|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Josh the Superfluous Inner circle The man of 1881 Posts 
|
I see where Platt is coming from. My problem with magicians making extraordinary claims starts when they provide services other than entertainment. They can talk to a deceased swami to locate a hidden object, but they shouldn't speak for your dead uncle. I am uncomfortable with magicians claiming supernatural powers, but that's my problem. I find comfort in knowing the naive can always ask, "If he does have these powers, why doesn't he.....". As long as DB isn't curing the sick, helping the police, or being taught in science class, I'm probably OK with him. Although my exposure to him is from You-Tube clips as well.
What do you want in a site? "Honesty, integrity and decency." -Mike Doogan
"I hate it, I hate my ironic lovechild. I didn't even have anything to do with it" Josh #2 |
|||||||||
bitterman Inner circle 1188 Posts
|
I can crush light bulbs with my a** cheeks, does that count as 'supernatural'?
If you are not cheating, you are only cheating yourself.
Dutchco is about to put out some new Ebook: DUTCHCO. Get 'em while you can. |
|||||||||
|
Josh the Superfluous Inner circle The man of 1881 Posts
|
Find someone who eats broken glass, and you got an act!
What do you want in a site? "Honesty, integrity and decency." -Mike Doogan
"I hate it, I hate my ironic lovechild. I didn't even have anything to do with it" Josh #2 |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts
|
When I referred to the statements made at the start of his "programs", I was referring to his live stage performances. Sorry for any confusion. It's a Canadian thing. In his performances of "Something Wicked This Way Comes" he included the statement that he is not above lying to the audience if he thinks it will improve the effect, but he tells them that 'he will always be honest about his dishonesty'.
Quote:
On 2007-02-09 09:06, ChristopherM wrote: I've no idea if Christopher's remarks are motivated by his own religious beliefs, but I'd suggest that his remarks seem purposefully misleading. Notice he writes his version of Brown's "opening line" in his book, not in quotation marks, but in sub-quotes. In fact, Christopher's remarks are just not true. Brown's opening line, in his preface, speaks of a visit to the London Aquarium. Christopher's mis-quote is from the first line of Part One, page 7. What Brown actually wrote is: "The Bible is not history". Quote - Unquote. Brown does indeed write about his own experience with religion and his disillusionment therein (taking 7 pages of the book's 390 pages), although I don't recall the word atheism being used at all, despite Christopher's ascribing that word to him. He speaks of this process of disillusionment as a means of describing his discovery of magic and hypnotism. He also makes it clear that he approaches that subject only from a "layman's interest". This is directly at odds with Christopher's contention that: "The premise and undertone behind all of this is that these are really his 'skill areas'." In fact, apart from personal stories and the description of his experience of disillusionment with organized religion, the book does indeed deal with the areas of expertise that Brown possesses and uses in his work. Magic, Hypnosis and Suggestion, Memory systems, NLP, Unconscious communication, are all discussed in the book. These are things Brown has obviously spent considerable time studying and using in his work. With regard to what he claims or doesn't claim in his performances, I think that the name of Brown's television series and the subsequent book might give discerning viewers/readers a clue. Both are called: Tricks of the Mind. In the book Brown explains that what he does is an offshoot of Magic often referred to as Mentalism. Brown states that what he does is a mixture of trickery and psychology, which is patently true. He also states that, in order to maintain a certain amount of mystery or mytique, a certain ambiguity is sometimes necessary. I think that anyone who performs Mentalism understands this point and, unless they have a particular personal axe to grind with Brown, they can accept it. Christopher fuzzes the edges of the truth when he states that: "The statement at the beginning of the TV show is, prima facie, 'true'. It was only introduced in the more recent series." In fact, the statement that Brown makes at the beginning of every episode where he states that what he does is based upon: "a varied mixture of magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship" has been in place for his last several series. While it's true his first episode ever, in his very first series claimed that what he would present were not tricks, are we to now wag our fingers at him for what he no longer does? He wrestled with his conscience about his disclaimer, and for years now has chosen a more honest and open stance. And still those like Christopher carp about what he said in his first television episode, ignoring the fact that he's thought better of it and has done differently for several years. I find it odd that Christopher does not mention one specific chapter in Brown's book: Anti-Science, Pseudo-Science and Bad Thinking. It is in this chapter where Brown states his own opinions on subjects such as Science and Relativism, Belief in the supernatural, Alternative Medicine, and Mediums, Psychics and Charlatans. Christopher's past posts seem to deal mainly with things from the Magician's perspective, rather than showing any insight into the Mentalist's mindset, so he can be forgiven perhaps for not understanding Brown's genuine expertise in the areas he claims, and how he uses those skills in his work. However, I don't think his mis-quoting and mis-representing the "premise" of Brown's book should go by without comment. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 22780 Posts
|
Derren Brown is to a hypnotist what Velvita Cheese is to a dairy product.
He is trying to entertain an audience. Does it matter if the audience "believes" he is doing one thing when he is doing another? I think it is not that entertaining. THAT is unethical!
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
C. Loubard Special user 615 Posts
|
Quote:
I think it is not that entertaining. THAT is unethical! ROTFLMAO that is funny Danny. I nearly spit my drink all over the keyboard. thanks for getting my day started with a good laugh |
|||||||||
|
ChristopherM Special user UK 841 Posts
|
I've put some comments in between entity's paragraphs below.
Quote:
On 2007-02-10 01:02, entity wrote: No problem - was just pointing out that this line isn't in the disclaimer at the start of the TV shows. The line from Something Wicked is clever, and gets a laugh. Quote:
Not motivated by my own beliefs, no. Not misleading on purpose either. The subquotes were because that's how speech marks are used in print. Not on purpose, to downgrade it or whatever, I think you read too much into that. The opening line was not referring to the preface, but to the main body of the book. Quote:
Christopher's mis-quote is from the first line of Part One, page 7. What Brown actually wrote is: "The Bible is not history". Quote - Unquote. I apologise; I don't have the book in my possession, it's at home at the moment, and I'm not. I said 'fact' and not 'history'. It's not a million miles away, and in a lot of cases, the two can be interchanged anyway. What he is trying to say in writing that chapter, is that he doesn't think that it is truth. What I was pointing out is that this is more akin to a 'voice of reason' as Platt suggests, rather than an entertainer. Very few, if any, others, would begin their books with this. And the target audience here is the general public. He is writing this to the public, trying to put across this view. That is what I was pointing out. Quote:
Brown does indeed write about his own experience with religion and his disillusionment therein (taking 7 pages of the book's 390 pages), although I don't recall the word atheism being used at all, despite Christopher's ascribing that word to him. He speaks of this process of disillusionment as a means of describing his discovery of magic and hypnotism. He also makes it clear that he approaches that subject only from a "layman's interest". This is directly at odds with Christopher's contention that: "The premise and undertone behind all of this is that these are really his 'skill areas'." I don't ascribe the word atheism/atheist to him, he says he is one. The reading references at the end of the book list several writings on atheism and religion, like I say, eg writings by Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins. It is obvious that he is an atheist. I was not referring to the 'skill areas' relating only to the first part of the book, I was saying that the subjects on which he writes are those he purports to draw on without fail in his performances. Having seen Something Wicked, I'm sure you realise that he uses, first and foremost, magical methods. The explanation offered to the audience just before they leave at the end is false. This is the last thing to remain in their memories. Platt's original question was to do with whether or not this kind of behaviour is ethical. It's an interesting question, and an interesting topic. Quote:
In fact, apart from personal stories and the description of his experience of disillusionment with organized religion, the book does indeed deal with the areas of expertise that Brown possesses and uses in his work. This is a terse summation of the book, and I agree to an extent. What Simon Singh objects to is the fact that he pretends he uses psychology more than he actually does, to bring about his effects, and that the audience is led to believe that it is actually possible to achieve the effects through psychological methods alone. The question of this thread is whether or not this is unethical. Quote:
Magic, Hypnosis and Suggestion, Memory systems, NLP, Unconscious communication, are all discussed in the book. These are things Brown has obviously spent considerable time studying and using in his work. Actually he is very hesitant to recommend NLP, and is sceptical as to its applications and potential. Wikipedia says: 'Also, in response to the accusation that he unfairly claims to be using NLP whenever he performs, Brown writes "The truth is I have never mentioned it".' Quote:
With regard to what he claims or doesn't claim in his performances, I think that the name of Brown's television series and the subsequent book might give discerning viewers/readers a clue. Both are called: Tricks of the Mind. The first 3 series were called Mind Control. The public were presented with him first claiming not to be doing magic tricks. So now are they supposed to think that he has since started doing them? Quote:
In the book Brown explains that what he does is an offshoot of Magic often referred to as Mentalism. Brown states that what he does is a mixture of trickery and psychology, which is patently true. He also states that, in order to maintain a certain amount of mystery or mytique, a certain ambiguity is sometimes necessary. I think that anyone who performs Mentalism understands this point and, unless they have a particular personal axe to grind with Brown, they can accept it. Ambiguity or lack of explanation is acceptable in any magical/mentalism performance. What Platt is asking is whether or not fake explanations purporting to be real are acceptable or unethical or not. Quote:
Christopher fuzzes the edges of the truth when he states that: "The statement at the beginning of the TV show is, prima facie, 'true'. It was only introduced in the more recent series." How does this 'fuzz the edges' at all? What I say is correct. The disclaimer has been in the past 3 series that have aired, but didn't feature in the first 3. The public have been told by him at the outset that what he does is 'mind control'. This opinion/understanding doesn't change in an instant. Are we now to expect them to realise that actually he doesn't claim that it's mind control any more - has his ability shifted? Quote:
He wrestled with his conscience about his disclaimer, and for years now has chosen a more honest and open stance. And still those like Christopher carp about what he said in his first television episode, ignoring the fact that he's thought better of it and has done differently for several years. Those like me? I enjoy watching the shows, and find his work interesting. He did say that in his first show. This is the first impression the viewers got from him, immediately after he revealed the 'Princess Card Trick'. I don't ignore the fact that he no longer says it. What my post was trying to do is to start to piece together an idea of what the public may think about him. Quote:
I find it odd that Christopher does not mention one specific chapter in Brown's book: Anti-Science, Pseudo-Science and Bad Thinking. It is in this chapter where Brown states his own opinions on subjects such as Science and Relativism, Belief in the supernatural, Alternative Medicine, and Mediums, Psychics and Charlatans. I didn't mention one of the chapters by name - so what? Nothing fishy intended. No need to find it odd. Quote:
Christopher's past posts seem to deal mainly with things from the Magician's perspective, rather than showing any insight into the Mentalist's mindset, so he can be forgiven perhaps for not understanding Brown's genuine expertise in the areas he claims, and how he uses those skills in his work. I understand that the audience thinks that he is using those skills, and that in reality, most of the time he is not using them when they think he is. Is this practice unethical? Quote:
However, I don't think his mis-quoting and mis-representing the "premise" of Brown's book should go by without comment. Thanks for your comments and pointing out my mistaken substitution of 'history' with 'fact'. Cheers, Chris |
|||||||||
|
Josh the Superfluous Inner circle The man of 1881 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-02-09 19:10, bitterman wrote: Quote:
On 2007-02-09 20:31, Josh the Superfluous wrote: I thought this was real funny, so I thought I'd repeat it. 
What do you want in a site? "Honesty, integrity and decency." -Mike Doogan
"I hate it, I hate my ironic lovechild. I didn't even have anything to do with it" Josh #2 |
|||||||||
|
AJX New user 65 Posts
|
Heh. I am reading a book at the moment that I found in the fiction section of the bookshop. It even has 'fiction' (in very small print) written on the back. This is most unethical ! Unless I keep flicking to the back and reading that word, I keep forgetting it's fiction.
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27469 Posts
|
So, how would it be to REALLY be able to sense those things?
How would someone like that feel in a crowd? What would they feel when they watched the news? Or would such a character portrayal be even more unethical?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Platt Inner circle New York 2104 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-02-12 05:46, AJX wrote: I think the key part of your statement is "I found in the fiction section of the bookshop." That tells you everything you need to know. Had it been placed in the the non-fiction, or in the case of James Fry's MLP, the memoir section of a bookstore, it would be most unethical and people could demand their money back for misrepresentation. Oh wait, that's exactly what happened. So how does this relate to DB? Well, I know two people who first saw him on a non-fictional program on The Learning Channel. So clearly he's in the wrong section of the "bookstore." As for the little tag fiction on the back cover, not once did anything from DB or the show mention anything about entertainment, magic, and certainly not fiction.
Sugar Rush is here! Freakishly visual magic. http://www.plattmagic.com
|
|||||||||
|
AJX New user 65 Posts
|
Well, then your point is fair enough- I have never heard of the Learning Channel so cannot comment upon that. In the shows that the public I was aware of currently see, the effects ARE presaged by a clear disclaimer. I don't think he could be fairer than he's being. Most are aware that they are being hoodwinked in some manner, those that aren't tend to be cranks or idiots. I think ethics in advertising or medicine might make an ideal substitute for concern in this area but DB's activities are as clean as they can be whilst still providing the needed air of mystery.
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27469 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-02-12 09:01, AJX wrote: http://tlc.discovery.com/ reading is fundamental writing is an advanced skill.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
AJX New user 65 Posts
|
Well, thanks a lot. It's hardly of any note though really. Another lurid TV channel. Great.
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27469 Posts
|
It gets worse, there are wrestling shows on the sci-fi channel.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
AJX New user 65 Posts
|
Ah yes I've seen it- it's the same one where David Icke reads the news and Uri Geller does the weather forecast.
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27469 Posts
|
Check the sci-fi channel schedule.
It's stranger than your attempts at wit.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
AJX New user 65 Posts
|
Quote:
Ok. What did you mean by the above ? |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27469 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-02-12 10:45, AJX wrote: Are these items in the programming schedule where you are?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
AJX New user 65 Posts
|
No. It was intended as a jovial remark. I'm English, you see.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Derren Brown - Unethical? (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Feb 9, 2007 10:23 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2026 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement <
|