Derren Brown: The Experiements: The Gameshow.

Professional Griefer

Starting now on channel 4. Love derren, hopefully this won't disappoint.

''In The Gameshow, the second show in The Experiment series, Derren Brown turns himself into the host of a game show and investigates whether we all have the capacity for evil and whether or not being part of a group affects our sense of right and wrong.''

FouxDaFaFa

Watching it now. Will be interesting to see how far the audience take it. Certainly wouldn't want them in charge of my life.

Busi_Girl08

It will be interesting to see how far they'll take it with the colleague's "bad news".

Also, I know it's irrelevant for this, but the actors in this are terrible.

Is this all nt a bit pointless? To the audience it's an entertainment show. They don't actually see it as influencing someone's life. They're not just going to end it all there.

pconn062

Bizarre as ever from Derren Brown, its actually making me feel a bit uncomfortable which I suppose is the point, kinda ugly...

Peyton Manning

You would want to be an absolute idiot to be in that audience and think that Derren Brown was now a Friday night gameshow host with no twist at all :rolleyes:

Busi_Girl08

Cam Newton wrote: »

You would want to be an absolute idiot to be in that audience and think that Derren Brown was now a Friday night gameshow host with no twist at all :rolleyes:

The TV smash was the big point at that stage, though, I think.

But let's face it. It's Derren Brown. All those people signed up to be on a Derren Brown show. They know the kind of stuff he does. They were playing along to see what the payoff was.

Same as last week they knew on some level that everything was under control, so they went along with it all.

kev9100

I think the ending was both equally enthralling and disturbing. I wonder if the audience felt ashamed at the end?

dvpower

Look a bit like it was based on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)

A little bit weak tbh. The people in the audiance, making the turn by turn decisions, would know that neither Brown nor Channel4 would allow anything really bad to happen to someone ('cos their neck would be on the block), so the idea that they were really in control (and responsible for doing the guy down) is a bit of a stretch.

I'd love to see them recreate the Stanford or the Milgram experiment.

Treehouse72

As usual with DB, the tension was gently ramped up over the course of the show. It became quite unbearable after a while.

The programme finished with a great pay-off, although it was easy to spot because there's no way they would have tried to kidnap someone for real. But by that stage the programme had already delivered in spades, so it didn't matter that we didn't buy it right to the very end. It was clear from the shouts in the audience that they hadn't twigged (somehow!). But I guess that just goes to prove DB's point - they really were caught up in the interaction with the victim and lost themselves. It was very powerful.

Loved it, as I do almost everything DB does.

FouxDaFaFa

dvpower wrote: »

I'd love to see them recreate the Stanford or the Milgram experiment.

Thanks for posting that. I was thinking of the Milgram experiment too but couldn't remember the name.

frisbeeface

Anybody interested in the programme should read The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo*. It has the same basic point as this programme but in far, far, far great detail and isn't compromised by the needs of entertainment. Possibly the most eye-opening book I've ever read. Glad to see popular tv address some of the same stuff.

*The Stanford Prison Experiment mentioned above was run by this guy and an account of it takes up the first third of the book.

frisbeeface

dvpower wrote: »

I'd love to see them recreate the Stanford or the Milgram experiment.

Derren Brown did recreate the Milgram experiment in an earlier show, I think it was 'The Heist'.

WesternNight

dvpower wrote: »

I'd love to see them recreate the Stanford or the Milgram experiment.

He's done the Migram experiment but it wasn't an exact replication. They deviated from the script, so the whole thing lost its impact.

ie, in Milgram's original experiment the 'researcher' had 4 strict responses to adhere to when subjects objected or didn't want to go ahead. Derren's 'researchers' said things like "it's ok, no harm will come to them" etc so it's in no way valid.

frisbeeface

WesternNight wrote: »

He's done the Migram experiment but it wasn't an exact replication. They deviated from the script, so the whole thing lost its impact.

ie, in Milgram's original experiment the 'researcher' had 4 strict responses to adhere to when subjects objected or didn't want to go ahead. Derren's 'researchers' said things like "it's ok, no harm will come to them" etc so it's in no way valid.

There are tons of different variations of the Milgram experiment, each tweaking the set up slightly differently so they could work out exactly what role the authority figure had in influencing people. The role of the researcher as an example:

- no researcher present, subjects given a list of questions to ask and have no other guidance once in the room
- researcher present but silent
- researcher present but silent and wearing a labcoat (made a big difference)
- researcher present and not silent, and acting in various ways towards the subjects (sympathetic, firm, impatient, etc)
- researchers, in labcoat or not, sitting or standing
- researchers, in labcoat or not, sitting or standing at different distances from the subject
- researcher, in labcoat or not, in different room and giving instructions through an intercom

etc

Some of these run by Milgram, lots of variations done by others.

ziedth

I enjoyed it. Yes, you'd have to wonder how stupid the crowd is to not see something coming. I can't help but feel their reaction would have been madness had say David Mitchell been presenting it and Derrens involvement not known to the audience.

Having said that, they looked genuinely horrified after Derren explained what had happened. I also like they didn't clap him off or anything.

I couldn't honestly (crowd or not) have seen myself vote for anything bad after the bar bill. I was very uncomfortable watching it.

Overall, not as good as last week but still very watchable. Next weeks one sounds brilliant.

WesternNight

frisbeeface wrote: »

There are tons of different variations of the Milgram experiment, each tweaking the set up slightly differently so they could work out exactly what role the authority figure had in influencing people. The role of the researcher as an example:

- no researcher present, subjects given a list of questions to ask and have no other guidance once in the room
- researcher present but silent
- researcher present but silent and wearing a labcoat (made a big difference)
- researcher present and not silent, and acting in various ways towards the subjects (sympathetic, firm, impatient, etc)
- researchers, in labcoat or not, sitting or standing
- researchers, in labcoat or not, sitting or standing at different distances from the subject
- researcher, in labcoat or not, in different room and giving instructions through an intercom

etc

Some of these run by Milgram, lots of variations done by others.

Yes. But the crux of it is that they participants have to believe that they're inflicting pain on another. In the variation I've seen by Derren, they're reassured that they're not harming anyone. Which defeats the purpose entirely, no?

Johnny D. Mudd

I have to confess that I am a huge Derren Brown fan and enjoy his shows immensely. I greatly appreciate the psychological aspect behind many of his tricks. So you can imagine that my interest has really piqued with this latest series.

I can definitely appreciate that Derren Brown is a recognisable face and that an audience, appearing on such an elaborate show would be aware of his techniques and probably suspicious as to the validity of the entire setup. But let's not forget one thing here. Regardless of whether they were aware of the consequences of their decisions, this compilation of various audience members from all walks of life, having what I assume is a reasonable social conscience, actively set out to destroy one man's life in the small period of one hour. In every instance, they were given the chance to subject the victim to either a nice experience or a nasty experience. Each time they chose to go with the bad option, subjecting him to increasingly horrible scenarios and further sending him into the pits of despair. They weren't actively encouraged to go for the bad option but every time they took it upon themselves to go down that route. They were even given the chance to stop the experiment and give him some kind of respite but decided to go on.

The many facets of this particular experiment were intriguing, the white mask offering the audience anonymity, the ability to make potentially damaging choices without personal repercussions and most of all, the group dynamic that developed as the show went on followed by the increasingly thoughtless malice that ensued. I could ramble on about something you no doubt don't care about at all but I'll spare you and just say that I enjoyed it.

Yeah I know, TL-DR.

ziedth

^ are you sure your right? All I remember the researcher saying in Derrens version is "you have to complete the experiment". You could very well be right as it's been ages since I saw the heist.

frisbeeface

ziedth wrote: »

I enjoyed it. Yes, you'd have to wonder how stupid the crowd is to not see something coming. I can't help but feel their reaction would have been madness had say David Mitchell been presenting it and Derrens involvement not known to the audience.

Having said that, they looked genuinely horrified after Derren explained what had happened. I also like they didn't clap him off or anything.

I couldn't honestly (crowd or not) have seen myself vote for anything bad after the bar bill. I was very uncomfortable watching it.

Overall, not as good as last week but still very watchable. Next weeks one sounds brilliant.

Before the Milgram experiments mentioned above were done, people were surveyed about how many people (out of 100) they believed would give the 450 volt charge. The average of predications was 1.2. In the first experiment, 65% of people went to 450!
I also could not imagine myself doing that, though I'm conscious now that I have participated in acts of 'mob' bullying, especially when I was in school, that I would have never believed I'd take part in.

I wonder if Derren Brown is going to have to get other presenters in to front these sort of shows in the future. Fair enough him presenting when he needs buy in from the subjects, but I think a different presenter here would have been interesting.

Johnny D. Mudd

WesternNight wrote: »

Yes. But the crux of it is that they participants have to believe that they're inflicting pain on another. In the variation I've seen by Derren, they're reassured that they're not harming anyone. Which defeats the purpose entirely, no?

I think it was more to do with the "researcher" telling them this to try and reassure them so that they would continue on with the experiment, despite the fact that such a surge of voltage would no doubt kill someone. When placed in such a difficult and strange situation, it's difficult to remain reasonable and rational.

Busi_Girl08

I agree about the different presenter idea.

Get David Mitchell or (God help us) Noel Edmunds to present the whole thing, maybe have Derren in the background giving instructions, etc. Would have made it a lot more interesting.

frisbeeface

WesternNight wrote: »

Yes. But the crux of it is that they participants have to believe that they're inflicting pain on another. In the variation I've seen by Derren, they're reassured that they're not harming anyone. Which defeats the purpose entirely, no?

You can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w&t=3m3s

The scientist just tells him to go on but I haven't watched it all and haven't seen the show i ages so it might have been different for others?

Oh wait, I see where you're coming from - the scientist says the shocks cause no 'long term' damage at around 5 minutes.

WesternNight

frisbeeface wrote: »

Oh wait, I see where you're coming from - the scientist says the shocks cause no 'long term' damage at around 5 minutes.

Yep. That's the one.

frisbeeface

WesternNight wrote: »

Yep. That's the one.

Interestingly that guy is the most broken up about it and refuses to go on!

frisbeeface

Johnny D. Mudd wrote: »

I have to confess that I am a huge Derren Brown fan and enjoy his shows immensely. I greatly appreciate the psychological aspect behind many of his tricks. So you can imagine that my interest has really piqued with this latest series.

I can definitely appreciate that Derren Brown is a recognisable face and that an audience, appearing on such an elaborate show would be aware of his techniques and probably suspicious as to the validity of the entire setup. But let's not forget one thing here. Regardless of whether they were aware of the consequences of their decisions, this compilation of various audience members from all walks of life, having what I assume is a reasonable social conscience, actively set out to destroy one man's life in the small period of one hour. In every instance, they were given the chance to subject the victim to either a nice experience or a nasty experience. Each time they chose to go with the bad option, subjecting him to increasingly horrible scenarios and further sending him into the pits of despair. They weren't actively encouraged to go for the bad option but every time they took it upon themselves to go down that route. They were even given the chance to stop the experiment and give him some kind of respite but decided to go on.

The many facets of this particular experiment were intriguing, the white mask offering the audience anonymity, the ability to make potentially damaging choices without personal repercussions and most of all, the group dynamic that developed as the show went on followed by the increasingly thoughtless malice that ensued. I could ramble on about something you no doubt don't care about at all but I'll spare you and just say that I enjoyed it.

Yeah I know, TL-DR.

I thought the edited video they played of the subject's interview at the start was great, the way the really set him up to look like a bad guy who deserved a bit of punishment.

Da Shins Kelly

I thought it was good. For some reason the bit where they all voted to allow him to get unfairly arrested disturbed me the most.

batistuta9

I missed the start of the show but thought it was a poor concept to do a program on. Is it not obvious/well known that people will act differently when part of a group. Think about people taking the hand out of someone because everyone else is doing it, when if they were on their own they probably wouldn't

in the show people chose the 'bad option' because it's more 'fun' to watch

smashedhat

The people making the point about it being much more effective had it been a different presenter are spot on. If they had absolutely no idea that Derren Brown was involved at all the results of the experiment would have a lot more validity. But how could they achieve this? Can Channel 4 advertise for participants for a fake show without mentioning Derren Brown? Or do they legally have to declare what kind of show it is, i.e. a Derren Brown show? If they could have done this, and the audience members were not Derren Brown fans, then the results would be far more powerful. As others mentioned, because it's Derren Brown, they know that really everything is in control. And yes how gullible are they to believe Derren Brown would be presenting such a silly gameshow, they knew there was a pay-off and this definitely influenced their negative choices. I think Derren missed a trick by not bowing out of this one and having adifferent presenter. Still great entertainment though

Busi_Girl08

batistuta9 wrote: »

I missed the start of the show but thought it was a poor concept to do a program on. Is it not obvious/well known that people will act differently when part of a group. Think about people taking the hand out of someone because everyone else is doing it, when if they were on their own they probably wouldn't

in the show people chose the 'bad option' because it's more 'fun' to watch

Well the whole theme of the experiment series, according to the trailers is to see "what are the limits of human behaviour"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfvAhJLNlc

Last week we saw how far you could go with hypnosis, and how it can make someone do something so totally morally wrong, eg. throwing acid in someone's face, murder.

There was the build-up in this, it started off (relatively) small with the girl accusing him of pinching his arse, then that escalated, then the bar-man, the shop, the police, then the kidnap.

Also, here's the cynic in me...who thinks there was at least one plant in the audience who suggested smashing the tv?

smashedhat

Yeah, think there was definitely at least one plant in the audience to goad everyone else. Just one person shouting out like that can influence a whole group. Just think back to classroom days. One messer could get everyone fired up

WesternNight

smashedhat wrote: »

Yeah, think there was definitely at least one plant in the audience to goad everyone else. Just one person shouting out like that can influence a whole group. Just think back to classroom days. One messer could get everyone fired up

That's significant in itself tbh. That one person can influence a hundred to do things they wouldn't do otherwise.. that's kind of the point of the experiment really.

ziedth

WesternNight wrote: »

That's significant in itself tbh. That one person can influence a hundred to do things they wouldn't do otherwise.. that's kind of the point of the experiment really.

That's why i Think there wasn't a plant. Because strangely having one would be more interesting.

H8GHOTI

One of his worst shows imo.

The audience knew that the guy wasn't really getting arrested & he wasn't actually going to lose his job, so obviously they voted for the 'bad' things. They weren't really that bad.
I'm surprised that some of the votes were like 60/40 to be honest. On a show like that who is going to vote for "the boyfriend says sorry & buys him a pint"?
Maybe the kidnap was one step too far, I think I would of voted for giving him the cash prize.

The only reason the audience felt bad at the end was because they thought he was after getting hit by the car.
If they didn't do that, I don't think they would have got that many shots of people looking sad or feeling sorry for what they did.

As mentioned already, when someone shouted out smash his tv, I was a bit skeptical. The guy in his bedroom had goggles on hand and all. Really?

Johnny D. Mudd

frisbeeface wrote: »

I thought the edited video they played of the subject's interview at the start was great, the way the really set him up to look like a bad guy who deserved a bit of punishment.

That struck me too. It was almost as if it was a deliberate ploy in order to make him seem deserving of any punishment that he gets and thus allows the audience to really destroy him without feeling guilty about it.

smashedhat wrote: »

The people making the point about it being much more effective had it been a different presenter are spot on. If they had absolutely no idea that Derren Brown was involved at all the results of the experiment would have a lot more validity. But how could they achieve this? Can Channel 4 advertise for participants for a fake show without mentioning Derren Brown? Or do they legally have to declare what kind of show it is, i.e. a Derren Brown show? If they could have done this, and the audience members were not Derren Brown fans, then the results would be far more powerful. As others mentioned, because it's Derren Brown, they know that really everything is in control. And yes how gullible are they to believe Derren Brown would be presenting such a silly gameshow, they knew there was a pay-off and this definitely influenced their negative choices. I think Derren missed a trick by not bowing out of this one and having adifferent presenter. Still great entertainment though

Well bringing in another person to play as host of the show seemed, on the surface at least, the rational way to go about it without shattering the audiences willingness and belief. But any host who does take that role is unlikely to carry that same charisma and influence as Derren does. Derren's shows employ a lot of showmanship but there's also a lot of psychology behind it all, something that few hosts would be able to employ as skillfully as Derren does. He's used to using several techniques to confuse and coerce audiences. Sure he could teach a host the basic tricks of the trade but even then that host wouldn't have the benefit of years of experience at this level.

leggo

Yeah I think it would have likely been important that Derren host the show for a variety of reasons.

First off, you'll notice how precise his mannerisms are (such as laughing off the bad option to coax the audience into feeling it's 'just a game'). Another host, no matter how skilled or experienced, may not have been able to pull that off. Remember, the likes of Noel Edmonds are only skilled at hosting...not necessarily the concentrated and intentional deception of others. Then you've got to take into account whether they would be willing to host it and be seen to con the audience, whether they could have possibly even taken the moral high ground and given the game away mid-experiment as things got worse, and so on.

The thing I loved about this was how simple it was. You can downplay the long-term effects all you like but that's what made it work. The fact is, I know that if I was arrested and lost my job, that would be my plan to move to the US destroyed and I would be personally devastated. Even if it was for just 20-30 minutes, that's still a traumatic thing to put someone through when you have an easy option to give them a bit of hope.

Another thing I love is how self-perpetuating the experiment is. You see people come on here and saying they wouldn't have voted for this and that. I'd like to think I wouldn't either. But the point is that you can't possibly know how you'd act. And claiming that on here actually proves the experiment's point, you're individualising yourself in doing so.

For example, I'm sure we'd all like to think we wouldn't slaughter innocent people either...but note the accurate references to Nazi Germany within the show.

When faced with no consequences for your actions and a more attractive option (in the show, it was the more 'fun' option; in Nazi Germany, it was the promise of a better future after years of deliberate suffering at the hands of Europe), the experiment shows that the majority will go for the nasty option, time and again. The proof is in the pudding...they did!

It's a particularly bleak aspect of human nature to ponder, one we'd all like to think we're exempt from - especially with no solution or redeeming factor - but the catch-22 about human nature is that we cannot affect it and yet the illusion of 'free will' compels us to think that we can.

frisbeeface

Good interview with Derren Brown about the programme on the channel 4 website.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown/articles/derren-brown-on-channel-4

cruizer101

Just watched now on 4od. Its very hard to know how you would react when just looking in but I'd like to think I would have been nice enough but guessing I would have joined with the crowd a certain amount. However I'm pretty sure I owuldn't have gone ahead with the kidnapping and would have gone with the 10000.

The thing I wonder about is the impact on the victim I know he did go for an interview for a show but did he in that agree that stuff could happen to him. And all he got for it was a replacment tv for the one that was smashed, the fact alone that they had that there ready for him, does make me think there may have been a plant in audience, or maybe the baseball batt was planted in the hope of encouraging someone to shout 'smash stuff up'.

Also the whole being arrested thing seems kinda dodgy to me. Considering they weren't actually police officers its akin to kidnap. Fair enough he probably went with them willingly but that was becasue he believed them to be police officers. To me I think there is some stuff there that is very close to, if its not, breaking the law, like impersonation of a police officer.

WesternNight

cruizer101 wrote: »

The thing I wonder about is the impact on the victim I know he did go for an interview for a show but did he in that agree that stuff could happen to him.

That's a legitimate concern alright. With any (proper) psychological experiment that may have a negative affect, participants are debriefed. Plus any further counselling that may be required is offered. I can only presume that Derren provides any and all debriefing etc that's needed.

And all he got for it was a replacment tv for the one that was smashed, the fact alone that they had that there ready for him, does make me think there may have been a plant in audience

One of the previous audience options was to give him a new TV, so it makes sense that they had that there.

Giruilla

Just watched this last night. I'm a huge fan of Derren, but this is easily his worst show so far (up there with messiah). Think his shows are taking a turn for the worse since Andy Nyman left his production.

Was this show not just basic common knowledge?? I wasn't suprised by a single thing that happened, and all of the 'bad' things that happened were fairly boring to watch.

I'd also be absolutely convinced that there were several stooges
in the audience to stir the crowd up, especially as Derren never said his usual 'no stooges are used in this show' at the start. All he said was everything you see, really happened.

I wish he would just go back to magic and mentalism, as this crusade he seems to be on to make the UK into logical and relativistic thinkers is getting seriously tiring.

Duggy747

I thought this show was weak compared to the 1st episode. Nothing was surprising in how the audience would react and we pretty much got the jist of his experiment at the start, it was just waiting 50 minutes to see it's obvious conclusion that it would go too far and end up being a trick on the audience.

Actually, what I thought was the most surprising element in the entire show was that a girl I know was in the audience and didn't realise it until the camera was zoomed in on her face :pac:

Treehouse72

Loved the Guilt Trip last night.

Busi_Girl08

Much better than last week, anyways.

Had a feeling there would be something big about him going outside the front door again.

el diablo

Anyone know when/if the episode "The Secret of Luck" will be repeated. I missed it again last night.

smashedhat

el diablo wrote: »

Anyone know when/if the episode "The Secret of Luck" will be repeated. I missed it again last night.

Not sure if it'll be repeated, but U can watch it on 4oD

Giruilla

I'm guessing he used a loaded dice at the end of the secret of luck.

The gameshow one with the guy jumping through the door at the start.. I think Derren used a lot of words with B in them when explaining the choice, and after one door had marking on the floor to further influence the decision not to pick that door.

I thought the show had more to say about influencing peoples choices than about deindividuation.

el diablo

smashedhat wrote: »

Not sure if it'll be repeated, but U can watch it on 4oD

Thanks, found it online.