For the complete DVD and other out-takes get your copy from here.
Â
34 Comments
Tut Tut Derren…Fork off. Made me giggle. Thanks
Oh, phillis… Could you have posted this video _before_ Derren posted info ’bout DVD’s ? I bought them 2 days ago…
Nevertheless, love you all, guys.
It wasn’t available on t’internet until today, afaik.
Nice interview, but there’s something that annoys me. And this is just me being weird and all, I know – but there’s a sofa right behind them on that set, and yet they’re standing around for almost an hour! Why was that sofa placed so carefully lit-out in the background, then? It confuzzles me… 😉
Yup, t’were only available from yesterday like.
2 phillis: yep, i know. by the way, do you know, will it ever be possible to ask Derren some questions on any of his websites?
You say using your intuition can somehow lead people to think they are reaching enlightenment and knowledge and that that’s potentially disterous. And yet is that not what we are all striving for? Are the people who fall short of that people who have given up questionning, and decided to believe in something?
Here’s a rhetorical question: why are we driven to question?!?
Jo: Can I be the annoying person who answers rhetorical questions? After posing some herself?
In my opinion, we’re ‘driven to question’ because of our innate curiosity. The reason curiosity IS innate in humans (and a few other animals, such as crows and rats), is that it helps us to discover new things (food sources, forms of shelter, tools to obtain the aforementioned), and has done so ever since we branched off as a species. Curiosity is one of the things that have made humans so successful in their survival. Because it’s a general trait – it has to be, because you never know what you’ll discover – it is also applied to areas that aren’t directly beneficial.
We’re made to question pretty much everything. I see that as a lovely trait, I’m fond of exploring and discovering as much as I can. However, I don’t really see a reason to suspect a mystical cause for the urge to do so.
Oh, and Phillis, if I’m veering too far off topic again, please say so! It seemed relevant in a sort of sideways manner…
As long as were all debating I’m happy. 🙂
I’ll try organize a Q&A session to keep you lot happy.
I like how this interview Dawkins is almost pressing the idea that someone involved is an obvious charlatan with his questioning of Derren on Psychics and the like, and yet Derren is a little more pragmatic about the situation saying in essence these are people who are most probably sincere in their delusion and are just intuitive, barring the obvious cold readers. Then Dawkins questions when people are supposedly learning the skills in a school like setting, the Teachers must be the true Charlatans bilking the supposed psychics or appliers or the systems of astrology out of money. Again Derren is pragmatic about it not denying that this might be the very case, but even the Teachers of such things might be just as sincere about their belief. I gather in part this came from the Messiah experiment Derren did in America. People are almost keen on deluding themselves to make themselves feel special, and the true charlatans are probably in the minority. I have always viewed such things as simple entertainment, much like an actor who plays hamlet, I don’t try and sue them after the play claiming he bilked me out of the cost of admission on the grounds he wasn’t actually the Prince of Denmark.
This is why I contribute to and comment on this blog.
Two words:
Silvia Browne!!
She is the worst example of a fraudulant medium. Some fake ones try and be good and pass for real, she doesn’t even try! Derren gave some techniques fraudulant mediums use, she doesn’t even use them, she is just terrible! I think her accurancy, even though she says is 85%, is in fact 0%.
Derren and Dawkins would have a field day with her!
Jaye: The big difference there is that the actor probably doesn’t believe he’s the Prince of Denmark, either. If he did, well, it might make for an interesting play… *grins*
You’re right about the deluding bit, though. When I was in my late teens, I honestly believed in the ‘psychic abilities’ of both myself and a friend of mine. We were pretty accurate at guessing colors that the other had selected. Looking back on it, I would say that we were using small, almost subliminal cues to pick up on each others’ selection. Reminds me of a certain trick at a certain stage show… *grins*.
I also thought I had ’empathic’ abilities, and would remark on what I believed friends were feeling. This, I think, was a mix of unknowingly cold reading them, and basically badgering them into thinking that yes, deep down, they may have been feeling insecure (or whatever). I was 100% ‘honest’ with these ‘readings’, in that I believed I was genuinely picking up on their inner feelings (and if I wasn’t, it was because they’d ‘shielded’ them).
I ‘grew out of’ these ideas mainly because most people that were into them were so incredibly dogmatic about it. I wanted to do scientific tests, try and detect the ‘energy fields’ that were supposedly behind psychic powers, try to prove telepathy in test conditions, things like that. I was invariably told that it was wrong of me to look at these ‘gifts’ like that, and that I’d never gain true insight that way. That only led me to read more about these things (I’m stubborn like that), which slowly made me see that other explanations were much more likely.
To me, it was an interesting learning experience. It’s taught me things about how my mind works, and about how easy it is to get caught up in one line of thought, to the exclusion of all others. It’s made the world a bit clearer again.
But yeah, it shows how not all ‘psychics’ are charlatans. I agree with Derren and Dawkins (hm, strange, one first name and one last name… why are we doing that? Because of the nice alliteration?) that the ones that are any good at it most likely are knowing fakes, though.
I don’t believe all psychics are fake. I think there are genuine ones out there, usually the ones who dont use their “ability” to seek fame and fortune!
Class: I hope so. It would be really interesting if there were people with real psychic ability. None have stood the test yet, but of course, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. If they do, I hope they’ll subject themselves to scientific testing, so that their abilities can be verified and (hopefully) explained.
Very interesting interviews…i’m really pleased to have found them here
Thanks for putting them up!
Reminds me of Sylvia Brown
just thinking about all the folks out there that don’t want to know of the stuff Derren or Dawkins speak
those who shudder at the thought of having convenience of belief stripped from them
rooted in the fear of consciousness
or maybe it’s a fear of personal responsibility…
yeah, prolly a bit of both
visions of Red State America.
Thank you Berber Anna for your reply! I’m new to this blogg-talking – it’s nice to find a positive answer to the latest question i’ve been pondering 🙂
Great interviews… is this going to be on sale in England?
xx
Is it OK to watch all the other videos that are choices linked to this one? Did you mean for so many of them to be available? Even though I am so DB deprived here in the states, I try to respect his copyright. (I know I can get everything he’s done on DVD now, but that would be quite indulgent splurging.)
I bet you fork off too!
Blimey that vid was like being a spare part!
I’ve had lost of experience of standing with other parents at school
and being purposely ignore so they can give utter attention to someone else!
And that vid almost equaled it
I would love to be the person Derren was talking to, i do love a good in depth conversation, i just can’t get that in my little world 🙁
Anyhoo. i already know all this stuff but there was some joy in watching our lord pull his innocent faces like hes no threat and yet
HE IS THE DEVIL!!! hahahaha
Of course he isnt 😉
Devil rules anyway while God spends all day on the sofa watching soaps, eating natchos!
Oh i love natchos… 🙁 haha
Love to the db & crew xXx
Yes unmevsworld – it’s fine to watch them all free. In general if something is on You Tube then it means that the item has run it’s course and copyright isn’t such a bit issue (see our videos page). Lot’s of things are removed from You Tube and they’re getting better at it – so if it’s on there don’t feel too guilty. 😀
Just watched parts of this for a second time and two things struck me:
Derren: Enjoyed part 6 where you explain how you lost your Christian belief. I’m sure many of us have gone through a similar process but I have to say that not having a Christian family and peer group probably makes it a bit more of a straight forward process when you finally make that move and throw off the shackles of faith. Not quite so easy when almost all of your family and peers are Catholic and the guilt that goes with it has been drilled into you from a young age. I have been working on having the courage to stand up and let the world know for over 2 decades. Perhaps I should just buy one of Dawkins new Stand Out Campaign t-shirts and wear it with pride! http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=76
Phillis: Could you do me a favour? Persuade Derren to write the word ‘shameless’ into the script for his new stage show. He says it well.
You Tube is good PR quite often. Lots of would not have been here without it.
Two great voices of reason brilliant! But you think someone would have said can we just sit on the couch?
Thank you, phillis.
I enjoy reading Richard Dawkins and watching his programmes. But I find the real debate here, is not whether you believe in Psychics, fraudulent or not. But the responsibility of someones emotions at a time of bereavement or often when he/she feels venerable.
P.S. Phillis, please don’t have a Q&A session around Christmas. After this week, I’m not near a computer for two weeks! How will I survive?
Derren Brown & Richard Dawkins – met both of them in my time, Derren three times & Dawkins twice. I am also using the first name & last name approach by the way. Derren always charming and approachable, Dawkins rude and unapproachable. Also Dawkins does not really practice what he preaches or even believes everything he comes out with…i know i work with people he has worked with and the general opinion is that most of the time he is completely away with the fairies.
Its good that Derren takes a pragmatic view, does’nt he always? and is not drawn in too much by Dawkins theories and opinions, because thats all they are at the end of the day. The questions still remain, why should we believe him over anyone else, (we should’nt) and does he really have any answers, (no he does’nt!).
In reply to Fiona’s “attack” on Dawkins:
Derren himself states that Dawkins book The God Delusion is his all time favourite book and he constantly refers to Dawkins as one of his heros.
To say that Dawkins does not take a pragmatic view is way off to say the least. The guy is one of the world’s most respected scientists and has broken new ground with some of his startling early works such as The Selfish Gene and Unweaving the Rainbow. His entire career has been based on pragmatically looking for answers to some of the most important questions that we face, if you knew him as well as you say you do then you would know that he is always at pains to point out that his “opinions” are based on solid, evidence based facts and are not just plucked out of the air.
To say that most of the time he is “completely away with the fairies” I find quite insulting given the position that he has held for a number of years as the Charles Symoni Chair for the Public Understanding of Science for Oxford University, this statement devalues this prestigious position and the University itself.
Just because someones manner might not be to your liking does not give you the right to assasinate their character.
Sorry for the rant, it is just that the two guys here are people that I hold in very high regard, precisely for their clear thinking and rational approach to woo and the supernatural. Both would be hugely offended if they thought that people believed that what they talk about is just their “opinion” when nothing could be further from the truth, they spend their professional careers looking to be “proved wrong” and if they were would only be too happy to concede as long as the evidence backed up the claim.
Am a bit late commenting on this item but only watched the footage last night. I enjoyed this discussion and found it to be so true in my experience. I visited a Medium (as a sceptic hoping to be proved I may be wrong) about 6 years ago. It was …. for want of a better word – rubbish! (Other people had raved to me about how accurate this lady was).
I deliberately did not give any information other than yes or no to the lady giving me a reading. There was very little information given from her that I could even vaguely associate to myself other than that I was going on holiday to France (however she also listed USA, Switzerland, Germany and a few other countries and I only went to France!).
She then told me that my negativity was “blocking out the spirits”. Understandable I suppose, I mean I am sure my parents wanted to give me a message but they thought if I was being sceptical then they wouldn’t – that showed me! 😉
Ridiculously after the reading when we chatted before I left and I told her my parents were dead she THEN passed me a message from my mother telling me that I should use more fabric conditioner. I was really hoping that Mum would have used the opportunity to say something else, perhaps commented on my newborn baby – I mean what was she thinking, that fabric conditioner thing must have been really bugging her!
A load of old NONSENSE!
Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins.
Cliff Richard believes in God and has had more than a dozen number one hits in the UK, in a pop career that has lasted nearly half a century. Professor Dawkins does not believe in God, and has yet to have a single that makes it into the Top 40. What more evidence does Dawkins need that his atheistic approach is wrong?
Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Tut Tut Derren…Fork off. Made me giggle. Thanks
Oh, phillis… Could you have posted this video _before_ Derren posted info ’bout DVD’s ? I bought them 2 days ago…
Nevertheless, love you all, guys.
It wasn’t available on t’internet until today, afaik.
Nice interview, but there’s something that annoys me. And this is just me being weird and all, I know – but there’s a sofa right behind them on that set, and yet they’re standing around for almost an hour! Why was that sofa placed so carefully lit-out in the background, then? It confuzzles me… 😉
Yup, t’were only available from yesterday like.
2 phillis: yep, i know. by the way, do you know, will it ever be possible to ask Derren some questions on any of his websites?
You say using your intuition can somehow lead people to think they are reaching enlightenment and knowledge and that that’s potentially disterous. And yet is that not what we are all striving for? Are the people who fall short of that people who have given up questionning, and decided to believe in something?
Here’s a rhetorical question: why are we driven to question?!?
Jo: Can I be the annoying person who answers rhetorical questions? After posing some herself?
In my opinion, we’re ‘driven to question’ because of our innate curiosity. The reason curiosity IS innate in humans (and a few other animals, such as crows and rats), is that it helps us to discover new things (food sources, forms of shelter, tools to obtain the aforementioned), and has done so ever since we branched off as a species. Curiosity is one of the things that have made humans so successful in their survival. Because it’s a general trait – it has to be, because you never know what you’ll discover – it is also applied to areas that aren’t directly beneficial.
We’re made to question pretty much everything. I see that as a lovely trait, I’m fond of exploring and discovering as much as I can. However, I don’t really see a reason to suspect a mystical cause for the urge to do so.
Oh, and Phillis, if I’m veering too far off topic again, please say so! It seemed relevant in a sort of sideways manner…
As long as were all debating I’m happy. 🙂
I’ll try organize a Q&A session to keep you lot happy.
I like how this interview Dawkins is almost pressing the idea that someone involved is an obvious charlatan with his questioning of Derren on Psychics and the like, and yet Derren is a little more pragmatic about the situation saying in essence these are people who are most probably sincere in their delusion and are just intuitive, barring the obvious cold readers. Then Dawkins questions when people are supposedly learning the skills in a school like setting, the Teachers must be the true Charlatans bilking the supposed psychics or appliers or the systems of astrology out of money. Again Derren is pragmatic about it not denying that this might be the very case, but even the Teachers of such things might be just as sincere about their belief. I gather in part this came from the Messiah experiment Derren did in America. People are almost keen on deluding themselves to make themselves feel special, and the true charlatans are probably in the minority. I have always viewed such things as simple entertainment, much like an actor who plays hamlet, I don’t try and sue them after the play claiming he bilked me out of the cost of admission on the grounds he wasn’t actually the Prince of Denmark.
This is why I contribute to and comment on this blog.
Two words:
Silvia Browne!!
She is the worst example of a fraudulant medium. Some fake ones try and be good and pass for real, she doesn’t even try! Derren gave some techniques fraudulant mediums use, she doesn’t even use them, she is just terrible! I think her accurancy, even though she says is 85%, is in fact 0%.
Derren and Dawkins would have a field day with her!
Jaye: The big difference there is that the actor probably doesn’t believe he’s the Prince of Denmark, either. If he did, well, it might make for an interesting play… *grins*
You’re right about the deluding bit, though. When I was in my late teens, I honestly believed in the ‘psychic abilities’ of both myself and a friend of mine. We were pretty accurate at guessing colors that the other had selected. Looking back on it, I would say that we were using small, almost subliminal cues to pick up on each others’ selection. Reminds me of a certain trick at a certain stage show… *grins*.
I also thought I had ’empathic’ abilities, and would remark on what I believed friends were feeling. This, I think, was a mix of unknowingly cold reading them, and basically badgering them into thinking that yes, deep down, they may have been feeling insecure (or whatever). I was 100% ‘honest’ with these ‘readings’, in that I believed I was genuinely picking up on their inner feelings (and if I wasn’t, it was because they’d ‘shielded’ them).
I ‘grew out of’ these ideas mainly because most people that were into them were so incredibly dogmatic about it. I wanted to do scientific tests, try and detect the ‘energy fields’ that were supposedly behind psychic powers, try to prove telepathy in test conditions, things like that. I was invariably told that it was wrong of me to look at these ‘gifts’ like that, and that I’d never gain true insight that way. That only led me to read more about these things (I’m stubborn like that), which slowly made me see that other explanations were much more likely.
To me, it was an interesting learning experience. It’s taught me things about how my mind works, and about how easy it is to get caught up in one line of thought, to the exclusion of all others. It’s made the world a bit clearer again.
But yeah, it shows how not all ‘psychics’ are charlatans. I agree with Derren and Dawkins (hm, strange, one first name and one last name… why are we doing that? Because of the nice alliteration?) that the ones that are any good at it most likely are knowing fakes, though.
I don’t believe all psychics are fake. I think there are genuine ones out there, usually the ones who dont use their “ability” to seek fame and fortune!
Class: I hope so. It would be really interesting if there were people with real psychic ability. None have stood the test yet, but of course, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. If they do, I hope they’ll subject themselves to scientific testing, so that their abilities can be verified and (hopefully) explained.
Very interesting interviews…i’m really pleased to have found them here
Thanks for putting them up!
Reminds me of Sylvia Brown
just thinking about all the folks out there that don’t want to know of the stuff Derren or Dawkins speak
those who shudder at the thought of having convenience of belief stripped from them
rooted in the fear of consciousness
or maybe it’s a fear of personal responsibility…
yeah, prolly a bit of both
visions of Red State America.
Thank you Berber Anna for your reply! I’m new to this blogg-talking – it’s nice to find a positive answer to the latest question i’ve been pondering 🙂
Great interviews… is this going to be on sale in England?
xx
Is it OK to watch all the other videos that are choices linked to this one? Did you mean for so many of them to be available? Even though I am so DB deprived here in the states, I try to respect his copyright. (I know I can get everything he’s done on DVD now, but that would be quite indulgent splurging.)
I bet you fork off too!
Blimey that vid was like being a spare part!
I’ve had lost of experience of standing with other parents at school
and being purposely ignore so they can give utter attention to someone else!
And that vid almost equaled it
I would love to be the person Derren was talking to, i do love a good in depth conversation, i just can’t get that in my little world 🙁
Anyhoo. i already know all this stuff but there was some joy in watching our lord pull his innocent faces like hes no threat and yet
HE IS THE DEVIL!!! hahahaha
Of course he isnt 😉
Devil rules anyway while God spends all day on the sofa watching soaps, eating natchos!
Oh i love natchos… 🙁 haha
Love to the db & crew xXx
Yes unmevsworld – it’s fine to watch them all free. In general if something is on You Tube then it means that the item has run it’s course and copyright isn’t such a bit issue (see our videos page). Lot’s of things are removed from You Tube and they’re getting better at it – so if it’s on there don’t feel too guilty. 😀
Just watched parts of this for a second time and two things struck me:
Derren: Enjoyed part 6 where you explain how you lost your Christian belief. I’m sure many of us have gone through a similar process but I have to say that not having a Christian family and peer group probably makes it a bit more of a straight forward process when you finally make that move and throw off the shackles of faith. Not quite so easy when almost all of your family and peers are Catholic and the guilt that goes with it has been drilled into you from a young age. I have been working on having the courage to stand up and let the world know for over 2 decades. Perhaps I should just buy one of Dawkins new Stand Out Campaign t-shirts and wear it with pride! http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=76
Phillis: Could you do me a favour? Persuade Derren to write the word ‘shameless’ into the script for his new stage show. He says it well.
You Tube is good PR quite often. Lots of would not have been here without it.
Two great voices of reason brilliant! But you think someone would have said can we just sit on the couch?
Thank you, phillis.
I enjoy reading Richard Dawkins and watching his programmes. But I find the real debate here, is not whether you believe in Psychics, fraudulent or not. But the responsibility of someones emotions at a time of bereavement or often when he/she feels venerable.
P.S. Phillis, please don’t have a Q&A session around Christmas. After this week, I’m not near a computer for two weeks! How will I survive?
Derren Brown & Richard Dawkins – met both of them in my time, Derren three times & Dawkins twice. I am also using the first name & last name approach by the way. Derren always charming and approachable, Dawkins rude and unapproachable. Also Dawkins does not really practice what he preaches or even believes everything he comes out with…i know i work with people he has worked with and the general opinion is that most of the time he is completely away with the fairies.
Its good that Derren takes a pragmatic view, does’nt he always? and is not drawn in too much by Dawkins theories and opinions, because thats all they are at the end of the day. The questions still remain, why should we believe him over anyone else, (we should’nt) and does he really have any answers, (no he does’nt!).
In reply to Fiona’s “attack” on Dawkins:
Derren himself states that Dawkins book The God Delusion is his all time favourite book and he constantly refers to Dawkins as one of his heros.
To say that Dawkins does not take a pragmatic view is way off to say the least. The guy is one of the world’s most respected scientists and has broken new ground with some of his startling early works such as The Selfish Gene and Unweaving the Rainbow. His entire career has been based on pragmatically looking for answers to some of the most important questions that we face, if you knew him as well as you say you do then you would know that he is always at pains to point out that his “opinions” are based on solid, evidence based facts and are not just plucked out of the air.
To say that most of the time he is “completely away with the fairies” I find quite insulting given the position that he has held for a number of years as the Charles Symoni Chair for the Public Understanding of Science for Oxford University, this statement devalues this prestigious position and the University itself.
Just because someones manner might not be to your liking does not give you the right to assasinate their character.
Sorry for the rant, it is just that the two guys here are people that I hold in very high regard, precisely for their clear thinking and rational approach to woo and the supernatural. Both would be hugely offended if they thought that people believed that what they talk about is just their “opinion” when nothing could be further from the truth, they spend their professional careers looking to be “proved wrong” and if they were would only be too happy to concede as long as the evidence backed up the claim.
Am a bit late commenting on this item but only watched the footage last night. I enjoyed this discussion and found it to be so true in my experience. I visited a Medium (as a sceptic hoping to be proved I may be wrong) about 6 years ago. It was …. for want of a better word – rubbish! (Other people had raved to me about how accurate this lady was).
I deliberately did not give any information other than yes or no to the lady giving me a reading. There was very little information given from her that I could even vaguely associate to myself other than that I was going on holiday to France (however she also listed USA, Switzerland, Germany and a few other countries and I only went to France!).
She then told me that my negativity was “blocking out the spirits”. Understandable I suppose, I mean I am sure my parents wanted to give me a message but they thought if I was being sceptical then they wouldn’t – that showed me! 😉
Ridiculously after the reading when we chatted before I left and I told her my parents were dead she THEN passed me a message from my mother telling me that I should use more fabric conditioner. I was really hoping that Mum would have used the opportunity to say something else, perhaps commented on my newborn baby – I mean what was she thinking, that fabric conditioner thing must have been really bugging her!
A load of old NONSENSE!
Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins.
Cliff Richard believes in God and has had more than a dozen number one hits in the UK, in a pop career that has lasted nearly half a century. Professor Dawkins does not believe in God, and has yet to have a single that makes it into the Top 40. What more evidence does Dawkins need that his atheistic approach is wrong?