Derren Brown
And the Illusion of
NLP.
It is always possible to become convinced of the “power” conferred by a technique whether or not it possesses any such quality objectively.
When I was practising my hypnotic skills around the bars of Bristol in the early Nineteen Nineties, before starting to perform professionally across Southern England and Wales, I often had students tell me about one of their number who gave shows in the halls and balls of the university. Then one day at a print-bureau where I was having some brochures reproduced, there came in a young man with a positively Elizabethan demeanour: frocked coat, frilled silk shirt, goatee beard and wavy locks. He asked “Is that anything to do with this?” showing me some of his own publicity. This was Darren, shortly to become Derren Brown.
It happened that we lived a short distance from each other and apart from inviting me up to his tiny garret (where “…the neighbours think I’m a witch”) we spent many hours in conversation upon meeting in the street.
During these conversations I formed the impression that “DVB” believed in “hypnosis” or at least hypnotism to the point of credulity. I, meanwhile, answered everything he brought up from my sceptical position. He was not challenged by this, having, he said, been inspired by and long a correspondent of Martin Taylor, another hypnotist who declares that he does not put anyone into a “trance”. Nonetheless, he remained loyal to the lore of hypnosis. He was especially keen on the potential of Ericksonian techniques, apparently assuming their alleged efficacy to be real.
Ironically, however, Brown’s cunning techniques later made such an impression that even though he “explained” them as psychological illusionism he was forced to repeatedly declare that he had no psychic powers, due to the many people who insisted that he did.
As he reached the end of his time as a student he seemed also to be developing a new paradigm in magical entertainment. He talked about using NLP and calling it magic. I was, as ever, sceptical, but even so, I recognised the originality of the idea. That said, I must admit that I was aware only of this aspect of the genesis of the concept whilst others have taken a different view. Particularly another of his former acquaintances, Ian Rowland in his essay “Derren Brown, I Control You All” (Rowland, 2001).
Every time I bumped-into DVB he seemed to have new publicity material and new prospects or experiences. He was clearly entirely focussed upon developing his career (which I was not, spending my free time contributing to the Home Office inquiry into stage hypnotism and the struggle to avert it’s prohibition) (Tsander, 1995, a, b, c). Eventually, his labours paid off and he broke into television. Whereupon three things happened; He distanced his past as a hypnotist (for several years), he changed his image (becoming conventional and in my opinion utterly bland) and of most relevance here, he made famous the idea of “mind control” through NLP.
Another routine which DVB used on stage was one in which he appeared to determine the choice of numbers by members of the audience, plotted onto a grid which any way that they were added (vertical, horizontal, diagonal) came to the same figure, as “predicted” in a note sealed earlier!
This is on the face of it utterly inexplicable. Given that Brown insists that he has no psychic powers, audiences were forced to seriously consider his explanation that it was all made possible by NLP.
John Archer is a comedy magician who has won many awards including a BAFTA (the British Academy of Film and Television Arts award or the UK “Oscar”). The ex-policeman is a jovial bear in an Hawaiian shirt, summed up by his “carrier pigeon” - a plastic bird decoy attached to a suitcase handle (Trillo, 2002). I have seen him perform that last trick of Browns (the “Magic Square”) on two occasions, a year apart. On 15th May 2004 at The Comedy Box, Bristol, he informally matched the world record of 28 seconds for formatting the square.
In the dressing room, we discussed the role of psychological techniques in the magic of Derren Brown. In particular, that of NLP. Archer explains that one aspect of a magicians technique is to provide a false explanation for how the effect is achieved. As a fellow magician who has produced many of the effects that Brown had earlier attributed to NLP, Archer has no problem in declaring that this has nothing to do with it. “Although he does do a little bit [of NLP] on stage.” To illustrate this, to take the example of Brown’s Russian Roulette trick, Archer simply say’s “... any magician has so many ways of doing it that there’s no point discussing which way he did it!” He adds that without actually being there, there is no way of detecting which method has been employed. So much depends upon the editing. He then went on to explain some of the elements that are disguised by means of camera angles.
In the course of this discussion an instructive irony emerged. Several of Brown’s routines I attributed to off-camera hypnotism. Although Brown’s production company had initially strenuously sought to prevent any linking of his act and hypnotism. Even at the earliest point in Browns television career, when I interviewed him for an entertainment magazine he requested that I mention nowhere in that piece that he had been a hypnotist (Tsander, 2001). Archer’s response to my reference to using hypnotism off-camera was to declare that there was no need to adduce this explanation because there were plentiful explanations available in a combination of magic technique and editing. When I took the specific instance of the Invisible Man routine and insisted that it was exactly as I have many times performed it but that, obviously, the hypnotism was off-camera and the Ericksonian elements a mis-direction, Archer dismissed the point. He explained that the effect illustrated the magic technique called “Dual Reality”, in which the audience is shown one thing whilst the volunteer is shown a second thing and their reaction to the latter is presented as being to the former. In this way, their reaction to something not seen by the audience can be used to create the impression of something remarkable happening with the “first” thing that is visible to them. In the instance of the Invisible Man, the shots of the subjects’ face showed his reaction to something out of frame. Whilst those of Brown acting the invisible role were from behind the subject and did not permit us to see his real reaction.
In summary, it is apparent that a professional magician can not only explain and replicate the most impressive feats of “psychological illusionism” but can do so without adducing any element or pretence of an influence of NLP or Ericksonian methods. Moreover, he can further explain and prospectively replicate the art of a hypnotist, not only without “hypnosis” but without hypnotism! Whither “hypnosis”.
Indeed, by the time Brown had reached his third television series, “Trick of The Mind” (2004) he had resorted to employing staple card-tricks (such as “Smoke”, with Stephen fry as his observer) and yet presenting them as part of his panoply of “psychological illusionism” using NLP. This is not to say that in other respects there was not ingenious new material. In particular, his playing and beating an entire room of chess masters. Which was then revealed to be an elaborate set-up in which he in fact had one master playing unwittingly against another! The point is, however, that if he had kept this strategy secret and had instead claimed to have beaten them using NLP, the enthusiasts of this doctrine would have seized upon it as “proof” of its efficacy. Just as, when Uri Geller claims to have used mind-power to bend a spoon, enthusiasts of “psi” seized upon this as “proof”. And when hypnotists claim to have “made” a volunteer do this, that or the other, enthusiasts for “hypnosis” claim that as “proof”. Faced with not knowing how Uri Gellar bends a spoon, many are persuaded toward belief in “Psi” powers. And of course, not understanding how I get their friends to behave as they do, many people are willing to accept their behaviour as “proof” of “hypnosis”. As indeed those who believe in “hypnosis” want. Indeed, the irony of so many pundits of “hypnosis” alleging stage hypnotism to be for some reason “unethical” is that the claims for the “phenomenon” that these “clinical” hypnotists sell is almost entirely based upon the effects produced by those stage performers. Similarly, faced with not knowing how Brown had beaten a room full of chess champions, most laymen would have been inclined to accept NLP had it been given as an explanation. Thankfully, he made no such claim, instead revealing the cunning strategy employed to create this illusion of total chess wizardry.
It is in a way highly amusing, therefore, to witness fans of NLP who “buy into” the magicians mis-direction used by Derren Brown. Their touting of such trickery as remarkable evidence of the efficacy of their fabulous technique. Indeed, one such fellow, a therapist himself, “fell for” this “line” in one of Brown’s own programmes. But I, for one, also find it deeply disgusting that such people as the NLP brigade attempt to sell their claims and buy credence in their beliefs on the back of what is merely a collection of entertaining tricks. They are, to be frank, scintillatingly stupid.
There is an especial irony and an insight to be obtained from Browns example. In his book, “Pure Effect” Brown effectively exposes his use of highly developed magicians manipulations such as extreme “force” methods. But he also reveals his reliance in many routines upon obtaining results by chance. If an effect fails, pass on quickly to another. If it is presented expertly, the audience tends only to remember the positive results and to overlook the failures. Not only does this apply equally to stage hypnotism, but more pertinently, to all of talking-therapy, let alone hypno-therapy. Especially NLP. For example, warts remit spontaneously as often as they do with hypno-therapy (Allington, 1934; Sulzberger and Wolf, 1934; volmer, 1946; Ikemi and Nakegawa, 1962; Dudeck, 1967) and yet wart-removal is seen by adherents (such as David Waxman) as a proven result! There are many more examples. Some in relation to the efficacy of talking-therapy in general (shown in some studies to be less successful than no therapy at all), “Common Factors” (Wampold, 2001) and recurrent variables such as the Hawthorne Effect and the Placebo Effect.
References:
Allington, H.V. 1934. “Sulpharsphenamine in the Treatment of warts.” Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology. 29. Pp687-690.
Dudeck, S.Z. 1967. “Suggestion and Play Therapy in the Cure of warts in Children: A Pilot Study.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 145. Pp37-42.
Ikemi, Y. and Nakagewa, S. 1962. “A Psychosomatic study of Contagious Dermatitis.” Kyushu Journal of Medical Science. 13. Pp335-350.
Rowland, Ian. 2001 “I Control You All.” (Alleges his co-invention of the techniques of Derren Brown).
Sulzberger, M.B. and Wolf, J. 1934. “The Treatment of Warts by Suggestion.” (Suggestions equally as effective or not with non hypnotised as with hypnotic subjects). Medical Record. 140. Pp552-557.
Trillo, Duncan. 2002. (About the magician John Archer. magicweek.co.uk
Tsander, Alex. 1995. “Hypnotist Say’s Others Should Come Clean.” The Stage newspaper. London.
Tsander, A. 1995. “Beyond ‘Hypnosis’.” (Study of hypnotism and its alleged hazards as one of seven contributions from stage hypnotists to the inquiry of the UK Home Office). Home Office. London.
Tsander, A. 1995. “The Regulation of Stage Hypnotism in The UK. A Response to the Consultation Paper ENT/95 469/2/38.” One of thirty-nine responses invited by the UK Home Office.
Tsander, A. Interviewed by James Wallace. 1998. “Mind Games”. Bizarre Magazine. London. July. P42.
Tsander, A. 2001. “The Cosh Speaks”. (Interview with Derren Brown, as “The Cosh”). This Is Bristol magazine. March 23rd, p4. Bristol, England.
Wampold. Bruce, E. 2001. “The Great Psychotherapy Debate.”
(Discussing the “common factors” hypothesis). Lawrence Erlbaum associates. Mahwah, New Jersey.
The above text, selection and compilation of references is Copyright © 2005/2007/ 2011 by
Alex Tsander.
The above text, combination of references and compilation of bibliography is Copyright (c) 2011
by Alex Tsander, all rights reserved.
If you wish to re-publish I will be likely to consent but such consent must be obtained from me in writing (albeit in E-mail) in advance. I am very particular about copyright enforcement and any transgression will at the very least result in a C&D dispatch and its posting at the Chilling Effect site as well as notification of platform providers. Transgression of my copyright has in previous instances lead to the removal of entire web-sites.
by Alex Tsander, all rights reserved.
If you wish to re-publish I will be likely to consent but such consent must be obtained from me in writing (albeit in E-mail) in advance. I am very particular about copyright enforcement and any transgression will at the very least result in a C&D dispatch and its posting at the Chilling Effect site as well as notification of platform providers. Transgression of my copyright has in previous instances lead to the removal of entire web-sites.
