Derren Brown investigates

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

It's a pity as well we seen nothing of Joe's claims to have been helping the police solve crimes for over 10 years.

[DavidMWW]

I agree this was a fantastic show, and I'm really looking forward to the rest of the series.

Did anyone else feel sorry for Joe Powers? I didn't think he was a con-man - just highly deluded. His whole identity is so invested in being "psychic" that he doesn't even notice the obvious deceptions he perpetrates upon himself (he saw the girl's Mini, his sister told him stuff about her neighbour etc). He reacts with angry defensiveness to anything that might expose these deceptions because it threatens his sense of self.

Pitiful, really.

[Matt]

Saw bits of this due to an itchy remote finger. Wasn't expecting much but caught the last twenty minutes and wished I'd sky plussed it. Then caught ten minutes of the earlier part on the plus one channel before I had to take myself off to bed.

Did seem to do that thing where a documentary trails itself which I find rather irritating. However it did a rather thorough job on Joe. Wished I'd known how Derren pulled off his reading. He gave the impression it was all cold but I'm guessing he must have spotted some blue cat hair or something much the same as Joe indignantly swears he never saw her driving her mini.

Assuming he is a fake (of course) then the "affair" line Joe used at the end of the reading just shows how much a wanker he really is.

[Harryprice]

This doesn't make sense to me. Not all experiences are subjective, and how can an experience be subjective if it has an objective cause? If it has an objective cause, then it can be also be experienced by a third party, so presumably is not subjective.

But if all experience is subjective, then you're saying that there is evidence of [subjectivity... Again, I'm confused. Isn't the very nature of evidence to be concerned with objectivity? Roughly speaking, objective evidence is fact, subjective evidence is opinion - ie; evidence for nothing.

OK, I think we're getting tangled with subjective, objective, external and internal (the last two with reference to the percipient's brain).

Firstly, I define an experience here as subjective, because it cannot be shared. We cannot know if two people see a tea pot, or the colour red, in exactly the same way, only that they both recognise it and agree on what to call it. I am not using the word experience colloquially, in the sense of somebody seeing something in the real world. In my definition, a hallucination or dream are both equally valid experiences that happen to have no external (to the brain) cause.

So, to me, there are two kinds of experience - those caused by an external event and those caused internally to the brain. Both are objectively and measurable. You can obviously measure what someone is seeing by taking a photo of it. You can also see that someone is dreaming by using fMRI or PET scans to observe their changing brain state (it might even be possible soon to actually observe someone's dream content!).

So, both types of experience have an objective cause - one internal, one external.

All a paranormal investigator knows is that someone has reported an experience. Provided they are not simply lying, there was some objective cause for that experience. They could, for instance, have had a hypnagogic episode. In that case there is no external cause but it is still a real, valid experience. In the case of misperception, there is an external cause which can be discovered. Multiple witnesses may misperceive the same object in the same way while others don't misperceive it at all. This corresponds to typical mulltiple witness reports of ghost sightings where, generally, some see the apparition and others don't (or they see something different).

This seems muddled to me. Evidence isn't an object, it's a relation between sets of propositions. I think a more useful concept would be to talk about the strength of evidence, rather than "types" or "kinds" of evidence.

I take a simpler view. Evidence is the trace left by some change of state in the universe. A 'trace' could be anything that has changed, including someone having an experience. It is not about propositions, it is about implying what changed from what is left, without preconception.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I agree this was a fantastic show, and I'm really looking forward to the rest of the series.

Did anyone else feel sorry for Joe Powers? I didn't think he was a con-man - just highly deluded. His whole identity is so invested in being "psychic" that he doesn't even notice the obvious deceptions he perpetrates upon himself (he saw the girl's Mini, his sister told him stuff about her neighbour etc). He reacts with angry defensiveness to anything that might expose these deceptions because it threatens his sense of self.

Pitiful, really.

No sympathy, he's a shameless publicity seeker (see Shannon Matthews case) and when you get to this stage I have absolutely no doubt their abilities are driven by self-interest rather than self-delusion. I don't know how they could sustain it otherwise - constant readings and shows (when he doesn't have to cancel them due to poor ticket sales). I think the best you can say for people like him is that they are possibly narcissistic and can't help themselves.

Saw bits of this due to an itchy remote finger. Wasn't expecting much but caught the last twenty minutes and wished I'd sky plussed it. Then caught ten minutes of the earlier part on the plus one channel before I had to take myself off to bed.

Did seem to do that thing where a documentary trails itself which I find rather irritating. However it did a rather thorough job on Joe. Wished I'd known how Derren pulled off his reading. He gave the impression it was all cold but I'm guessing he must have spotted some blue cat hair or something much the same as Joe indignantly swears he never saw her driving her mini.

Assuming he is a fake (of course) then the "affair" line Joe used at the end of the reading just shows how much a wanker he really is.

It will be on 4OD.

[DavidMWW]

I have to admit that, having seen his website, I'm finding it a lot harder to sympathise.

But I still think he genuinely believes he is psychic, and that the biggest victim of his dishonesty is himself.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I have to admit that, having seen his website, I'm finding it a lot harder to sympathise.

But I still think he genuinely believes he is psychic, and that the biggest victim of his dishonesty is himself.

I'd still argue that he is only delusional as far as in that (like many others, Ogilvie included), they think they can manage to fool intelligent people in the same way that they can fool their fans.

That's the only explanation I can give for their willingness to appear in these programmes.

And the fact that no matter how appallingly they come across, it probably attracts many more people to them for readings.

[Admin]

One of my interests regarding psychic readings is in how the way language is used to construct meaning between the reader and the sitter. What was mentioned in the programme was the stark difference between Power's first hot reading (of his sister's neighbour) and the cold reading (of the person he'd never met before). Both his demeanour and his use of language were quite different in both cases.

I think you can quite clearly tell the difference between hot and cold reading by the way the psychic uses language. Whether it would be possible to tell the difference between hot reading and genuine psychic ability, who knows? I guess we can come back to that one when a genuine psychic is found.....

The basic unit used in psychic (cold) readings is the 'triad of exchanges':

1. Psychic asks a question or hints at some uncertain information (I have a mother-type figure here);
2. The sitter validates it or makes it fit (my grandmother died last year);
3. The psychic then, and only then, takes the psychic credit (yes, because your grandmother is standing right behind you and she's telling me...)

There were several examples of this going on in the programme.

The reason they do it this way (question, validation, psychic attribution) is because a lack of validation at step 2 means that the psychic hasn't at this point made the psychic link specific, so inaccurate information can be discarded (or the info changed) without damaging the illusion of psychical contact.

So although Joe Power claimed that he 'doesn't do cold reading', he most certainly does. Whether he does it knowingly is another matter, but he uses several techniques in his reading style that are classic cold reading.

[Jules]

I take a simpler view. Evidence is the trace left by some change of state in the universe. A 'trace' could be anything that has changed, including someone having an experience. It is not about propositions, it is about implying what changed from what is left, without preconception.

I think a little of both is necessary for the full picture. "Traces" due to change of state + consciousness directed in a certain way.

You might enjoy this article:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/

Regarding the programme, did you notice Joe Power went to use the toilet before he started the last reading? perhaps he was hoping to pick up some "hits" thereby.

I'm not particularly a fan of DB, but this was worth watching.

[PaulW99]

I'm a fan of DB (he once "guessed" my phone number at a live show) and I'm very much looking forward to seeing this program soon (I'm overseas at the moment). He's always been an enemy of the psychics but hasn't done much about it.

But just as a quick sidestep - is it known yet how he did that lottery number trick?

[Harryprice]

I think a little of both is necessary for the full picture. "Traces" due to change of state + consciousness directed in a certain way.

You might enjoy this article:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/

Interesting article. There is a fundamental difference between the kind of logic used there, however, and that used in scientific research. We KNOW that shoelaces can be in a tied and untied state - indeed we define those two mutually exclsive states to exist. So it is is easy to construct proposiitions about that and similar situations.

However, in scientific research we are dealing unknown unknowns, as Rumsfeld put it. We cannot know in advance how some novel phenomenon works so we can make no assumptions about it. We don't KNOW if the paranormal exists or not so we cannot prematurely dismiss it by examining only the known knowns. We can say it is unlikely to exist, given the efforts made so far to find it, but not yet rule it out completely.

Instead, we need to start with what we do know - someone reports what they claim is a paranormal experience - and see what could account for the report, without ruling out ANY possibility before examining the evidence. In many cases we can conclude that misperception or hallucination were responsible but in others there is insufficient evidence to decide. That doesn't mean, as some believers claim, that the paranormal did it! But it does mean it can't be ruled out. In such circumstances I would say that if there is a likely cause that does not involve a novel phenomenon, like the paranormal, that is the 'best' conclusion.

I know it all sounds convoluted but if it were simple the paranormal would have been definitely discovered or ruled out decades ago. I think the answer probably lies in our, so far, poor understanding of the human brain. Until we know it much better, it is premature to declare the paranormal ruled out.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

One of my interests regarding psychic readings is in how the way language is used to construct meaning between the reader and the sitter. What was mentioned in the programme was the stark difference between Power's first hot reading (of his sister's neighbour) and the cold reading (of the person he'd never met before). Both his demeanour and his use of language were quite different in both cases.

And guessing that Derren Brown had done plenty of hot-reading up on the Hollyoaks cast he knew would be at the meeting that day, Derren probably took care to make what could have been hot reading sound like cold reading

Completely agree with your point about the way they do hot reading and cold reading. They sometimes seem so eager to please that they just bring out the hot reading in a complete rush. As if it is meant to impress.

There's an excellent example of Tony Robinson getting hot-read by Darren Brittan in a series that was on a year or so ago. The psychic is so pleased with himself but it's obviously all information that's been obtained by Google. Not sure if there is a clip floating about.

[alisondubois]

I'd still argue that he is only delusional as far as in that (like many others, Ogilvie included), they think they can manage to fool intelligent people in the same way that they can fool their fans.

That's the only explanation I can give for their willingness to appear in these programmes.

And the fact that no matter how appallingly they come across, it probably attracts many more people to them for readings.

Yep, I was surprised to hear the girl with the mini say she thought Derren really was physic but he just hadn't admitted it to himself (or words to that effect!) Its like these people who reply to emails telling them they have won £4millionbrillionteprillion. They just won't listen - maybe they're eternal optimists!

[smudge]

Did anyone else feel sorry for Joe Powers?

Not even a little bit! I though he got off lightly if anything!

I was surprised how good this show was. I was unimpressed with Derren's Skeptical credentials after seeing a (TV) show or two last year. I though he muddied it up and, though never claiming 'magic powers' he was close to implying it at times. This new show was good though; balanced, skeptical and entertaining.

[DavidMWW]

But just as a quick sidestep - is it known yet how he did that lottery number trick?

Yes, it was a split-screen camera trick.