Derren Brown - a force for good in scepticism/critical thinking?

randalious

I thought this might be interesting.

In one sentence or less, answer the following.


IS DERREN BROWN A FORCE FOR GOOD IN CRITICAL THINKING?






My Answer;
Now that Derren has started yielding to his initially equally damaging premise of pure psychology, he is going some way to educate the public on topics such as religion, spiritualism, and the paranormal.

???

Yes.

In more detail, you're assumption that his psychological presentation is equally damaging is flat out wrong and also is not what he claimed. His disclaimer that what he does is "a mixture of magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship" is true to the letter. Magic inherently contains a lot of psychology, for example, if you tell them they shuffled the pack when you list the sequence of events, most people will misremember that they shuffled the pack.

If I do a card trick and tell you that it dematerialises to it's constituent molecules and moves through the air to my pocket it's the exact same as Derren saying he's picking up on tells, it's a false process that makes for an entertaining routine. All that a sceptical performer can do is give a disclaimer that it's entertainment and they aren't psychic, go off and perform and then if someone asks afterwards remind them it's a trick. Bear in mind, your namesake Randi (assuming it is a deliberate reference), is also a mentalist and again, gave a disclaimer then performed his seemingly psychic routines. Banachek, Jamie Ian Swiss, Luke Jermay, Harry Guinness, the list goes on of sceptical mentalists.

Next problem, you say since he has started as if implying it's a recent thing. The Seance, arguably his most outrightly sceptical show is almost 6 years old. His book which is what made me aware of scepticism as a group was written 4 years ago.

So basically, yes he's a force for good and he never wasn't. (My one sentence!)

randalious

thanks for replying. I appreciate that you've taken some time providing a considered and insightful viewpoint. i value that. But I also disagree on some levels.

First, Derrens first four televisual outings (i.e. two one hour specials, and two full series of 'mind control') were played as 'real'. In fact, if you remember, he started every show saying that "what you're seeing tonight is not trickery, conjuring, or sleight of hand - this is real mind control". All of his presentations were wrapped in a very believable veil of psychology. The veil was so believable in fact, that his website appeared in the ‘science’ category of the channel four website, implying to the viewing audience that his demonstrations were truly psychological in premise. So, by suggesting that derren has always employed a truthful and ethical disclaimer, you are- to quote you - flat out wrong. Watch the early stuff again, he was playing it as 100% real, much in the same way as tv psychics do.

I of course understand, recognise, and appreciate (as a psychologist) that there are massive elements of magic and mentalism that are inherently cognitive and/or psychological in nature. I’m entirely with you on that. But in the early days, Derren grossly over stated the power of psychology. The synchronicity experiment with the twins, the tickets at the dog tracks, the blindfolded smash and stab style walk along planks, the hand being held over the candle, the 10 card poker deal, the ‘touching’ of the strippers – all of this was presented as legitimate psychological demonstrations. It was only after derren experienced a sceptical back lash himself, and the sceptical community began to publicly challenge him in the press, on radio and television, did he introduce his now infamous disclaimer.

Regardless the renaissance disclaimer, the impact had already been made. A longitudinal study conducted by myself and my research institute after both An evening of Wonders and Enigma have revealed that over 76% of derrens audiences believe that every demonstration that he effects is done by purely genuine legitimate psychological principles. The sample, across eight performances, featured lawyers, students, physicians, public representatives, and even psychologists, I’m afraid to say.

So yes, currently derren is a strong voice towards improving the level of critical thinking in the general public. Currently.
His provenance as a (fake) legitimate psychologist/body language guru/human lie detector, however, still influences his image in the minds of the public. They still believe he’s real, and that’s because he was (initially) just as bad as Derek acorah, john Edward, and sally morgan – dressing their parlour tricks up as some virtually superhuman skill. I could argue that derrens (former) stance is EQUALLY as damaging as that of the psychic arena, but given his uturn following his own backlash, he’s certainly more careful to cover his tracks and carefully consider his claims.

I’d encourage you to read this old article, which was the harbinger of derrens new way of thinking. He very quickly reconsidered his position, and stopped claiming he was ‘real’. That’s when he started using his omnipotent disclaimer. The author of the article (not me, by the way) wrote on the topic on and off for a year, and brought it up on many panel radio and television shows including the wright stuff, radio five live, and more.

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


by the way, i thoroughly enjoyed watching your handling of banachek's portfolio - a shame the cut out what i assume was an information read back on your held back card.

randalious

??? wrote: »

Yes.


Jamie Ian Swiss, Luke Jermay, Harry Guinness, the list goes on of sceptical mentalists.

By the way - why cite your own name in full harry, wouldn't you just say 'me'?

just curious.

A lot of that can be said of many many magicians.
There are tricks that allow you to fake superhuman levels of card control.

Many magicians still don't make any disclaimers about their performances.
Take David Blaine and David Copperfield for instance.

Back in the good ol' days many effects which are now obvisous tricks would have seem supernatural.
This is something Derren achieved with the jaded public in the present.

The difference between early Derren Brown and John Edwards etc. Is that he wasn't pretending to contact dead loved ones or playing with deep emotions.
He didn't run expensive courses or sell books so you could get his powers (magic lectures are a bit different).
He simply entertained.

It was no different in my opinion than the magician claiming the rabbit really did teleport.

???

randalious wrote: »

First, Derrens first four televisual outings (i.e. two one hour specials, and two full series of 'mind control') were played as 'real'. In fact, if you remember, he started every show saying that "what you're seeing tonight is not trickery, conjuring, or sleight of hand - this is real mind control". All of his presentations were wrapped in a very believable veil of psychology. The veil was so believable in fact, that his website appeared in the ‘science’ category of the channel four website, implying to the viewing audience that his demonstrations were truly psychological in premise. So, by suggesting that derren has always employed a truthful and ethical disclaimer, you are- to quote you - flat out wrong. Watch the early stuff again, he was playing it as 100% real, much in the same way as tv psychics do.

Apologies, I thought he used the same disclaimer. However, I do object to his program's appearing in science but I think that is a C4 marketing decision. An interesting thing to bear in mind is that the show was written before Derren was cast, Andy Nyman was originally wanted for the role but didn't want to compromise his acting career. Derren got the role through him and Jerry Sadowitz. This means that Derren wasn't a public or powerful enough figure to have much control over the show until at least the second series of Mind Control. His major break was Russian Roulette. But it all still falls down on the should magician's have to give disclaimers, David Copperfield pretends to teleport a boy and reunite him with his long lost father on an island in the Carribean. He doesn't have to give a disclaimer on that!

I of course understand, recognise, and appreciate (as a psychologist) that there are massive elements of magic and mentalism that are inherently cognitive and/or psychological in nature. I’m entirely with you on that. But in the early days, Derren grossly over stated the power of psychology. The synchronicity experiment with the twins, the tickets at the dog tracks, the blindfolded smash and stab style walk along planks, the hand being held over the candle, the 10 card poker deal, the ‘touching’ of the strippers – all of this was presented as legitimate psychological demonstrations. It was only after derren experienced a sceptical back lash himself, and the sceptical community began to publicly challenge him in the press, on radio and television, did he introduce his now infamous disclaimer.

Actually ticket at the dog track is entirely psychological. It's absolutely ingenious how he did it. Touching strippers is also mostly psychological in getting it to work without them realising. And for all the other stuff, how would you present it in an entertaining way then?

Regardless the renaissance disclaimer, the impact had already been made. A longitudinal study conducted by myself and my research institute after both An evening of Wonders and Enigma have revealed that over 76% of derrens audiences believe that every demonstration that he effects is done by purely genuine legitimate psychological principles. The sample, across eight performances, featured lawyers, students, physicians, public representatives, and even psychologists, I’m afraid to say.

I feel that is symptomatic of a problem in the culture and not to do with Derren. By the time Wonders was touring he certainly was using the disclaimer. You tell them what you're doing and they still don't believe you. I've had that problem once or twice!

So yes, currently derren is a strong voice towards improving the level of critical thinking in the general public. Currently.

His provenance as a (fake) legitimate psychologist/body language guru/human lie detector, however, still influences his image in the minds of the public. They still believe he’s real, and that’s because he was (initially) just as bad as Derek acorah, john Edward, and sally morgan – dressing their parlour tricks up as some virtually superhuman skill. I could argue that derrens (former) stance is EQUALLY as damaging as that of the psychic arena, but given his uturn following his own backlash, he’s certainly more careful to cover his tracks and carefully consider his claims.

You could argue but I don't know how strong it would be! The problem here lies in the result. Derren does it for entertainment, if they go away believing what he did was real it doesn't change there lives. If however, you believe John Edwards contacted your mother who killed herself and tells you that she wants you to forgive her then that can have a massive effect on your life. Doing something and presenting it as real for entertainment is very different to doing something as real and presenting it as a life changing event.

I’d encourage you to read this old article, which was the harbinger of derrens new way of thinking. He very quickly reconsidered his position, and stopped claiming he was ‘real’. That’s when he started using his omnipotent disclaimer. The author of the article (not me, by the way) wrote on the topic on and off for a year, and brought it up on many panel radio and television shows including the wright stuff, radio five live, and more.

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

I've read it before. This article is actually my only objection to Simon Singh. It's just so humorless and anal!!! He says one thing that makes me cringe every time!!!

by the way, i thoroughly enjoyed watching your handling of banachek's portfolio - a shame the cut out what i assume was an information read back on your held back card.

Thank you. Yeah they edited the hell out of the reveal. Really pissed off at that!

By the way - why cite your own name in full harry, wouldn't you just say 'me'?

just curious.

For fun really, on the off chance you wouldn't be familiar with some of the magicians and just assume I'm famous!!!