On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:36:53PM -0300, juan wrote:

...

The skills of illusion, and "mentalism" are quite real.. and if you watch more of his stuff, especially the longer videos or full episodes where he breaks down the hows and whys of it working, perhaps you'll be less likely to say its fake. It's easy to dismiss a magic trick as "camera edits" when you just have a 3 minute video. It's a bit harder when the magician explains the whole thing to you.

Magic tricks don't have much to do with this. Magic tricks rely on exploiting shortcomings of perception, "the hand is quicker than the eye", that sort of thing. But indeed nobody believes that those magic tricks are 'real' magic. If anything they prove that people are rational and know that magicians can't make rabbits dissapear - they know it's 'illusion'.

If on the other hand Derren is 'staging' the jewelry store video, that means he and the guy at the shop are playing a part and the video isn't even 'illusion', it's outright fake.

This guy had a show in the UK for a while.. on one of his specials he "programmed" 4 people to perform armed robberies without being directly told to, supposedly using visual cues and a whole bunch of other total NLP bullshit. Suffice it to say I think the thing is a total fucking fake. I would have no problem with Darren if he just claimed to be an illusionist like David Copperfield and performed tricks, but he tries to act like James Randi, and like all his shit is on the level - he really convinced X to do Y using psychological methods... The heist episode I mentioned is particularly preposterous. Link to the full episode for anyone who wants to waste 45mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHbACoYNSA

...

He uses a lot of techniques, but "neuro-linguistic programming" (NLP) is the bread-and-butter.

NLP is widely discredited pseudo-science crap. http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html "..It seems that NLP develops models which can't be verified, from which it develops techniques which may have nothing to do with either the models or the sources of the models. NLP makes claims about thinking and perception which do not seem to be supported by neuroscience.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming "..There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates and it has been discredited as a pseudoscience by experts.." John

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:10:27 -0000

...

It's all about misdirection, and subtle cues.

Yes, but there isn't anything extraordinary about it. He's simply trying to distract his target. There isn't any profound scientific principle or insight behind that.

I don't really think of it as all that profound, honestly. To me, its trivially obvious by looking around that people aren't primarily rational. It's obvious that con-men can play all sorts of games, trick people, play on emotions and psychology, and bypass people's reason. To me, this is simplistic, and clear. As it should be, to you.

In that same video he fails to scam a guy who sells hotdogs - as a matter of fact the hotdog guy is rather pissed off. But then he sucessfuly steals $4500 from a jewelry store? Not believable at all, not even as staged entertainment.

Apparently you've never spent any time in New York. I found this amusing, and it didn't surprise me at all. People who work on the streets in any capacity, are often quite aware, and aren't easily hustled. And again, it doesn't work on everyone. I've said this from the outset.

The point is that you are advancing an anti rationalistic view of human nature, and apparently presenting as evidence stuff that...isn't convincing.

To you. You have a strong rationalistic bent, and you're very tied to the notion, ideologically. Libertarianism is rooted in the notion of rational self-interest. And, to be clear, I wouldn't say I'm anti-rationalist. That is too strong. People CAN BE rational, but they are not NECESSARILY, or PRIMARILY. Should people be more rational? Yes, I think I'd agree with that. But I'm not dealing in shoulds, and wishes here. My intention with using Derren as an example is that his work, in terms of highlighting the effects of NLP, shows how rationality can be bypassed in certain conditions, with certain people.

Magic tricks don't have much to do with this. Magic tricks rely on exploiting shortcomings of perception, "the hand is quicker than the eye", that sort of thing.

Some does. Some is just about misdirection, getting you looking at the hat, expecting a rabbit to pop out, while the magician walks across the stage and pulls a lever. No slight of hand involved.

But indeed nobody believes that those magic tricks are 'real' magic. If anything they prove that people are rational and know that magicians can't make rabbits dissapear - they know it's 'illusion'.

There are plenty of people that get amazed, confounded, and think the tricks of a David Blaine, or Chris Angel, and so on are - in fact - real and supernatural. But that is besides the point. I'm not even talking about superstitious people and nonsense beliefs.

OK, so maybe handing the bottle of water makes it more likely that they other guy would hand something in return. A neat trick, which might work. Sometimes. Still, this is no sound philosophical principle.

I'm not claiming anything in this as a philosophical principle. This particular strand of conversation started at Tom's suggestion that people have to, at some level, rationally think over what they do when they hand their wallet over when someone puts a gun in their face. It's nonsense, and with just a little bit of clear thought, its obvious. Ever been driving a car, taking a route you often take, space out a bit in your thoughts and 10 minutes later you realize you've been driving for miles, taking multiple turns, without "paying attention" to the road, at all? You'd been "rationally thinking" about something entirely else, maybe a project at work that is stressing you? You don't need to THINK about your actions, to perform them. The rational, conscious mind, fades out and goes on vacation regularly with just a tiny amount of stress like that. Induce large amounts of stress, and it can be lights out, for all practical purposes. Derren's illustrations with the wallet aren't even inducing stress. He's just trying to select people walking along that look spaced out, and in their own thoughts a bit. If a person was walking along, thinking in their mind about a logical, deductive argument, or rationally problem-solving an engineering issue, or something like that the trick probably wouldn't work. Almost certainly. But if the person is remembering things, calling up old details, and their minds are not engaged in critical problem-solving, its more likely to work. It's all about the state you're in before he approaches. And muggers know the same thing. Best way to avoid a mugging? Well, don't be in a shitty section of town.. but second best? Be aware. When you see someone approaching, look them square in the eye, with a slight smile. If someone pops out of an alleyway, doorway, or somehow comes up on you quickly .. once you're in earshot, keep that eye contact and be the first to talk. "Hey, Front Street is up this way, yeah?" Or "Hey got the time?" Whatever. A simple question, as soon as he processes that question, toss out a compliment "Nice hat, by the way." Why is this? First, the mugger is looking to get you unaware. He wants the script to run this way: the first time you notice him is when he threatens you. He wants you looking at the gun, or the knife, and not his face. He wants you surprised, and scared, so that you won't remember much of what he looks like. He wants your adrenaline to dump, and time to dilate for you. Every beat cop has heard "I didn't get a good look officer, it happened so fast." So you need to notice him before he threatens you. Be aware. He doesn't want you to know what he looks like. Look people in the eye. Talk first. This is key, because it means you're setting the stage, not him. When you ask him what time it is, you're throwing his rhythm. The compliment makes it likely his ingrained response will be to say "Thanks." Before he knows what happened, he's thanked you, and your on your way, and it makes it "difficult" for him to run his mugger script the same way.

So he failed 50 times and then tricked one guy for 10 seconds. Is that evidence against rationalism?

For the purposes of our discussion, yes. Because we're talking wide-scale social phenomenon. I'm not worried about the con-men of the world doing this one-on-one, or Derren Brown getting a small number of people to do something egregiously irrational, like handing over their wallet to a stranger. But skilled person can use NLP type techniques, through media, to persuade people at an emotional level, on a wide-scale. It doesn't have to be so egregious as handing over a wallet. It can be combined with argumentation that, strictly speaking is poor, but sounds kind of plausible and then buttressed with persuasion techniques like this. In that way, which I see advertisement and politicians do regularly, there are very real limits to how effective rationality is. And again, I'm not trying to attack rationalism, as such. Rationalism is GOOD. But we have to understand that, for many people, its a bit fragile. It can be bypassed.

As in you can trick some people under some special circumstances for a short period? Yes. But I don't think there are wider implications.

If you only choose to focus on issues with one entertainer, and the limited scope of the examples presented, sure. But if you look at how others use NLP techniques, how people can get biased by speech to make certain choices that seem to them "random" and "free" and yet were selected for them, there are pretty huge implications.