinguistic programming" is actually done by more mundane methods.

He does put on a great show though.

Posted by: Gib | June 2, 2008 2:59 PM

#25

"Let different images _sail_ through your mind. Don't go _overboard_ on detail".

And if someone said that to you you would have to draw a sailboat? I can accept and do accept a small ammount of leading the witness but to *such* a degree?

If anyone actually *does* have such a degree of persuassion, couldn't an argument bit made that his abilities are equally impressive as those a messaih is supposed to posess, and who cares whether he's the son of god or a really really good con man; the "messiah-ness" of both are equally valid and "impossible"?

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 3:01 PM

#26

Using suggestion is not 100%. You'll get some misses, but that's why you don't air those mistakes. :)

Posted by: Leigh Shryock | June 2, 2008 3:02 PM

#27

In part four he mentions the paranormal Author "Lorraine DeFelice" Strange, I cannot find a mention of her in any google resulte other than pages summarizing this Derren Brown series. I'm skeptical about this

Posted by: Amplexus | June 2, 2008 3:05 PM

#28

Derren Brown is really good as a stage act too. I saw him in Llandudno a couple of years back. He's a really good entertainer.

His latest special, called "The System" is a pretty good one too - but I think a lot of people failed to grasp the premise of the show, which was basically "just because YOU have experienced something, if you're not getting the whole picture, you cannot use your experience as a basis for reality" - i.e., just because you think you saw a ghost as a kid, if you didn't take into account all the possible natural causes, you cannot use it as proof that ghosts exists.

But, of course, just as you should look at psychic abilities and ghosts with a sceptical eye, you should also do the same for his tricks. He sometimes explains them, but don't always believe what he says! Sometimes he simply lies... (But that's ok - he's a magician!)

Posted by: Gareth | June 2, 2008 3:06 PM

#29

Being important the psychological mechanisms of delusion, one must cope with the fact that religions/superstitions are a social delusion. So, social mechanisms are perhaps more relevant than individual psychological ones. Said that, it's a pity that Europeans tend to look to America to "study" superstition/religions. We seem to forget that some European delusions can be even more dangerous to a democratic society.

Posted by: Didac | June 2, 2008 3:06 PM

#30

Nevermind I spelled her name wrong apparently. It's wierd becuase I know a family "DeFelice" that is spelled just like that.

Posted by: Amplexus | June 2, 2008 3:07 PM

#31

"and who cares whether he's the son of god or a really really good con man; the "messiah-ness" of both are equally valid and "impossible"?"

He openly admits that he's using trickery to achieve the appearance of mindreading, and it's a relatively well-known fact that humans are very easily manipulated if we're not careful. If we figuring out his exact technique was easy, it wouldn't work in the first place.

Posted by: Tycho | June 2, 2008 3:12 PM

#32

He SAYS it is a "trick" - that means he has some way of getting the information - that he is not sharing. What else do you expect from a stage magician?

Well, as this is a show preporting to debunk psychics and other frauds, I expected an explanation as to how he did it. Otherwise he hasn't debunked anything as I'm scratching my head over his performance just as much as I, hypothetically, scratched my head over a psychic.

Frankly, if a psychic can trick his or her way into deducing that I'm thinking about a glass of grapefruit juice I drank while contemplating calling my building contractor (I really should; it's getting late), then that psychic *deserves* to be called a psychic and to get away with it because getting the information through trickery is every bit as valid and useful as getting it through "magic".

Meanwhile, I'm going to be scratching my head all day wondering how the hell he did that.

I mean, if power of suggestion, *is* so powerful, isn't *that* an amazing and astonishing fact and should be the point of such a show rather than debunking a few frauds?

I felt this way about the Ouija board segment on Penn & Teller's "Bullshit". Of course, the Ouija board doesn't communicate with the dead; of course when four neutral people get together the folcrum's just going to sit there and not move... and !!HOLY SHIT!!! The folcrum moved and not a single one of the four people had any conscious intention of doing so!!!! Oh, the psychiatrist explains pre-conscious movement predating and actually occurring *before* conscious thought. Wow! That's amazing! It totally over-turns everything "common sense" would tell us about conscious and deliberate thought! Fascinating! Tell me more... wait, you're just going back to make fun of the whack-jobs. The Ouija board is bullshit? What do you mean? You just *saw* how it reacts to the concensus of four pre-contious people feeding it thoughts! That is anything *but* bullshit!

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 3:17 PM

#33

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHz4BA8zJZ8

This guy does a pretty good breakdown of the conversion trick, as well as a few other Derren Brown stunts.

But yeah, I love him, I saw his stage show (Somethign Wicked This Way Comes) and it was absolutely amazing.

Posted by: Heathcliff | June 2, 2008 3:27 PM

#34

I love Derren Brown. Many people think he's a psychic or a magician but he's always categorically denied he uses magic or such forth. In fact, he's an atheist. Sometimes he does reveal how he does what he does but for the most part he leaves it in mystery (it wouldn't be very exciting otherwise). But he makes it clear he can 'read minds' purely through body language and speech patterns. Anyone can do it if they are clever and patient enough.

Posted by: Matt7895 | June 2, 2008 3:27 PM

#35

Sam,

The article you reference from Simon Singh says "I now believe that his amazing demonstrations of mind reading and mind control are little more than clever magic tricks."

What else did any sane person think they were?! And, of course, by definition, a sane person understands 'magic' to be trickery.

From Derren's home page: "He doesn't claim to be a mind-reader, instead he describes his craft as a mixture of magic*, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship."

It therefore makes Mr Singh's article an exercise in stating the bleedin' obvious.

Posted by: DavidONE | June 2, 2008 3:32 PM

#36

It is an amazing ability this guy has, and I was skeptical, but seeing so many *other* magicians, even speaking with other magicians, do or talk about how to do, it does just turn out we're massively prone to even casual influences.

Even more impressive is his "train of thought" where he seems to random people forget the names of there subway stops. It's *bizaar* to think that the human mind works that way.

I'm not doubting he does this through power of suggestion but if there was more that was cut (I assume he said "Draw whatever _crosses_ your mind. Whatever image _grows_ in your mind) but if this is true debunking he shouldn't edit those out. I know that the brain does work very differently then the way we "think" it does. (i.e. the Ouija board, which really ought to be used in psychology studies, and discontinuity studies -- you know, they ask participants to count the number of times a ball is passed between white shirted players and discover the participants completely miss the guy in the gorilla suit who walks to the front of the camera and beats his chest and walks off) and that magicians can manipulate this to the extent they do is amazing.

But, somehow, this seems the opposite in spirit to debunking. If I can be awed and forced to accept that the brain works in a way more truly bizaar than common sense would dictate than maybe I can believe any other crazy claim. That the brain *doesn't* record memories as tape recorded and we act on thoughts *before* they reach are concious are so astonishing would the idea that our brain emits waves which others can read be so astonishing. That light can be a particle and a wave and we can scatter *particles* through slits not in the path of the light is so astonishing does an invisible consciousness guiding our lives seem that much weirder? The point of skepticism isn't just to debunk charletons but to also replace false ideas with true ones.

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 3:40 PM

#37

@24: I don't think he's ever said that he uses "neurolinguistic programming". In fact, I think he denies this. He covers NLP in his book a little but I was left with the impression that he's not a big fan of it.

He also admits that his methods don't work on anyone. He doesn't try to hide it. If you watch his show "Tricks of the Mind", there are episodes where he fails (there are even some in YouTube, like the one where he makes people forget where they should get off in the London subway or when he tries to pay for things with (blank!) paper money).

If I remember correctly, he said his tricks work on about 60% of the people. And he's very careful to choose them. Just watch his Russian Roulette (the one that made him famous), where he spends most of the show picking up his assistant out of about 100 people. In fact, watch that show period --- it's fantastic!

I got to like this guy even further when I read his book. He devotes the entire first chapter to basically bashing Christianity. He describes how he used to be an evangelical Christian and how he gradually started sobering up. "Magic" obviously helps in this.

Posted by: agg | June 2, 2008 3:49 PM

#38

A new James Randi. Excellent.

Posted by: Moses | June 2, 2008 3:55 PM

#39

Focus on his face: If you ever see this guy join your poker game, RUN!!!

Posted by: sjburnt | June 2, 2008 3:57 PM

#40

I mean, honestly, if I were to question and question hard I'd have to conclude he really is a psychic. I simply can not fathom other then having cameras or a stooge how that could be done.
Any ideas?

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 1:55 PM

I used to do this as a parlor trick. I also used to use the tarot to divine fortunes. Then I explained I was making it up and people were following me where I lead them. They'd argue back that I was psychic and didn't recognize my gifts.

Another time, in English 101, my main paper of the semester was about how Astrology is completely bunk and I used Linda Goodman's "Sun Signs" as the claims-focus-to-be-debunked in my paper. My professor's notes on the paper indicated she thought I believed in/supported Astrology due to my "favorable review" of the matter, even though I was EXPLICIT that it was bunk and my research showed it to be bunk.

I gave up.

Posted by: Moses | June 2, 2008 4:01 PM

#41

From part2 @3:25:

As a person who trains psychics, I would have them watch that film and say this is how you do it!

Precisely!

Posted by: agg | June 2, 2008 4:02 PM

#42

For those of you that enjoyed this program you might also like "The System". The first video can be found by following this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX94fV4TWbc

There are lots of other great videos of his scattered around the internet...enjoy.

Posted by: hillbilly | June 2, 2008 4:06 PM

#43

Could anybody link to a page where this sort of stuff is explained? It makes my brain angry trying to debunk him myself.

Posted by: folgsam | June 2, 2008 4:28 PM

#44

Sam @8

You and Simon Singh remind me of my great-aunt. Any time a magician did a trick on TV, she would say "ah, there's a trick in that".

Really? You don't say!

Posted by: Tom | June 2, 2008 4:45 PM

#45

From what I've researched it seems to be primarily power of suggestion *and* picking his targets as those who are suggestable.

Odds are, he wouldn't pick a skeptic and he "primes" or picks folks already in a suggestable state. And it works only most of the time. It strikes me as hard to believe someone could be so attune to such signals and that once one is attuned they'd fall so hard. I mean I couldn't hypnotize or cold read or seed suggestions to anyone to save my life.

He uses "magic" (misdirection, slight of hand) to heighten the effects (One person suggested he taps a closed-eyed hypnotized person to make it appear he was aware of of visual cues) but they are mostly power of suggestion and hypnosis. I can't really believe his power of suggestion are *that* good (for the drawing test) but his audience *were* suggestable psychics who *want* him to be a psychic. I'm sure you and I would fail his drawing test because we'd draw strange (yet simple) things and not give in to suggestion because we *want* to trip him up. As well, he probably did some hypnotic "priming" too. Still, I'm a bit more than amazed. Of course if he *did* use cameras and lied about it ... well, I'm annoyed.

I've never actually been to a hypnotist show. I've been to two hypno-therapists and we're completely ready and willing to accept them and they were terrible and useless.

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 4:45 PM

#46

You and Simon Singh remind me of my great-aunt. Any time a magician did a trick on TV, she would say "ah, there's a trick in that".

On u-tube a while back there was this college kid who did a card trick "called the best card trick in the world" and he did ... a card trick. And he did it pretty well.

Man, the numbers of people who claimed he was cheating and he obviously edited the tape...

I issued a challenge to those thinking the tape had been edited to try to reproduce the trick through editting and make the editting look natural. In other words, faking a card trick by editting is probably harder than faking a card trick ... by card tricks.

Still, very hard to belief power of suggestion alone works that well...

He's damned good!

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 4:53 PM

#47

Derren Brown! I love Derren Brown and I loved this programme. As I think someone mentioned upthread, he is a former evangelical christian and now an atheist, and I certainly see some resemblance between some of the tricks he does and things I remember from my evangelical youth...like when he puts his hand on someone's head and they fall backwards and collapse. That trick is done in hundreds of churches every week!

My favourite trick of his is where he goes to a dog racing track and gets the cashiers to pay out on losing tickets.

He's a great magician and fantastic live, and it's cool that he uses his act for thoughtful things like this show which might actually cause people to question why they believe what they do.

Posted by: Faintpraise | June 2, 2008 4:53 PM

#48

no.28, Gareth:

There's another North Walian here? Pleased to see you, boyo! I'm in Llangollen, myself.

davidONE:

Some take him literally, he is convincing. Just thought I'd link to the article if anyone was interested.

Posted by: Sam | June 2, 2008 4:59 PM

#49

No offense, PZ, but while you've got the beard, he's got the accent!

I love me some Derren Brown. ^_^

Posted by: jfatz | June 2, 2008 5:00 PM

#50

Just thought I'd mention...as I am willing to bet there are a few Doctor Who fans who read Pharyngula....that Derren recently did a half hour show with David Tennant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnAKWNoMA0

Posted by: Faintpraise | June 2, 2008 5:15 PM

#51

Sorry to butt in but ---

Judge Stein is an idiot.

Posted by: S. Scott | June 2, 2008 5:33 PM

#52

As for the Simon Singh thing, Derren Brown talks about it here http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html

In his first series he didn't give the disclaimer that he does now about using magic, psychology, misdirection etc. Singh complained that he was claiming to use just psychology and science when in fact he was using tricks. Brown took this on board, and changed the nature of his claims. I don't think either of them have much of an argument with each other now.

Posted by: Laurence | June 2, 2008 5:36 PM

#53

Thanks, Laurence.
I didn't bother checking for follow-ups. That was naughty of me, I probably should have. I like Derren Brown and was surprised to read an article criticising him, especially by someone as nice as Simon Singh! I still thought the article was interesting, though, and I stand by my decision to post it! Before I read it, I hadn't given much thought to how Derren pulled off his tricks, I assumed he really could do all that stuff with psychology.

Posted by: Sam | June 2, 2008 5:48 PM

#54

After watching the David Tenant video I'm convinced he *has* to be using "magic" (i.e. not merely power of suggestion) for the drawing trick which is ... jaw-dropping.

The predicting the the guardian article of scrabble suing face book were clearly leading the witness (assuming he had time to read and even switch the trance-writing) but it's astonishing he was able to hypnotise Tennant.

That's truly amazing.

But still, seeing a magician do the seemingly impossible isn't as convincing as debunking as seeing the mundane manipulate into the seemingly impossible would.

Sheesh, though... How on earth do you *make* *two* people draw a cat!

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 5:55 PM

#55

The buggy driver at the end wins the internet.

Posted by: Matt Heath | June 2, 2008 5:58 PM

#56

If you ask most people to name "a vegitable" real quick (don't give them time to think) they will say "carrot". Try it and see.

You feel like a wizard. You should even write it down on paper and show them this after they say it.

People are dumb. That includes us - we just think we're not.

Posted by: David | June 2, 2008 6:00 PM

#57

I never thought I'd see an atheist shaman on TV. I find Derran Brown interesting but a bit scary and I usually spend the day after watching the show trying to work out how the whole trick works and if I'm being effected by the same processes without realising. For example, I've heard that it is quite impossible to come up with random numbers without mechanical assistance. Now, think of the first number that comes into your head and look about to see where you saw it!

Posted by: Thorn | June 2, 2008 6:04 PM

#58

David, being suggestible isn't the same as being dumb.

In regards to other comments, there is some evidence (a handful of studies that I don't have the citations for off the top of my head) that show that beliefs in the paranormal are correlated with being more suggestible. So Brown in many of these cases already has a good starting pool to work with.

Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | June 2, 2008 6:11 PM

#59

#56 - I said Tomato. Really. I am old enough to still think it is one. I am wrong, of course :-D

JC

Posted by: Jack Chastain | June 2, 2008 6:39 PM

#60

Why do they have to keep coming to the US? Those brits keep making us look like idiots...

Posted by: Geral | June 2, 2008 6:39 PM

#61

It's funny how all the skeptical Pharyngula readers believe in Derren Brown's "powers".

Posted by: Brendon Brewer | June 2, 2008 6:50 PM

#62

>>On u-tube a while back there was this college kid who did a card trick "called the best card trick in the world" and he did ... a card trick. And he did it pretty well.

Man, the numbers of people who claimed he was cheating and he obviously edited the tape...

I issued a challenge to those thinking the tape had been edited to try to reproduce the trick through editting and make the editting look natural. In other words, faking a card trick by editting is probably harder than faking a card trick ... by card tricks.

Still, very hard to belief power of suggestion alone works that well...

He's damned good!

Ahh, I think that was Jumping Gemini by Darwin Ortiz. I love that trick. Highly recommended to anyone who's about an intermediate with cards.

Posted by: Brendon Brewer | June 2, 2008 6:53 PM

#63

If you ask most people to name "a vegitable" real quick (don't give them time to think) they will say "carrot". Try it and see.

You feel like a wizard. You should even write it down on paper and show them this after they say it.

People are dumb. That includes us - we just think we're not.

And think of a number 1-10 most will say 6. Most isn't all and getting a guy to say the word "carrot" is a *lot* different then getting someone to draw a sun with a smiley face. (I was going to draw a penguin on an ice flow...)

He leaves a lot of symbols and props around to suggest things. Magic is all deception and it's a skill. Honestly I'm bamboozled.

Why do they have to keep coming to the US? Those brits keep making us look like idiots...

Sigh... I don't thinking they are making us look like idiots... *sigh*

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 6:54 PM

#64

Brown is fun. Here's one of my favourite clips. Him and Stephen Fry. What could be better?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8942_s2eEw

Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | June 2, 2008 7:00 PM

#65

I wish every member of a church in the entire United States of America would watch this series of videos. It is still amazing to me to see how badly people feel the need to believe in or feel connected to nonsense. I was there myself for years and thankfully I finally listened to that little voice I call critical thinking and skepticism.
Memes' can be dangerous!!!!!!
Just Another Primate

Posted by: Just Another Primate | June 2, 2008 7:00 PM

#66

Lorraine DiFelice's comments on the Dream Machine fiasco can be found here.

Highlight:

Derren Brown, Amazing Randi nor anyone else can debunk what I do. None have tried. I have tapped into the universe and can win at casino gambing "on the minute". I would welcome and accept the challenge from the Amazing Randi, as it's time he paid out that $1,000.000.00 to someone, and I could sure use it.

Posted by: keiths | June 2, 2008 7:05 PM

#67

Ahh, I think that was Jumping Gemini by Darwin Ortiz. I love that trick. Highly recommended to anyone who's about an intermediate with cards.

It was this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KrdBUFeFtY. What I like is his non-sensational delivery. It's a pretty good trick. Not a fantastic trick but a trick. You know something is being done but you're damned if you know what.

I looked up the revelation of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcie7vYjk1E&feature=related and ... surprise! It's just a trick.

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 7:08 PM

#68

For those of you who have friends who read horoscopes, or ring psychics, or subscribe to any sort of similar "astrological" nonsense, this Derren Brown video is the perfect antidote. Watch as he demonstrates to people around the world just what a load of nonsense horoscopes are. Brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haP7Ys9ocTk

This is one of my favourite Derren Brown videos of all time.

My other favourite is this one, with poor Simon Pegg succumbing to David's powerful suggestions: the best thing is, in true Derren Brown style, he explains how it's done.

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

Yay for Derren Brown - him and Richard Dawkins should team up for a TV series about religion.

Posted by: Peregrine | June 2, 2008 7:18 PM

#69

woozy said: "Well, as this is a show preporting to debunk psychics and other frauds, I expected an explanation as to how he did it. "

One of the reasons I'm a big fan of Derren Brown (most of the others have been given) is the fact that he'll tell you he's not psychic and then go and do something amazing and not tell you how it's done.

This is important.

If you believe you know how that trick was done you are likely to fall in to the trap of thinking you know how all tricks are done. If you think you know how all tricks are done and see something you cannot understand, you may feel yourself even more qualified in declaring someone a miracle worker.

Is it not better to admit from the outset that you do not know how something is done, but you have some ideas you'd like to test and eliminate and so on? This is how we avoid scientists looking like lemons the next time a Uri Geller gets on TV. We get good at knowing the limitations of our knowledge, and turning to magicians when we need them.

Lastly, he doesn't reveal secrets on the show. But, if you are prepared to put in the effort to track down the tricks, to learn the secrets of mentalism and spend time learning and practicing as magicians do then essentially nothing he does is inexplicable.

Oh and Peregrine - you know Derren was interviewed in Dawkins' series? (Derren is definitely a man on our side and I only hope he continues to spread the message in the marvellously entertaining and subtle way he does)

Posted by: Edd | June 2, 2008 7:37 PM

#70

Peregrine @ 68 said "Yay for Derren Brown - him and Richard Dawkins should team up for a TV series about religion".

They have been on a TV programme together:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown#The_Enemies_of_Reason

Yes - they would make a formidable combination against the trickery of religion!

Posted by: Barry Pearson | June 2, 2008 7:45 PM

#71

I don't know. I just don't seem to get it. Debunking religion and/or frauds with magic, seems like using plate tectonics to explain post-noah ark species distribution. I end up not feeling that anything is debunked but that all he has shown is that he is capible of deception. If anything I feel since my anglican minister, and the nuns in my sunday school, and the psychics being hoodwinked are *not* as good at deception then they are probably sincere and honest. Showing that you can do deception better than my teacher doesn't convince me in any way that my teacher is a liar; it just makes me think you are a bully.

People see and conclude what they want to see and conclude. Perhaps maybe you are seeing this as an "Aha, got you *now* you lying religious hypocrates" because that's how you want to see it. I imagine the stretch "If I can bamboozle you, don't you think religion is a bamboozle" would elude believers. After all, couldn't scientists, liberal politicians, and evolutionist bamboozle and/or be bamboozled too. Why should this open my eyes to think more critically about *religion* rather than to think more critically than say science, or politics, or my mother's love?

Better debunking is simple rational and honest letting the cards lie where the may and pointing the logical conclussion. Bunk: the world is 6,000 years old. Good Debunk: the grand canyon. Bad Debunk: performing a magic trick turning a chicken into an egg.

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 8:09 PM

#72

It was actually after watching some Derren Brown videos some years ago (including "messiah" and "seance") when I finally dropped my superstitious christian beliefs.

Posted by: Kaiser | June 2, 2008 8:19 PM

#73

"It was actually after watching some Derren Brown videos some years ago (including "messiah" and "seance") when I finally dropped my superstitious christian beliefs.

Seriously? And it was causual? Well, can't argue with facts but ... really? ... No offence, but was your faith really so low a TV magician could shake it? ... I ... well, I'm surprised. Never having been a believer I can't claim to no what any one think would convince me but I always figured it'd be an overall ... unnescessariness and unbelievability ... in just about every aspect of the *real* world that would have done it for me. I guess there'd always be some staw in a camel's back ... but ... really? ... Derren Brown made you an atheist? ...

... wow ...

Oh, well. More power to him and kudos, I guess, but ... ??really?? ...

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 9:00 PM

#74

@woozy, #71

The thing is, here, he's not trying to prove that there is no god, he's just trying to dubunk the argument, "I believe in god because of this spiritual feeling I had."

In the case of these people, the only reason they started to believe in god was this altered mental state, so it basically was "i believe in god because he turned a chicken into an egg", and "turning a chicken into an egg" or producing this feeling or mental state through mundane means was a good way to show that the feeling was not proof of god.

I'm not saying these people are stupid either; I had a similar experience myself. I was basically told to close my eyes and think really really hard about feeling "Jesus embracing me," and when I did, I was able to construct such a feeling.
If some else had come up to me and said, "Think really hard about feeling 'x.' Do you feel 'x?' That's just your brain creating a sensation to meet your expectations. Isn't psychology cool?" I wouldn't have been as susceptable to this phenomenon as "proof" of religion.

The way I see it, he is just showing people truth and facts. He's showing them: You can have this supposedly "religious" experience with no religion involved.

I think this is important, as many people ignore huge mountains of evidence (like the Grand Canyon) by saying, "it doesn't matter what you say, I've felt it."

Posted by: Lindsey | June 2, 2008 9:03 PM

#75

woozy @ #71:

If anything I feel since my anglican minister, and the nuns in my sunday school, and the psychics being hoodwinked are *not* as good at deception then they are probably sincere and honest. Showing that you can do deception better than my teacher doesn't convince me in any way that my teacher is a liar; it just makes me think you are a bully.

Woozy,

You've missed the point. Brown isn't trying to show that these people are insincere. By gaining their endorsements, he is showing that they -- acknowledged "experts" in their fields -- can be fooled into believing that his gifts are genuine.

After all, couldn't scientists, liberal politicians, and evolutionist bamboozle and/or be bamboozled too. Why should this open my eyes to think more critically about *religion* rather than to think more critically than say science, or politics, or my mother's love?

You should think critically about all of those things. As Brown says in the closing moments of part 8:

Whether it's religion or my own skepticism, we all notice what supports our beliefs and disregard the rest.

All of us are subject to biases and distortions. All of us can be bamboozled. All of us have the capacity to be certain of things that are not true.

This is why habitual, disciplined, critical thinking is so important.

Posted by: keiths | June 2, 2008 9:19 PM

#76

Linsey;

yeah...... I dunno. ...

The whole things a little unsettling I guess. I find myself *more* willing to believe the unexplainable when I have an unexplainable phenomena. I mean, this weakens my sense of will and power over myself, so it's not a very far step to view the sense of will and power as a chemical response, and as chemical responses are just bits and data, and as bits and data and information can occur in any medium, perhaps my sense of will is repeated an echoed and influenced and mirrored in all sorts of complex systems like gravity between orbiting bodies, and perhaps there are greater and more encompassing information systems when viewing the universe on the whole so maybe this sense of will which can be changed and influenced by a magic trick can be replacated or stored somewhere permanent after I die and maybe all the gravitational pulls and motions in the universe spell out the sense of will of some supreme being.

I mean, I feel duped ... and if I can be duped by him I can be duped by anything ... so *nothing* I know can be certain. But by the same token nothing I *know* can be certain so everything I *feel* is just as valid as everything I know.

.... yeah .... i dunno....

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 9:34 PM

#77

>>Woozy,

>>You've missed the point.

Well, obviously. :)

>>>>All of us are subject to biases and distortions. All of us can be bamboozled. All of us have the capacity to be certain of things that are not true.

>>>>This is why habitual, disciplined, critical thinking is so important.

Maybe I'm being too generous but I tend to think everyone already knows this and does apply critical thinking already.

Hence, if I were to believe in God I would have already applied my critical thinking to it.

Or more to the point, being bamboozled by a little thing like "FUCK!! HOW'D HE KNOW WHAT THAT WOMAN DREW" would discourage me to think "Shit, if I can't trust my critical thinking to understand a simple *parlor* trick, How on earth can I trust myself to apply it to the *real* questions. Dang, the folks how believed in geocentricism weren't *dumb*; they just had pre-conceived notions. WHy should I assume I'm any more immune then they were when I can't even see through a fucking magic trick!"

Anyhow, those who stubbornly insist on refusing to accept critical thinking will probably continue to resist.

But if he does got work and has some success, all power to him. Still maybe I'm too critical or not critical enough for this approach to really do it form.

By the way... how the fuck *did* he know what the woman drew?

Posted by: woozy | June 2, 2008 9:47 PM

#78

correction to my post #37:

I was thinking about inducing a catatonic trance and the success rate of that is not 60% but about 1/3. DB says that in his Zombie episode, which is probably the second-most disturbing thing I've seen him do.

Derren Brown is also the performer of the most disturbing "magic" trick I've ever seen anyone do, which is this one.

Posted by: agg | June 2, 2008 9:48 PM

#79

Being important the psychological mechanisms of delusion, one must cope with the fact that religions/superstitions are a social delusion.

He converted Atheists with a touch. Does that mean your beliefs are also social delusions? Or are you the only followers of the One True Faith? When Derren Brown questioned the Atheists after he converted them he said: "Be honest, be honest". Do you know why? Because before they were simply reciting their belief system. They were speaking purely rationally. Then he established an emotional connection with them and when they talked about that they were speaking from their emotional center instead.

Brown knew that highly rational scientific people tend to cut themselves off from their emotional life. Which is experienced subconsciously as a kind of void, a lack. He exploited this vulnerability.

Being whole, bringing together your emotional and rational selves is very hard. It's much easier to simply ridicule those you judge beneath you isn't it?

Posted by: Brenda von Ahsen | June 2, 2008 9:49 PM

#80

Look at all the camera angle switches... they even inserted a random recording of his voice in one scene (while he wasn't on-camera, of course), I think it was the one with the alien abduction "researchers".

I think the skepticism over anything Derren Brown presents in his shows is extremely warranted. I tend to think he's having a bit of fun fooling not just the easily-wooed but the professed skeptics ;).

Posted by: Shirakawasuna | June 2, 2008 10:16 PM

#81

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

An enlightening series

Comments