Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Blair » Sun May 03, 2009 8:54 pm

Nah, you're just a dick mate.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Robert » Sun May 03, 2009 8:59 pm

Caused a bit of a youtube drama there Kevin with your 'Youtube Atheist Evolutionary Tree' video!

Interestingly, you didn't seem to catch much flack for stating that there were only females in the naïve category. You made up for that though with the flack you received from the whole video itself. You had Dan putting out fires all over the place!

I thought it was a fair analysis of the situation. I was surprised by the overly defensive nature of the criticism you got from a lot of these youtube atheists. They're a mixed bunch right enough, but they all share the same inability to turn their scepticism on themselves to the same extent that they happily rip apart their theist targets.
User avatar
Robert
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:52 am
Location: The Shire

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon May 04, 2009 12:06 am

David Quinn wrote:Diving immediately into the refuge of "fakery" is not unlike a religious person instinctively diving into the refuge of "mystery".

How much easier would it be to dive into the suggested explanation (suggested by Darren!) that he's a genius master of mind control, isn't it? He so easily pulls off feats many hypnosis experts could only dream of!

But Darren says about himself: ""I am often dishonest in my techniques ... I happily admit to cheating, it's all part of the game. I hope some of the fun for the viewer comes from not knowing what's real and what isn't" - Derren Brown, Tricks of the Mind p341.

Like the paying with blank sheets of paper: wouldn't it be easier to suppose Darren used suggestion to convince the owner to take the bundle of blank paper as well as a cheque of some kind? And of course the owner, puzzled about the stack of paper wonders about it and walks on the street. He's not behaving like someone who is robbed. Neither does the camera show any later interaction with the shop keeper or tries to make clear to the viewer no actual crime has been committed. Perhaps simply because no crime was actually there?


Let's consider one of his easier tricks to work out - Stephen Fry. Tell me what you think is happening here.

It's hard to examine the deck from this viewpoint but my bet is that's a quite common magician's prop, containing several 'force cards' in some repeating fashion (and some magic decks can change all colors upon a new spread, for example by changing the viewing angle!). The video contains a lot of misdirection (talk, smoke, speed) to prevent a clear picture for Fry. Darren already asks not the choose three of hearts, possibly thereby deselecting at least one or two of the so-called force cards. The remaining choices available in the deck could be narrowed down to two or three I think. Then Darren takes a "wild guess" (possibly also slightly forced by suggestive words like 'burning') during the repeating bit. If it would be a wrong guess, it would not matter much for the trick and it only would remove another one of the few possibilities, it was a special deck after all. Of course Darren has also stacked a few burning rolled up cards somewhere and he quickly changes his cigarette for the correct card (this is actually visible!)

There you have it, a solution hardly involving hypnosis or mind control! And thereby the more reasonable one especially since Darren explains the trick somewhere himself although a quick search didn't turn it up (it's called the 'smoke trick').
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon May 04, 2009 7:04 am

For further consideration, the trick 'Smoke' seems to be well explained in Brown's book "Pure Effect". Instead of quoting I'll summarize. As a side note: he doesn't consider it part of his more serious mentalist routine but more of a 'parlor trick' thrown in now and again.

Brown describes a special deck with a 'cycle' of eight cards (eg four reds, four blacks, two of each suit), they are the ones I called the "force cards" before. Because of special properties of this deck, the second spread contains all cards apart from those eight, so whichever is chosen, it won't appear the second spread.

Then starts what Brown calls a 'fishing expedition'. How soon he guesses the right card is a matter of coincidence, depending on the amount of cards in the cycle (15-25%). With Fry, it seemed like he had some luck guessing it so quickly. But a good magician has always many variants ready to finish the trick. He doesn't need to appear out of this world every time. Sometimes a good trick can be enough and he can repeat it with various famous comedians another time. Only the best tries will be broadcast...

Luck can be influenced by taking into account the type of person, perhaps trying some verbal "mind control" but Brown would never completely rely on only that, if at all. He also describes ways of 'cold reading' the card's color and high or lower value if the first guesses fail.

Evidence of the above could be obtained by zooming in on the deck. What you'll find out however is that these videos never allow you to do that as ultimately Brown controls what is being recorded and in how much detail in the end.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby David Quinn » Mon May 04, 2009 8:58 am

Are you saying then, Diebert, that peripheral things like the red square table cloth, the candles, his slipping in of phrases "teenaging kids" and "isolated", the continual distraction of his conscious mind, etc - all of it ostensibly to guide his mind towards choosing the king of diamonds - are themselves not part of the trick?

He wouldn't need a special deck if he could successfully plant the king of diamonds card in Fry's mind. So the question boils down to whether Brown, or anyone else, is actually capable of that degree of mental manipulation. You don't think it is possible?


Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Diving immediately into the refuge of "fakery" is not unlike a religious person instinctively diving into the refuge of "mystery".

How much easier would it be to dive into the suggested explanation (suggested by Darren!) that he's a genius master of mind control, isn't it? He so easily pulls off feats many hypnosis experts could only dream of!

But Darren says about himself: ""I am often dishonest in my techniques ... I happily admit to cheating, it's all part of the game. I hope some of the fun for the viewer comes from not knowing what's real and what isn't" - Derren Brown, Tricks of the Mind p341.

Like the paying with blank sheets of paper: wouldn't it be easier to suppose Darren used suggestion to convince the owner to take the bundle of blank paper as well as a cheque of some kind? And of course the owner, puzzled about the stack of paper wonders about it and walks on the street. He's not behaving like someone who is robbed. Neither does the camera show any later interaction with the shop keeper or tries to make clear to the viewer no actual crime has been committed. Perhaps simply because no crime was actually there?

That sounds very plausible to me. You've obviously studied him far more closely than I have.

What about the psychologist clip? What do you think happened there?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon May 04, 2009 9:15 am

David, I do think it's possible. We wouldn't have a trillion dollar advertisement business if it weren't so. But it's not easy to control the circumstances properly, to make it always work for a specific individual. One could just change the odds slightly in ones favor, which is enough when playing card games or bombarding a large audience.

What Brown seems to be doing is to merge subliminal tricks with a whole range of others techniques that are at his disposal. He controls lots of the circumstances and does know a thing or two about inducing a mild hypnotic state in others. But the problem with Brown is that he seems to enjoy making the audience believe he's always using mind-control even when he's not or hardly at all.

A better example would be therefore the video where the guy on the street hands him over the keys and a wallet (i think) and does it again after getting it back. It's hard to find any trickery there on face value. On the other hand the zombie movie seems rather unreal considering the immense risks taken and laws broken.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby |read| » Mon May 04, 2009 10:29 am

So let me get this straight, David. My answer on the previous page describing force cards was not what you had in mind when you asked

David Quinn wrote:Let's consider one of his easier tricks to work out - Stephen Fry. Tell me what you think is happening here.

You actually thought Brown subconsciously planted the king of diamonds in Fry's mind?
User avatar
|read|
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:16 pm

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby David Quinn » Mon May 04, 2009 10:41 am

Yes, and I still hold to that theory, if for no other reason than it is the most interesting one from a psychological point of view. The rigged card deck theory might well be the correct one, but I don't have enough information at this stage to make a determination one way or the other.

The most interesting issue for me in all of this is investigating to what degree the human mind can be manipulated by subliminal suggestion.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby David Quinn » Mon May 04, 2009 10:45 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:David, I do think it's possible. We wouldn't have a trillion dollar advertisement business if it weren't so. But it's not easy to control the circumstances properly, to make it always work for a specific individual. One could just change the odds slightly in ones favor, which is enough when playing card games or bombarding a large audience.

The problem with your theory about Brown trying the same trick on a number of different people and only showing the one that works (in this case, Stephen Fry being the "winner" amongst a group of comedians) is that word would start coming out. You can't keep that sort of thing hidden for too long, especially in the internet age. With Brown's growing reputation, you would think that people would be emerging by now to expose him. Has this happened? I've not seen any evidence of it, although it may be that I haven't yet looked in the right places.


What Brown seems to be doing is to merge subliminal tricks with a whole range of others techniques that are at his disposal. He controls lots of the circumstances and does know a thing or two about inducing a mild hypnotic state in others. But the problem with Brown is that he seems to enjoy making the audience believe he's always using mind-control even when he's not or hardly at all.

And not just gullible audiences too, by the sounds of it. If what you say of Brown is true, then he becomes a very interesting character indeed. At the core of his whole shtick is his defense of rationality and his desire to expose the trickery of religious charlatans - mediums, psychic readers, faith-healers, New Age leaders, etc. In taking this stance, he thus becomes attractive to scientists, atheists, sceptics, etc. What you seem to be saying is that Brown is deliberately trying to trick and manipulate these people in particular, who are among the most intelligent people in society. It would be his own secret pleasure, as it were.

He seems to have fooled Richard Dawkins, and he seems to have fooled Kevin Solway and myself as well. Most interesting, if true. Do you see him in this light?


A better example would be therefore the video where the guy on the street hands him over the keys and a wallet (i think) and does it again after getting it back. It's hard to find any trickery there on face value. On the other hand the zombie movie seems rather unreal considering the immense risks taken and laws broken.

I'm sure he can afford a good legal team.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby skipair » Mon May 04, 2009 11:17 am

Agree that sometimes Brown fakes his psychological influence. From what I've seen, I doubt that the people he uses are "in on it", but barring outright yoda powers, there are some effects that are inexplicable without, for example, off-camera pre-hypnosis to plant information that can be triggered later on.

On the whole, Brown's audience will be more eager to think real magic than to look for actual causes, so I cut him slack for over-contriving situations. His raw psychological influence is enough to impress me, the way that through his own independence and dominance he can access personal mental states that lead to normally dormant, subconscious insight and influence. The secret is usually in the perceived self-images in social interaction that call these states to mind. Making the access willfull is why I consider it next level, and something that can only be gained by becoming more scientific in isolating effective frames. In addition, this scientific narrowing can predict behavior that to non-experimenters would seem unpredictable. Social experimentation sold as magic.

I can't watch and comment on these videos because of this public library computer.
User avatar
skipair
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Dan Rowden » Mon May 04, 2009 11:32 am

Robert wrote:Caused a bit of a youtube drama there Kevin with your 'Youtube Atheist Evolutionary Tree' video!

Interestingly, you didn't seem to catch much flack for stating that there were only females in the naïve category.


I suspect a few people knew it was true. If you haven't seen cheeekamoomoo's response you should watch it. It is priceless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BbcZo5KOTA

You made up for that though with the flack you received from the whole video itself. You had Dan putting out fires all over the place!


There were a few to put out, I have to say. But the responses actually made the video worthwhile. It brought out atheist conceit and hypocrisy, as well as people's really bizarre belief that even without wisdom they know how wise people act.

I thought it was a fair analysis of the situation. I was surprised by the overly defensive nature of the criticism you got from a lot of these youtube atheists. They're a mixed bunch right enough, but they all share the same inability to turn their scepticism on themselves to the same extent that they happily rip apart their theist targets.


Yeah, that's what stood out the most in their responses. "ghostofday***" even made a jibe about pointing out people's flaws for the hell of it. I mean, wtf? Do these guys know the nature of their own videos?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Kevin Solway » Mon May 04, 2009 3:57 pm

|read| wrote:There were several small details that made me suspicious of the zombie video, mostly logistical, but the dead giveaway was the little blinks of light that can supposedly induce a catatonic trance in 1/3 of the population. Sometimes, a little knowledge of worldly matters goes a long way.

I agree with you |read|, to the best of my knowledge it's not possible to send 1/3 of the human population into a trance for 10 minutes just with a few flashes of light.

If it were true, it would be a damn good weapon to have on the battlefield!

And it would be a very effective way of picking up girls.

This is a case of the use of the "big lie".
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby David Quinn » Mon May 04, 2009 5:20 pm

What about the hypnotist's use of employing a certain word or snapping his fingers to put someone in a hypnotic sleep? If this can happen, why not a flash of light in a pre-prepared context?

Conversely, if it is so obvious that a flashing light cannot work in such a context, then why would a smart operator like Brown use it?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Kevin Solway » Mon May 04, 2009 8:38 pm

David Quinn wrote:What about the hypnotist's use of employing a certain word or snapping his fingers to put someone in a hypnotic sleep? If this can happen, why not a flash of light in a pre-prepared context?

In this case, the pre-suggestion wasn't made. This was supposed to be some random guy coming into a pub and playing a video game.

Conversely, if it is so obvious that a flashing light cannot work in such a context, then why would a smart operator like Brown use it?

Brown was using the "big lie". It's such a whopper, and so simple, that we will tend to say "surely he wouldn't lie to us in such an obvious way".
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby David Quinn » Mon May 04, 2009 9:08 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:What about the hypnotist's use of employing a certain word or snapping his fingers to put someone in a hypnotic sleep? If this can happen, why not a flash of light in a pre-prepared context?

In this case, the pre-suggestion wasn't made. This was supposed to be some random guy coming into a pub and playing a video game.

He may have planted the pre-suggestion beforehand, off-camera. He seems to have no qualms engaging in that kind of trickery - which is fair enough, given his agenda. In other words, the guy wasn't really a random.


Kevin Solway wrote:
Conversely, if it is so obvious that a flashing light cannot work in such a context, then why would a smart operator like Brown use it?

Brown was using the "big lie". It's such a whopper, and so simple, that we will tend to say "surely he wouldn't lie to us in such an obvious way".

The trouble is, his credibility would quickly erode if he starting doing things like that, causing people to dismiss everything he does as "fake". He strikes me as being far too smart for that.

Credibility is surely far more critical in his chosen career than in the guru business. He can't afford to dole out "big lies".

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Kevin Solway » Mon May 04, 2009 10:02 pm

David Quinn wrote:Credibility is surely far more critical in his chosen career than in the guru business. He can't afford to dole out "big lies".

There's way too much unbelievable stuff in that video for me to believe it. If the guy really believed that he shot that girl dead (deep in his mind), then he could be traumatized for life. Derren Brown isn't going to risk being sued for tens of millions dollars for causing that trauma.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue May 05, 2009 6:02 am

|Read|, reading back I noticed you described the Smoke trick with Fry earlier than I did. Somehow I missed it while you drew similar conclusions. Unless of course, I glanced over it while it worked on me subliminal and somehow nudged me to take on your view. Maybe, for entertainment purposes, we could leave it in the middle if this actually occurred or not :)

By the way, I do share your suspicions but I do not think Derren uses 'complete fakery' in obvious ways like using actors or record a scene many times and hide the failures. From all reaction I've seen from himself, his producers and his live audience it doesn't seem the case at all. It's more a case of creating cleverly a context (by selecting specific tricks for specific types of people in a specific place and props) which suggests an onlooker to interpret anything that happens in a particular way.

That said, he does use some bits of NLP and hypnosis but hardly to the extent he wants the audience (or the ones being hypnotized) to believe.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue May 05, 2009 6:53 am

David Quinn wrote:What about the psychologist clip? What do you think happened there?

The point is that the psychologist doesn't know either! He's not observing the written signs until later and Darren might have written the words himself but not before but after it was said each time (when implying writing the next word). This implies the camera doesn't show the complete room as the psychologist sees it.

Then the question how could the camera possibly deceive. The most crude possibility is that the screen is divided into two frames starting from 1:15, you can notice a cut. It would explain the efforts taken to switch sides in the beginning and appear to be in the same frame together by standing behind him etc. It seems really a bit too much - something is stressed, exaggerated here while the NLP crowd is looking right away for signs of inducing hypnosis induction of course, thereby perhaps forgetting a more obvious reason. Then Darren moves to the right and during the whole word game not moves inside the left half anymore. I find that suspicious.

I know this is a crude solution but exactly what a magician would do. He fools the psychologists with a rather simple trick and the audience with a different one and then blends them into one. It's quite some work to pull this all off in the way I'm describing it, but it's doable and within the accepted realm of self-admitted deceit and lies that a stage magician would operate in.
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Tue May 05, 2009 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue May 05, 2009 7:18 am

David Quinn wrote:The problem with your theory about Brown trying the same trick on a number of different people and only showing the one that works (in this case, Stephen Fry being the "winner" amongst a group of comedians) is that word would start coming out.

You're right that Brown is not trying to hide the failures. Actually it's been said he always shows the failures, only hides the ones rejected for other reasons and I can believe that. The point is that the other tricks not shown haven't failed, he still guesses the card in one, two or three (subtle) attempt at most. But perhaps he has perfected the trick by now using the subconscious, who knows? And that question, admits Brown himself, is the whole purpose of his act...

He seems to have fooled Richard Dawkins, and he seems to have fooled Kevin Solway and myself as well. Most interesting, if true. Do you see him in this light?

I do think he regards the "NLP" crowd and stuff like "the Secret" as the latest religion and likes to fool them, even while applying a few things he learned from there. Does Richard Dawkins believe all the psychological elements implied in the clips and shows? I'd have to check his interview.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue May 05, 2009 8:13 am

Kevin Solway wrote:There's way too much unbelievable stuff in that video [Zombie game] for me to believe it. If the guy really believed that he shot that girl dead (deep in his mind), then he could be traumatized for life. Derren Brown isn't going to risk being sued for tens of millions dollars for causing that trauma.

What if the screen of the video game listed a proposal like: "Do you want to earn $1000, then do this and that in such and such order, signed Derren Brown"? Could that explain what was happening? I mean, we do not see exactly what this game, designed by Brown himself produces on the screen every second. It's one possible way although it somewhat resembles hiring an instant actor. Not sure how bad that counts as deceit as he still influences behavior of someone by means of a game console. It's just not in the way the audience is made to believe.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Ataraxia » Tue May 05, 2009 8:43 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It seems really a bit too much - something is stressed, exaggerated here while the NLP crowd is looking right away for signs of inducing hypnosis induction of course, thereby perhaps forgetting a more obvious reason. Then Darren moves to the right and during the whole word game not moves inside the left half anymore. I find that suspicious.

I know this is a crude solution but exactly what a magician would do. He fools the psychologists with a rather simple trick and the audience with a different one and then blends them into one. It's quite some work to pull this all off in the way I'm describing it, but it's doable and within the accepted realm of self-admitted deceit and lies that a stage magician would operate in.
Yes, no doubt he draws on many different fields.

I don't think there is much of crowd in the "NLP crowd" as you refer to it though is there? It's been a number of years since I saw the dude mentioned earlier but I don't think they were ever packing out convention centres back then.

Are they more popular now?
Ataraxia
 
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby David Quinn » Tue May 05, 2009 10:34 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Credibility is surely far more critical in his chosen career than in the guru business. He can't afford to dole out "big lies".

There's way too much unbelievable stuff in that video for me to believe it. If the guy really believed that he shot that girl dead (deep in his mind), then he could be traumatized for life. Derren Brown isn't going to risk being sued for tens of millions dollars for causing that trauma.

I'm not so sure about that. He is a risk-taker by nature. His whole career is based on taking risks. I also think he is the sort of man who is ultimately striving for notoriety and legend-status, in the manner of a Houdini, rather than profit or instant celebrity. Getting sued won't harm that goal.

He has no qualms about deeply scaring people. I don't know if you've seen it, but there is an hour-long show he once did where he conducted a "seance" with a bunch of university students and managed to utterly terrify them. Outside of news reels, I have never seen such open terror captured on camera before, or since. (Given that he had explained to the students beforehand that it wasn't going to be a real seance, and that in his opinion all seances are contrived and fake, made it all the more interesting to watch.)

He has also involved people in a game of russian roulette, which attracted a lot of controversy. So I don't think the possibility of his tricks traumatizing people is particularly high on his list of concerns.

From observing his character, I would venture to say that the very idea of doling out "big lies" and creating fake tricks with actors and the like wouldn't interest him in the slightest. His mind is far too crafty for that. He just wouldn't see the point of it. For him, the challenge is to trick people in clever, subtle, interesting, risk-taking ways. You can see how much pleasure he gets when he pulls a difficult trick off.

Having said that, there is perhaps one way that doling out the "big lie" would interest him, and that is by performing one or two of them over the course of his career - out of character, as it were - and leaving it to others to debate the reality or fakeness of it, just as we are doing here. I can imagine that sort of thing would amuse him. But if he did this too often it would quickly lose its shock value and become mundane and self-defeating in the long run. Maybe this is one of them.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby David Quinn » Tue May 05, 2009 12:21 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:What about the psychologist clip? What do you think happened there?

The point is that the psychologist doesn't know either! He's not observing the written signs until later and Darren might have written the words himself but not before but after it was said each time (when implying writing the next word). This implies the camera doesn't show the complete room as the psychologist sees it.

Then the question how could the camera possibly deceive. The most crude possibility is that the screen is divided into two frames starting from 1:15, you can notice a cut. It would explain the efforts taken to switch sides in the beginning and appear to be in the same frame together by standing behind him etc. It seems really a bit too much - something is stressed, exaggerated here while the NLP crowd is looking right away for signs of inducing hypnosis induction of course, thereby perhaps forgetting a more obvious reason. Then Darren moves to the right and during the whole word game not moves inside the left half anymore. I find that suspicious.

I know this is a crude solution but exactly what a magician would do. He fools the psychologists with a rather simple trick and the audience with a different one and then blends them into one. It's quite some work to pull this all off in the way I'm describing it, but it's doable and within the accepted realm of self-admitted deceit and lies that a stage magician would operate in.

Well, we would have to haul in a technical expert to examine the footage to see if your theory was correct.

But let's take it all on face value and see if we can work it out from an NLP standpoint. This would be my reading of the situation:

Brown's determination that the secret image was a side-on cat with its tail in the air comes from two words he planted earlier in the piece - "nutcracker" (0:27) which conjures up the image of a squirrel, and "catch me out" (3:54), with emphasis placed on CAT-ch.

In the word-disassociation game, his first two failures helped him assess the way the psychologist's subconscious mind worked. The words "orange" (an orange lamp in the room) and "trash" (a trash-can) were objects in the room, but the psychologist instead revealed a preference for things outside the room.

The next one, eating-water ski, came from words and phrases planted earlier - in particular, "do relax and you're welcome" (1:06) suggesting hospitality, and "look forward, feel comfortable and I'm going to sit behind you" (1:08) which, if combined with some kind of foreknowledge, perhaps a holiday picture on the desk, could suggest water skiing. Notice how Brown enunciates the word "eating" in a very clear, distinct manner, suggesting that it is a code-word.

Tie-school may have simply been planted by the way Brown acted as a kind of school master throughout the entire clip. Probably the last time the psychologist found himself in such a passive, submissive position inside an office was back at school.

I found the buffalo answer the hardest one to account for. Perhaps it comes from the earlier implanted words "....behind you. I don't want you to look at what I'm doing. I'm just going to take some notes behind you" (1:11), which could suggest a scientist studying animals running blindly in a herd, and the psychologist's own earlier answer, "horse" (1:53). The "horse" answer told Brown that the psychologist's subconscious mind naturally gravitates towards animals, or that the earlier "nutcracker" plant was having an effect. Knowing that the psychologist wouldn't repeat the horse answer, he banked on him turning instead to one of America's most well-known herd animals.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Blair » Tue May 05, 2009 7:20 pm

The Derren Brown seance is the best trick of his I have seen.

Part 5 below, has the actual meat of the matter, but its best to watch all of the show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTc-c2DxUgQ
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue May 05, 2009 8:15 pm

Ataraxia wrote:I don't think there is much of crowd in the "NLP crowd" as you refer to it though is there? It's been a number of years since I saw the dude mentioned earlier but I don't think they were ever packing out convention centres back then.

Perhaps my use of the term "crowd" is a little confusing. But there's a huge interest in the power to control or train the mind and a lot of confusion about the extent to which this is actually possible. Like with NLP, hypnotherapy, motivational courses, memory training and so on. The sky is the limit! Or not? Couple this with the conspiracy oriented thinking with its suspicions of media manipulation, mass chemical influencing, extensive government propaganda and more of such belief in the utmost vulnerability of the human mind in a sea of influence.

Now there's an underlying truth here: that the mind appears quite more flexible and suggestible than commonly assumed. In this notoriously gray area of uncertainly about the power of the mind Darren seems to be operating with style. In a way he's exploiting the uncertainty and at the same time raising our interest in the topic, encouraging everyone to investigate more. Thereby creating a bit of justification for himself and it's not like he's really hiding being a magician with a twist.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests

cron