Thread: Derren Brown: How to control the nation

The whole show in 5 parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kleU33g9kKU

It only works if you truly believe it works.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

It only works if you truly believe it works.

No actually it does not.


I just finished watching it, damn the part of the people giving money away like mad and the guy giving his SHOES away was awesome.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

It only works if you truly believe it works.

Well, my sister truly believed it would work, though I said that she made herself believe it in my first post. Oops.

No actually it does not.

It's all psychological. You have to believe it works, even at the subconscious level.

Had absolutely no impact on me. And the quality of the youtube vid was excellent.

Similarly with lucid dreaming, I've effortlessly achieved things first time that many struggle with. The only limitation I found was with light switches not working, even when I didn't believe it in the slightest (though I did immediately disprove the idea that light levels can't be changed by 'thinking' the light on instead). Very few things seem to be limited by the brain's software. Many things are limited by expectations.

A lot of Derren's other illusions work on a similar principle. There's one where he manages to manipulate how people spin a set of tables, and convinces them they're not moving the table but following it. Obviously they are moving the table, they're just not aware of it.

Also have to bear in mind that some people are simply 'weak-minded', and easily influenced.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Also have to bear in mind that some people are simply 'weak-minded', and easily influenced.

Actually with hypnosis they say it works better on people with more creative personalities. Ofcourse, he did say it only worked on higher resolutions.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

It's all psychological. You have to believe it works, even at the subconscious level.

What are you talking about, Perception Without Awareness has nothing to do with belief.

One can still not belief it will work, and still be affected.

Watch the part where he test different videos in six people. They are not aware of what is going to happen, but it still happens.

Did the guy who gave his shoes away believe it would happen? No he did not.

Now, in hypnosis one operates with the term "suggestibility", some people are easy to influence and some are not. If you have a high suggestibility you can easily be hypnotised to do or experience certain things. You can still believe hypnosis is bullshit, but that often change after the person do some crazy act while hypnotised.

Ofcourse, he did say it only worked on higher resolutions.

The image resolution on youtube was not far off that used for conventional TV broadcasts. The quality of the video was more akin to HD.

Actually with hypnosis they say it works better on people with more creative personalities.

Who's 'they'? Sounds more like a placating mechanism to me "wow I must be creative if this worked!". Furthermore, there are many aspects to creativity.


When watching the part where he tries the stunt you can hear him emphasising certain words like stuck; they're essentially commands that the weaker-minded people obey at the subconscious level.

Similarly with experiments such as the Milgram experiment; a lot of people carry out commands unquestioningly when it comes from what is perceived as an authority figure. And that's simply due to a lack of critical thinking on their part.

It's all rather fascinating though.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

The image resolution on youtube was not far off that used for conventional TV broadcasts. The quality of the video was more akin to HD.



Who's 'they'? Sounds more like a placating mechanism to me "wow I must be creative if this worked!". Furthermore, there are many aspects to creativity.


When watching the part where he tries the stunt you can hear him emphasising certain words like stuck; they're essentially commands that the weaker-minded people obey at the subconscious level.

Similarly with experiments such as the Milgram experiment; a lot of people carry out commands unquestioningly when it comes from what is perceived as an authority figure. And that's simply due to a lack of critical thinking on their part.

It's all rather fascinating though.

If you think they are weaker-minded people you could just as well be one yourself.

You can't compare the Milgrain Experiment with PWA or hypnosis.

You are wrong if you think critical thinking makes one immune to either of these. I would love to see you get hypnotised by a professional, to deflate that ego-thinking of superiority. I am sure that would be hilarious and ironic.

If you think they are weaker-minded people you could just as well be one yourself.

Uh huh. That's like saying "if you think they are less intelligent, you could just as well be one yourself", or indeed apply it to any quality.

Simply making a judgement (or suggestion) does not automatically mean a person also fills the criteria of it. That's just foolish. I can apply your logic to countless situations to demonstrate this:

"If you think he is a criminal, you are probably one yourself"
"If you think he's lying, you must also be a liar"
"If he's got something to hide, you probably do as well"

You are wrong if you think critical thinking makes one immune to either of these. I would love to see you get hypnotised by a professional, to deflate that ego-thinking of superiority. I am sure that would be hilarious and ironic.

What would you say if I were immune to it? Would you then apologise profusely?

You can't compare the Milgrain Experiment with PWA or hypnosis.

I didn't. I said you could clearly hear him giving commands if you were looking out for it (as well as other ques). I didn't say this was the only technique he was using. I specifically compared the giving of commands to the Milgrain experiment.

And critical thinking does mean you are less likely to follow commands blindly (which is the only part I mentioned critical thinking). Why do you think soldiers are conditioned to follow orders as much as possible? Because if they start critically thinking they are more likely to question orders, particularly ones that put them in danger.




Furthermore, let me quote Derren Brown himself on hypnosis from his book Tricks of the Mind:

Originally Posted by Tricks of the Mind, page 123

hypnosis works [...] because the subject believes the process is effective

Originally Posted by Tricks of the Mind, page 135

This is a very interesting state of affairs. It begs the next question: is there a qualitative difference between what happened to the people who knew I was there but made themselves ignore me and those that said they really didn't see me. The former case sounds as if the subject was concerned with complying with my requests, albeit at a very immediate gut level, due perhaps to a certain pressure to conform.

I could find quotes all day, but I suggest you read the book instead, as it is a very interesting read.


You don't have to be so hostile by the way. It sounds as if you're taking my comments rather personally; have you been hypnotised or something? Is that why you're so offended?

I have recorded it in HD

I am going to keep it so I can have a laugh with my friends.

If you think they are weaker-minded people you could just as well be one yourself.

Should have been:

If weak-minded = high suggestibility.
Photolysis might has a high suggestibility.
Photolysis might be weak-minded.

If I then state that suggestibility has many contributing factors other than anything intellectual or anything with belief, and then when you value "critical thinking" to low suggestibility the premise of weak-mindedness falls.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

What would you say if I were immune to it? Would you then apologise profusely?

No why should I? Most people are not highly susceptible to hypnosis.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Furthermore, let me quote Derren Brown himself on hypnosis from his book Tricks of the Mind:

It's easy to quote out of context..

I say again, one can easily be hypnotised or be affected by PWA without believing it in.

PWA is by definition working unconsciously with the mind, critical thinking has nothing to do with the unconscious mind.

Read this on hypnosis and critical thinking:

"In hypnosis a person is more open to suggestion, which is another way of saying that a person is more open to suspending habitual perceptual and thinking biases. There is already a term to describe this mode of thought: critical thinking. Critical thinking allows purposes, questions, information, inferences, concepts, assumptions, implications, points of view, beliefs, and situations to be analyzed, evaluated and restructured with reduced constraints of habitual conscious or unconscious mental biases.

Furthermore, hypnosis is a process in which a person adopts new patterns of perceiving, thinking, feeling and behaving. Another term for the adoption of new patterns of perceiving, thinking, feeling and behavior is learning.

Thus we can derive a new definition of hypnosis: Hypnosis is a specific learning state; it is the enhancement of critical thinking followed by selective acceptable suggestion.

This definition explains increased openness to suggestion without suspension of judgment. Critical thinking is expansive; it is open to multiple possibilities. It can consider a situation (or suggestion) from multiple perspectives. Rather than rejecting reflexively it can allow a suggestion to accepted as true, and consider and act upon it as true, when it is in the best interest of the person, and yet retain the ability to reject it when is contrary to core beliefs and values."
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/A..._Hypnosis.html

Originally Posted by Photolysis

You don't have to be so hostile by the way. It sounds as if you're taking my comments rather personally; have you been hypnotised or something? Is that why you're so offended?

I'm not taking them very personal, it was just obvious that you had a less experienced view on hypnosis. Using that to wrongly conjecture yourself and elevate you above some people is not right.

It's easy to quote out of context..

Yeah. Too bad I didn't eh? You'd know, if you'd read the book.

No comment on the text about hypnosis and critical thinking?

I think it reveals another aspect that should not be ignored.

I have now acquired his book "Tricks of the Mind" and "Pure Effect", I am sure they will be interesting. Maybe then you can find sources that demonstrates clearly that the subject does not have to believe in it for it to work.

I don't think Derren Brown really meant that his "revelation" was absolute.

Or perhaps I preferred to spend my Sunday afternoon doing more enjoyable things than in a tedious debate?

You would be wise to stop projecting characteristics on to people so readily.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Or perhaps I preferred to spend my Sunday afternoon doing more enjoyable things than in a tedious debate?

You would be wise to stop projecting characteristics on to people so readily.

Readily, readily..

Well, you are backing out now. Fine.

But I find this a bit ironic:

"You would be wise to stop projecting characteristics on to people so readily."

When you call a large portion of the population you don't know weak-minded, based on thin air.

Well, you are backing out now. Fine.

I didn't say that either, that's yet another thing to add to the list.

When you call a large portion of the population you don't know weak-minded, based on thin air.

Most people are not highly susceptible to hypnosis.

Make up your mind.

And yes, my hypothesis that weak-minded people (i.e. people who are easily swayed by others) are the ones most susceptible to this is so far out there and baseless. Even though there is plenty of evidence that it requires belief to work, and by definition weak-minded people are people who are more likely to believe this unquestioningly and readily. Such a massive leap in logic and thinking to come to that conclusion.

using that to wrongly conjecture yourself and elevate you above some people is not right.

I'll savour the irony of you accusing me of using conjecture. You've spent more time in this thread jumping to conclusions about me, as well as using my statements out of context, than not.

Here's what you've accused me of so far on little to no basis:

Being egotistic
Implied that I was weak-minded myself
Quote mining (despite giving the source and a page number and actually providing it in the correct context)
Accused me of running away because I didn't bother to immediately give a detailed reply when in the middle of recreational activities that I was taking a quick break from
Accused (or implied) I lack intellectual integrity due to not immediately responding to a statement. (particularly funny as you haven't retracted your previous comments and apologised for them; that says quite a bit about you actually)

Read this on hypnosis and critical thinking:

I see no real reason to believe the author; what credentials does he have? The main site itself does not appear particularly scientific nor impartial.

Do the words "citation needed" mean anything?

Originally Posted by from the article

Isn't this the same protective function that allows a person to keep smoking for years and years, or keep a person at an unhealthy weight despite struggling to eliminate excess weight? Can a person really trust the protective function to rightly judge the acceptability of suggestions?

Who says this has anything to do with it? This makes the assumption that the person really does want to stop smoking (etc) at the subconscious level - on what basis?

Ironically Occam's Razor (which the author suggests using) gives 2 far more likely alternatives

1) The person doesn't really want to give these items up at their deepest level, even if intellectually they know it would be good for them.

2) Even if they do, the drive to continue this behaviour overpowers any motivation not to continue it.

This is a far simpler suggestion because it doesn't postulate a failure of an inbuilt mechanism and that their will is being taken away. It only suggests that either a person isn't as committed as they believe, or that one force is greater than another.

This one particular example that made me especially sceptical about the author's credentials.

PWA is by definition working unconsciously with the mind, critical thinking has nothing to do with the unconscious mind.

And as we know, unconscious impulses always rule and cannot be overridden by the conscious mind.


See how tedious and dull this is? See why I'd rather have spent my Sunday doing something I enjoy rather than being sat at a computer arguing over something I didn't really want to get dragged to in the first place?


Do I think these kinds of things work best on those who are easily swayed? Yes, I do. Do I think that is the only factor that governs a wide range of tricks regarding this subject and is the sole psychological factor? No I don't.

And with that said, I am now finished with tedious argument. Before you accuse me of anything else, do you really want to add something else to the list of baseless assertions you've made against me?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Who's 'they'? Sounds more like a placating mechanism to me "wow I must be creative if this worked!". Furthermore, there are many aspects to creativity.

Funny you should mention that. It sounds to me that your argument is a placating mechanism "I must not be weak-minded if this didn't work"

If you can follow directions, you can be hypnotised.

Well, I guess nobody did watch it on T.V when it was on then from the replies (as on the internet it supposedly doesn't work)

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Funny you should mention that. It sounds to me that your argument is a placating mechanism "I must not be weak-minded if this didn't work"

All very well, except why would I be angry it didn't work on me and thus require a placating mechanism?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Make up your mind.

And yes, my hypothesis that weak-minded people (i.e. people who are easily swayed by others) are the ones most susceptible to this is so far out there and baseless. Even though there is plenty of evidence that it requires belief to work, and by definition weak-minded people are people who are more likely to believe this unquestioningly and readily. Such a massive leap in logic and thinking to come to that conclusion.

I have made up my mind.

Ehh, are the words "A large portion of the population" not compatible with less than 50% of the population? I think so.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I'll savour the irony of you accusing me of using conjecture. You've spent more time in this thread jumping to conclusions about me, as well as using my statements out of context, than not.

Here's what you've accused me of so far on little to no basis:

Being egotistic
Implied that I was weak-minded myself
Quote mining (despite giving the source and a page number and actually providing it in the correct context)
Accused me of running away because I didn't bother to immediately give a detailed reply when in the middle of recreational activities that I was taking a quick break from
Accused (or implied) I lack intellectual integrity due to not immediately responding to a statement. (particularly funny as you haven't retracted your previous comments and apologised for them; that says quite a bit about you actually)

I did not imply you was weak-minded? How can you read that lol. My argument was a demonstration to show you or anyone else with a high suggestibility was NOT weak-minded.

I didn't directly accuse you of "quote mining" as you call it, because I simply didn't knew whether you did or not. And I couldn't check without having access to the book.

Didn't you read "I don't think Derren Brown really meant that his "revelation" was absolute."? That sentence was about your quote.

And I am curious about this accusation () of yours "Accused (or implied) I lack intellectual integrity due to not immediately responding to a statement. (particularly funny as you haven't retracted your previous comments and apologised for them; that says quite a bit about you actually)" Can you explain on that one?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I see no real reason to believe the author; what credentials does he have? The main site itself does not appear particularly scientific nor impartial.

Do the words "citation needed" mean anything?

Well, I don't think credentials or appearance of the main site is important here, just the plain text. You have no reason to believe the author, but I do think some of the arguments makes sense.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Do I think these kinds of things work best on those who are easily swayed? Yes, I do. Do I think that is the only factor that governs a wide range of tricks regarding this subject and is the sole psychological factor? No I don't.

I think we do agree on most things regarding this.

Basically, the phrase "the weaker-minded people" is quite distasteful. It separates humanity in two categories. Your intention can be otherwise, but the phrase itself leaves no doubt.

I thought we had learned from history what happens when such philosophical opinion becomes prevalent. That opinion has much broader ramifications than might be initial thought.

Do not forgot that is forum is read by many people, each and everyone of us have a certain responsibility for what we are influencing people with. We do all influence each other, for the better or worse. If any of my words has change it for the better by a tiny tiny part this tedious and boring pile of words has been worth it.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

All very well, except why would I be angry it didn't work on me and thus require a placating mechanism?

I don't know you, but maybe it's because you have a large ego and are constantly biased in your favor regardless of your emotional state. What would you have said if it worked on you?

But again, I don't know you and I'm still not certain the video works on the internet.