3 part Derren Brown Series, Monday C4

Giselle

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-investigates

Derren Brown looks at some extraordinary claims from around the world, documenting a medium, a ghost hunter and a psychic expert who claims to make the blind see.

Its always interesting to watch Brown deconstruct the 'psychic industry'.

I'll be watching this one with interest.:)

kylith

I too am looking forward to this.

vampire of kilmainham

I cant stand darren brown and like most of the ghost hunters and so called psychics he is just out there to make money minipulating peoples brains into beliving what he wants people to belive. there's an old saying that i learned when i used to go to martil arts classes the instructer was Japanese and he used to say to us "BELIVE ONLY YOUR OWN EYES AND NOT THE VOICES OF OTHERS".

vampire of kilmainham

I cant stand darren brown and like most of the ghost hunters and so called psychics he is just out there to make money minipulating peoples brains into beliving what he wants people to belive. there's an old saying that i learned when i used to go to martil arts classes the instructer was Japanese and he used to say to us "BELIVE ONLY YOUR OWN EYES AND NOT THE VOICES OF OTHERS".

event

vampire of kilmainham wrote: »

I cant stand darren brown and like most of the ghost hunters and so called psychics he is just out there to make money minipulating peoples brains into beliving what he wants people to belive. there's an old saying that i learned when i used to go to martil arts classes the instructer was Japanese and he used to say to us "BELIVE ONLY YOUR OWN EYES AND NOT THE VOICES OF OTHERS".

except he doesnt claim to be a psychic or medium, he usually explains how and exactly what he has done

az2wp0sye65487

vampire of kilmainham wrote: »

I cant stand darren brown and like most of the ghost hunters and so called psychics he is just out there to make money minipulating peoples brains into beliving what he wants people to belive. there's an old saying that i learned when i used to go to martil arts classes the instructer was Japanese and he used to say to us "BELIVE ONLY YOUR OWN EYES AND NOT THE VOICES OF OTHERS".

Maybe you should have read the OP before jumping in feet first?

Anyway, just watched this, and it was very interesting. That bloke from Liverpool was such a chancer!!! The 'cold-reading' method is very interesting.

And Derren confirmed something that I'd always been saying about these con artists.... their audience want to believe what they're being told. So they'll come up with any connections to make sense of the vague and/or generic information that's being thrown at them!

Either way, it looks like a lucrative business. There's one of these Mediums performing in the Helix this Friday: Link - It would be interesting to go and watch from a completely neutral position.

kylith

I very much enjoyed this last night. I think that Joe Power showed himself for what he really is; a con man. His rejection of Derren's scientific test and his habit of blaming everyone else when he got something wrong spoke volumes.

And he's done a lot of readings for his mum's neighbours, I see. I bet she's a lovely woman, his mum; very chatty, lots of time for everyone.

Giselle

I can't express how much I despise these guys, and Brown was quite recitent in tackling Powers claims to his face.

Overall his assesment of Powers skills was bordering on charitable, but I suppose the positive reinforcement that Powers gets from his audience of believers makes it easy for the man to believe his own hype and makes it easier for him to sleep at night. Even conmen need their kip.

Giselle

Carla Fancy Rakish wrote: »

Either way, it looks like a lucrative business. There's one of these Mediums performing in the Helix this Friday: Link - It would be interesting to go and watch from a completely neutral position.

I did this with a friend once. The surprise of the evening was the 'psychic' was the very same middle aged woman who sat on a sofa in the hotel reception, watching and listening to the people who arrived early having a drink.

Even with whatever gems she overheard, she was distinctly underwhelming, but that didn't stop the seasoned psychic groupies from declaring the night 'amazing'.

It was amazing, but not in the way the rest of the audience seemed to think.

billybigunz

Carla Fancy Rakish wrote: »

Maybe you should have read the OP before jumping in feet first?

Anyway, just watched this, and it was very interesting. That bloke from Liverpool was such a chancer!!! The 'cold-reading' method is very interesting.

And Derren confirmed something that I'd always been saying about these con artists.... their audience want to believe what they're being told. So they'll come up with any connections to make sense of the vague and/or generic information that's being thrown at them!

Either way, it looks like a lucrative business. There's one of these Mediums performing in the Helix this Friday: Link - It would be interesting to go and watch from a completely neutral position.

Why are these disgusting creeps allowed to scam the more naive innoncent types out of money.

Paparazzo

You can read a bit about Joe Power here: http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/category/psychics/joe-power/

He sounds nuts!

“The thing about you sceptics,” he said, standing on the step of a plus-size lingerie shop to raise himself to my eye-level, “is that you sit there, festering in front of your computers at 3am, thinking up ways to get at people. What if I were to sit in front of your house and tell people you’re a paedophile?”

“Well,” I say, “that’s for you to decide to do if you want to but it’s not really the same thing – I’m raising questions over what you do and the service you claim to provide; insinuating I was a paedophile would be just a personal attack, and wildly baseless. It’s not really the same thing. At all.”

“Oh I think they’re very similar,” he answers, “because you’re there festering, at 3am, plotting to get at me, in the same way that paedophiles fester and plot to interfere with children – you both have to be sick in the head to do what you do.”

http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/2009/06/psychic-joe-power-and-the-two-man-mob/

Stupid made for TV show . Derren in the end proved nothing. Why did the show even go to air ??

The "psychic" was not that great also .

I was hoping that he was going to bring somthing new to light other then cold reading cold reading cold reading. How long is he going to ride that surf board.

maccored

when i eventually got to watch the one from the other night, i have to say it was all a bit weak. So a medium is fake .. big deal. Not exactly ground breaking. Next week its ghosthunter joe - I know nothing of this episode but if they pick a 'ghosthunter' who believes all spirits/orbs exist etc then its not really looking at a decently skeptical paranormal investigator (like many are) and alas, it will be one more easy target for the cynics to pick at.

I want to see a show like this where they dont go for the easy pickings. Never happen though.

kylith

maccored wrote: »

when i eventually got to watch the one from the other night, i have to say it was all a bit weak. So a medium is fake .. big deal. Not exactly ground breaking. Next week its ghosthunter joe - I know nothing of this episode but if they pick a 'ghosthunter' who believes all spirits/orbs exist etc then its not really looking at a decently skeptical paranormal investigator (like many are) and alas, it will be one more easy target for the cynics to pick at.

I want to see a show like this where they dont go for the easy pickings. Never happen though.

I'd say a large part of why this series seems so 'gently, gently' is that you can't just straight out call someone a fraud because you'll quickly find yourself in very hot water, legally speaking. Derren's going to have to find people who will agree to be on his show, knowing what his agenda is, and then set them up so that they show themselves to be frauds. This means that they're not going to get the big fish, because they're too savvy to put themselves in that position, and we're not going to get to see the grand debunking which we crave.

maccored

as far as commercial mediums are concerned, you have a point. Im interested now the mediums are out of the way, what kind of people will show up in the other 3 parts. I hope the 'ghosthunter' in the next one isnt an idiot who thinks everywhere is haunted

kylith

If you've not seen it I highly recommend Penn & Teller's series Bull****. They take psychics, healers, et al to pieces.

There's also swearing and boobies.

Dave!

Pretty good show, nothing too illuminating though of course

But maybe viewers who aren't familiar with cold reading techniques will see this and be a bit more skeptical in future

Of course this doesn't mean that every psychic is a fake, etc etc etc, blah blah blah :rolleyes:

Giselle

kylith wrote: »

If you've not seen it I highly recommend Penn & Teller's series Bull****. They take psychics, healers, et al to pieces.

There's also swearing and boobies.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Although swearing and boobies aren't much of a bonus for me personally.:)

murrayp4

kylith wrote: »

I'd say a large part of why this series seems so 'gently, gently' is that you can't just straight out call someone a fraud because you'll quickly find yourself in very hot water, legally speaking.

Wouldn't be an issue because a psychic would have to go to court, which would decide on the balance of probabilities whether he was a fraud or not. I'd buy tickets to that. :pac:

Dave!

murrayp4 wrote: »

Wouldn't be an issue because a psychic would have to go to court, which would decide on the balance of probabilities whether he was a fraud or not. I'd buy tickets to that. :pac:

It costs money to defend yourself though! Especially in the UK

(See: Simon Singh case)

murrayp4

Dave! wrote: »

It costs money to defend yourself though! Especially in the UK

(See: Simon Singh case)

I'd hazard a guess that Derren Brown and Channel 4 have a few quid

kylith

murrayp4 wrote: »

Wouldn't be an issue because a psychic would have to go to court, which would decide on the balance of probabilities whether he was a fraud or not. I'd buy tickets to that. :pac:

That would probably involve having to prove that he can't contact the dead, which is impossible.

murrayp4

kylith wrote: »

That would probably involve having to prove that he can't contact the dead, which is impossible.

Nope- proving he can't means proving a negative. It would mean deciding on the balance of probabilities whether he is contacting the dead- i.e. proving a positive- that he's actually doing it.

kylith

murrayp4 wrote: »

Nope- proving he can't means proving a negative. It would mean deciding on the balance of probabilities whether he is contacting the dead- i.e. proving a positive- that he's actually doing it.

Exactly, you can't prove that he can't contact the dead. And if you try to get him to prove that he can you'll run into all the usual road blocks; Spirits don't want to talk now, negative energy in the room, 'the message is unclear', 'you're all being mean to me' etc. All that will be provable is that in a court room, at that time of day, wearing that shirt, the spirits 'don't want' to communicate.

IANALawyer, but I'd say it'd be impossible to prove that he didn't talk to spirits last Wednesday, and that's the really annoying bit. And that's why Penn & Teller call them a$$holes rather than liars; it saves a lot of time in court.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Exactly, you can't prove that he can't contact the dead. And if you try to get him to prove that he can you'll run into all the usual road blocks; Spirits don't want to talk now, negative energy in the room, 'the message is unclear', 'you're all being mean to me' etc. All that will be provable is that in a court room, at that time of day, wearing that shirt, the spirits 'don't want' to communicate.

IANALawyer, but I'd say it'd be impossible to prove that he didn't talk to spirits last Wednesday, and that's the really annoying bit. And that's why Penn & Teller call them a$$holes rather than liars; it saves a lot of time in court.

How many mediums have you spoken to ? and tested ? Or have you only watched TV shows on mediums ?

maccored

i am quite disappointed in this series. the first was the usual medium story, the second was some looney trying to con people into beleving a load of tripe and Im still wondering - wheres the paranormal debunking? What's paranormal about conmen? Answer, nothing. It should be a three part series in not getting hoodwinked - nothing to do with the paranormal at all at all.

maccored

and dont even talk to me about penn and teller. those two are very unfunny people who generally stick around the same medium/psychic debunking. My cat could do that (and would probably be much funnier).

Richard tea

I find the Penn & Teller bull**** show very good and honest. It really does cut away the bull****. The episode on Organic Food & the one about PETA were excellent:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bull****!_episodes

organic food http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhBKtjDtTVk

maccored

i cant stand them. maybe thats either because I just cant stand them, because they arent very funny and constantly try to be, or they state the obvious most of the time.

pH

I was wondering why the hate for Derren from certain posters, then I saw what he's doing in episode 3 - Ghost Hunties!

Excellent to see Derren taking up the mantle that Scooby left off, I wonder will Derren figure out it's the janitor in a mask ... if it hadn't been for those pesky kids!

maccored

i'd say 'hate' is too strong a word. Maybe 'a bit pissed off derren has gone for easy to slag off stuff rather than something substantial' would fit better. Its not about the paranormal - its about general public entertainment.

strobe

maccored wrote: »

i'd say 'hate' is too strong a word. Maybe 'a bit pissed off derren has gone for easy to slag off stuff rather than something substantial' would fit better. Its not about the paranormal - its about general public entertainment.

What would be something substantial? Mediums/psychics, ghost hunters and faith healers are the most commonly known "paranormal" things. It makes sense to do episodes on them. Not really Derren Browns fault that these things are incredibly easy to slag off and discredit. What "paranormal" subjects could he have done shows on that wouldn't be easy to slag off? Alien abduction, water devining, crystal healing......? Something tells me things wouldn't have went too differently.

maccored

something about how people see and hear things (emf, infrasound etc) causes for EVPs etc - you know, things actually related to the paranormal and not the standard 'lets slag off a medium' and this man sees orbs and thinks they're ghosts type stuff.

I hold derren brown in high regard and thats the level I was expecting him to come at this from. Instead its all about proving that mediums mightnt all be the real deal (wow, thats new), mind readers can be con men (who would have thought) and (no doubt) that ghost hunters think orbs are spirits - though I cant comment on tonights show as Im not psychic. Basic, entry level stuff on the paranormal more suited to the pages of the Sun than a C4 series.

maccored

strobe wrote: »

Alien abduction, water devining, crystal healing......? Something tells me things wouldn't have went too differently.

Ifs thats your definition of the paranormal then you have a completely different idea of it than me.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

something about how people see and hear things (emf, infrasound etc) causes for EVPs etc - you know, things actually related to the paranormal and not the standard 'lets slag off a medium' and this man sees orbs and thinks they're ghosts type stuff.

I hold derren brown in high regard and thats the level I was expecting him to come at this from. Instead its all about proving that mediums mightnt all be the real deal (wow, thats new), mind readers can be con men (who would have thought) and (no doubt) that ghost hunters think orbs are spirits - though I cant comment on tonights show as Im not psychic. Basic, entry level stuff on the paranormal more suited to the pages of the Sun than a C4 series.

If he went straight into "Here is what causes people to think they are hearing voices" or "Here is why people think they are talking to the dead" or some such it would have been dismissed as not being open minded to the idea that paranormal explanations might be real.

Instead Brown simply went to well know proponents of the paranormal and said "Ok, convince me".

As strobe said it is not really his fault that when they actually tried they came across as being incredible weak. The evidence for paranormal claims is incredible weak. That isn't Browns fault, but at least he gave them a chance.

maccored

Im not saying its derren browns fault. Im just commenting that as someone who has an interest in the paranormal, even I find the cases weak, so if his shows dont even convince anyone with a passing interest, they surely wont convince anyone more sceptical or cynical. Thats mainly due to the low quality subjects. theres many other aspects to the paranormal. Havent watched the last one, but if theres one mention of orbs or shadow people then I think my point will be proved.

pH

maccored wrote: »

Im not saying its derren browns fault. Im just commenting that as someone who has an interest in the paranormal, even I find the cases weak, so if his shows dont even convince anyone with a passing interest, they surely wont convince anyone more sceptical or cynical. Thats mainly due to the low quality subjects. theres many other aspects to the paranormal. Havent watched the last one, but if theres one mention of orbs or shadow people then I think my point will be proved.

No this last one was spot on - it's hard to see how anyone could be critical of it, the subject was well known and respected, didn't charge for his "services" and yet any evidence he had was incredibly weak.

Now he may not have been using (in an inappropriate manner) whatever electronic device is currently de rigueur for your current in-group, but he sure knew how to make the most of modern digital cameras and voice activated digital recorders.

Lou almost certainly was sincere, but when you look at these things with the cold light of reason and rationality there is nothing even to see, let alone be "explained".

maccored

he passed away last year that fella I think

maccored

pH wrote: »

but when you look at these things with the cold light of reason and rationality there is nothing even to see, let alone be "explained".

I know I've used this argument many times, but if no-one is looking, no-one will find anything. where would science be if people werent out there exploring it? Imagine even if the computer industry, or TV or radio had listened to the early experts who said there was no point to such things. it isnt human nature to say 'ah well, theres nothing to see here' - the human brain sees a mystery and wants to solve it. EVPs are one I like to look at (which I suspect is ionospheric ducting.)

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

Im not saying its derren browns fault. Im just commenting that as someone who has an interest in the paranormal, even I find the cases weak, so if his shows dont even convince anyone with a passing interest, they surely wont convince anyone more sceptical or cynical. Thats mainly due to the low quality subjects.

How are you classifying them as low equality subjects? What would be a high quality subject?

For example, Lou Gentile, the subject from the last show seems quite well regarded in paranormal circles, as least as far as Google goes.

maccored wrote: »

theres many other aspects to the paranormal. Havent watched the last one, but if theres one mention of orbs or shadow people then I think my point will be proved.

The impression you seem to be giving is that there is a really serious side to the paranormal and the stuff Brown is looking at is the less serious obviously fake side.

Can you give an example of what you would consider high quality side of the paranormal?

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

I know I've used this argument many times, but if no-one is looking, no-one will find anything.

It isn't really about finding anything, it is about how you go about looking. The problem that Brown is exposing isn't that nothing is happening, it is that what is happening is not what is claimed.

To be honest I find things like cold reading and the natural instinct of the brain to pattern match faces far more interesting than the alternative claims put forward by paranormal proponents such as ESP and ghosts.

maccored

you are suggesting there isnt a serious side. How can you know this if its not something you have never looked in detail at? (I am assuming otherwise you wouldnt be asking)

The effects of infrasound and em frequencies can cause paranormal like experiences. shouldnt that be researched if even to disprove apaprent hauntings? I already mentioned EVPs.

Or maybe the best idea is sit back, do nothing and shout loudly at people who think there might be something worth finding out? Ive had these circular arguments before mr wicknight and Im not really interested in running around in circles.

maccored

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't really about finding anything, it is about how you go about looking. The problem that Brown is exposing isn't that nothing is happening, it is that what is happening is not what is claimed.

To be honest I find things like cold reading and the natural instinct of the brain to pattern match faces far more interesting than the alternative claims put forward by paranormal proponents such as ESP and ghosts.

so the paranormal to you is mediums psychics and mind readers eh? Discussion closed, as your idea of the paranormal is somewhat limited.

pH

maccored wrote: »

I know I've used this argument many times, but if no-one is looking, no-one will find anything.

Which is just as good an argument for looking for Leprechaun's Gold at the end of rainbows, but if someone used it on you how would you reply?

where would science be if people werent out there exploring it? Imagine even if the computer industry, or TV or radio had listened to the early experts who said there was no point to such things.

Yes, but these things progressed, evidence mounted, what some early nay-sayers thought or said is irrelevant. One of the key indicators that what's happening here is bogus, is "absence of progress".

Real science develops, and has had some spectacular successes looking at extremely rare events, it's not easy, but with work, some things that happen at vanishingly small frequencies and are incredibly hard to detect for example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande

it isnt human nature to say 'ah well, theres nothing to see here' - the human brain sees a mystery and wants to solve it. EVPs are one I like to look at (which I suspect is ionospheric ducting.)

Well it just shows how you shouldn't rely on your intuition, ionospheric ducting does not explain EVPs, if you're saying that EVPs are voice radio signals being picked up inadvertently by recording equipment, then they could just as easily be local radio signals being picked up. Why couldn't the voice you here be from the local cab company, why unnecessarily complicate it by suggesting it's a cab firm in New York?

Anyway it's simple to check, first check if your equipment reliably can "hear" a local broadcast on a particular frequency, if it can then you're correct every now and then it might receive a distant broadcast bounced off the ionosphere, but it still would receive local broadcasts as well.

pH

pH wrote: »

I was wondering why the hate for Derren from certain posters, then I saw what he's doing in episode 3 - Ghost Hunties!

Excellent to see Derren taking up the mantle that Scooby left off, I wonder will Derren figure out it's the janitor in a mask ... if it hadn't been for those pesky kids!

I dont hate Derren , infact i really enjoy his old stuff.
What i dont like is him rehashing other people's work as if it was his own and not actually investigating.

Maybe if he was to bring something to the table it would be worth watching or investigate correctly but he is not going to do that whilst on a prime time slot on TV .

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

you are suggesting there isnt a serious side. How can you know this if its not something you have never looked in detail at? (I am assuming otherwise you wouldnt be asking)

I'm suggesting there is no side that is much better supported than the stuff Brown is looking at. I'm suggesting that because I have looked into it.

I could be wrong of course, by all means give examples of the "serious side" to the paranormal.

maccored wrote: »

The effects of infrasound and em frequencies can cause paranormal like experiences.

What are "paranormal like" experiences? Do you mean unexplained experiences?

"Paranormal" refers to the explanation not the phenomena.

maccored wrote: »

shouldnt that be researched if even to disprove apaprent hauntings? I already mentioned EVPs.

You can't disprove hauntings because you can't formulate a testable (and thus falsifiable) model of a ghost. As such disproving hauntings is irrelevant. Nothing anyone will do can disprove a haunting because we have no idea what the rules of a haunting are and thus cannot model them and test them.

What you can do is present natural explanations for what people experience that don't require the massive re-evaluation of current scientific understanding that paranormal claims require.

But people do this all the time, it seems to have very little effect on the enthusiasm of the paranormal community for paranormal explanations for unexplained phenomena.

For example you can't prove it wasn't a ghost when you hear an EVP. But equally why entertain that idea in the first place?

You can show that the human brain is a pattern matching system that is trained to see evidence of humans where none is present, such as seeing faces in random patterns and hearing voices and words in noise.

This has been well researched and pretty well understood, though you seem to count this as "sitting back and doing nothing"

maccored wrote: »

so the paranormal to you is mediums psychics and mind readers eh?

The paranormal to me are claims explaining phenomena that greatly contradict currently understood scientific theory and thus if correct would require great change in currently understood scientific theory.

If you have a better definition I'm all ears.

maccored wrote: »

Discussion closed, as your idea of the paranormal is somewhat limited.

Yeah you keep telling everyone that but you aren't exactly over flowing with real examples of this proper paranormal stuff is.

mayfire

strobe wrote: »

What "paranormal" subjects could he have done shows on that wouldn't be easy to slag off? Alien abduction, water devining, crystal healing......? Something tells me things wouldn't have went too differently.

What about this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034#

SkepticOne

Also by James Randi.

There's another one where Uri Geller is exposed on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.

The key feature with this video and the dowsing one above is that they deal with inanimate objects. The psychic can't blame the spirits for not cooperating or the audience for not getting what the spirits are saying. With the second programme, Bronnikov could also claim that his methods were not properly applied in cases where the person remained blind. In other words, where there's others (or alleged others) involved, put the blame on them.

The likes of mediums, healers and ghost hunters that featured on the Derren Brown shows can't therefore be treated the same way as those who claim powers over the inanimate objects. All he can do is point the camera at the evidence being provided and let the audience decide.

steddyeddy

What are "paranormal like" experiences? Do you mean unexplained experiences?

Well hes not wrong people who come into contact with infrasound often claim to experience an errie feeling like theres a presence near by ect they then interpret that as a paranormal experience.

strobe

mayfire wrote: »

What about this?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034#

What about it? Homeopathy, psychics, Atlantis........? Par for the course. Like I said I can't see homeopathy or people that can see diseases inside people fairing any better or being any harder to debunk.