Russian Roulette Live

[Gingerbread Man]

It wouldn't be a trick, nor magic. Well, he wants you to believe it is a trick, doesn't he? Do something unbelieveable?

I once saw this person who said he would ask questions, and the person he asked could only answer no. Pretty much, a celebrity heads where the only answer you are given is no. The guy found out the answer just by listening to the voice of the person saying no. The uncertainty in the voice meant the person was lying.

 

[willemvanoranje]

I'd have shot myself...I believed the bullet was in chamber #2. He first thought it was in 5, then realised it was in #1.

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by Dell19
him being a magican

He's not a magician.

Regardless of whether or not this was a trick, he's not a magician by trade.

 

[Padma]

Perhaps not a magician by trade, but the term "magician" is commonly used as a generic term covering all who perfom "stage magic", i.e., illusionists, mentalists, etc.

And this most certainly fits that description.

 

[willemvanoranje]

well, he said he could do it with psychology right? Analyzing their looks, their words, their beahviour...etc.

 

[Grille]

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
well, he said he could do it with psychology right? Analyzing their looks, their words, their beahviour...etc.

Well, I would say the same thing, if I was a magican (see Padma's definition for this expression).

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by Padma
Perhaps not a magician by trade, but the term "magician" is commonly used as a generic term covering all who perfom "stage magic", i.e., illusionists, mentalists, etc.

And this most certainly fits that description.

Nope.

He does't do stage magic and he doesn't do illusions. You may feel that this applies to mentalists, but there is no hint of, or attempt at magic, simply psychological analysis. It's nothing magical at all, simply scientific.

 

[Grille]

Originally posted by phoenix_night


Nope.

He does't do stage magic and he doesn't do illusions. You may feel that this applies to mentalists, but there is no hint of, or attempt at magic, simply psychological analysis. It's nothing magical at all, simply scientific.

No way. Sorry, but that's naive.

If you follow the link I posted in post #13, he's indeed called "illusionist".
Note that this site's content seems to change frequently, so here's an actual quote:

The six-episode Mind Control series showcased psychological illusionist Derren Brown's scary but hypnotic skills. From the Oxford Union to St Pancras Station, and from Margate to the Tate, we saw him pick pockets, read minds ? and always know who's lying.

Now anyone claiming he could read minds is a magician (=stage artist or some sort of entertainer), no?

 

[nixon]

He sounds like a real dope. Well, of course, nobody would be stupid enough to blow out their brains on live national television, anyway.

 

[jpowers]

Hasn't England had enough of these guys with David Blaine?

 

[willemvanoranje]

hasn't the world had enough?

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Grille
Now anyone claiming he could read minds is a magician

He doesn't read minds. He gets people to think what he wants them to think then tells them what they are thinking. The appearance is that he has just read their mind.

Originally posted by nixon
Well, of course, nobody would be stupid enough to blow out their brains on live national television, anyway.

Word of advice, never underestimate the stupidity of humanity.

 

[Grille]

Originally posted by MrPresident

He doesn't read minds. He gets people to think what he wants them to think then tells them
what they are thinking. The appearance is that he has just read their mind.

Heck, I do not think that he really reads minds, while I would totally agree on your statement here.

But the mind-reading stuff is mentioned on the channel4 site. Note: that "?" after "read minds" in the quote I made earlier derived from copy&pasting a "-". Here's the link again:
http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/M/mindcontrol/


What I wanted to say is: If Mr Brown (or the editor of that site) claims that he reads minds, I call Mr Brown some sort of entertainer. Period.
Hence, he did not play real Russian roulette. Period.
Hence, I do not see why I should measure this TV broadcasting with my moral standarts.


If I'd put a comment on this fake Russian Roulette thing, I'd have to logically start ranting at movies like e.g. "The Deer Hunter" or some (boring *obsolete*) trick performed by other magicians (entertainers) as well... like this one:

see post #19:
Well, we do not really complain about some magican cutting a cute woman into halves with a
saw in public, do we?

In this particular case, the magician (read... or better: spell LOUD ENTERTAINER) does even bring harm to another human being. My moral standart says that's even worse than trying to not shoot in one's own head.

Cheers

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Grille
If Mr Brown (or the editor of that site) claims that he reads minds, I call Mr Brown some sort of entertainer. Period. Hence, he did not play real Russian roulette. Period.

That is bizarre logic. Mr Brown does read mind in the sense that he can tell a person what they are thinking. He simply gets them to think what he wants them to think first. Secondly, is it not entertaining for a person to play real Russian roulette? Do not circus high wire acts walk across a high wire? Magicians usually do perform dangerous stunts as part of their magic tricks (the being buried alive trick comes to mind), it is just those stunts are not the stunts we are lead to believe that they are performing. Saying something is an entertainer and therefore cannot put themselves in any real danger is quite clearly ridiculous.

 

[Grille]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Mr Brown does read mind in the sense that he can tell a person what they are thinking.

Now that I wouldn't call mind-reading in general. Anyways.
It could be indeed easy to predict another one's thoughts in a specific situation. Now if you somehow arrange a specific situation, you could eventually predict the associations that may be in someone's mind. You make a behaviour study or something like that, analyse what people do or think, and then you may be (statistically) just right with your "mind reading".
Create this situation for me: put me in a sauna w/ a hot chick and read me mind...

Secondly, is it not entertaining for a person to play real Russian roulette? Do not circus high wire acts walk across a high wire? Magicians usually do perform dangerous stunts as part of their magic tricks (the being buried alive trick comes to mind), it is just those stunts are not the stunts we are lead to believe that they are performing.

Well, I might feel entertained. I never said I wouldn't.
I just said that I would not measure the Russian roulette thingie with my standart set of moral rules (-->I thought this was the poll's topic).
If we both played real Russian roulette in a TV show, we'd be probably dead, because we lack of training, "mind reading" capabilities, whatever.
But a professional can obviously reduce his risk.

Saying something is an entertainer and therefore cannot put themselves in any real danger is quite clearly ridiculous.

Totally agree. Who mentioned that kind of crap?

So as far as the original topic of this thread is concerned, I say that Mr Brown's performance wasn't outrageous. Maybe I would have felt entertained in an amazing way.

So as thread starter, care to share your opinion? I mean is this performance morally adjusted for TV broadcasting in your eyes?

 

[GerrardCapashen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3169388.stm

It was all a hoax, as I had suspected from the start. Questions about the illusionist's sanity aside, no television executive would allow any chance of viewers being traumatized by the gory and unexpected death of the magician. They'd get fired, and the network would get its collective @$$ sued by viewers claiming emotional trauma. Actually, i think that such lawsuits would be far less frivolous than your typical I-have-no-self-responsibility-so-I'm-suing-you suit; I think that even people who deliberately tuned in would be shocked and appalled by an event like this.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Grille
So as thread starter, care to share your opinion? I mean is this performance morally adjusted for TV broadcasting in your eyes?

Everything morally okay to show on television, including this program, as long as it is: a) Legal and b) On late enough.

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by Grille
No way. Sorry, but that's naive.

If you follow the link I posted in post #13, he's indeed called "illusionist".
Note that this site's content seems to change frequently, so here's an actual quote:


Now anyone claiming he could read minds is a magician (=stage artist or some sort of entertainer), no?

That's in no way naive.

He's not called an "illusionist", regardless of what the BBC or Channel 4 may state when reporting or advertising the stunt.

And he doesn't claim to "read minds". I believe I am far more familiar with his "work" than yourself.

 

[Padma]

I won't argue with you being more familiar with his work.

But...

He uses tricks to create the illusion that he can read minds.

Therefore, he is an "illusionist",

commonly referred to as a "stage magician".



And I won't continue this threadjack any further.