Don't tell me how I feelSue Sanders wrote: Well, you just proved it , didn't you?....so, deep down, you do know.
Do I make you stick to your couch Sue?
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
Don't tell me how I feelSue Sanders wrote: Well, you just proved it , didn't you?....so, deep down, you do know.
Jon Corby wrote:Don't tell me how I feelSue Sanders wrote: Well, you just proved it , didn't you?....so, deep down, you do know.
Do I make you stick to your couch Sue?
Jeffrey Burgin wrote:
Hopefully there is some sorta video thingy though, this stunt kinda reminds me when I was 'hypnotised' to sort out who was most likely to play along the hypnotist guy did some thing where you make your hands stick together. Tbf that was genuinely weird, I couldn't actually unstick my hands.
Well Jon, I, and a valuable 'second opinion' have given consideration to the question 'do I make you stick to your couch (,) Sue?' and concluded that it can only be interpreted in a way that I was wondering if you'd care to explain ????Jon Corby wrote:Don't tell me how I feelSue Sanders wrote: Well, you just proved it , didn't you?....so, deep down, you do know.
Do I make you stick to your couch Sue?
And maybe 'being legs disabled' ?Matthew Green wrote:I was stuck to my sofa. Here's why:
Peep Show
IT Crowd
Eva Herzigova on Jonathan Ross
Inbetweeners
No social life
Being a fucking lazy twat
Matthew Green wrote:Being a fucking lazy twat
I found myself looking for an anagram thereSue Sanders wrote:maybe 'being legs disabled' ?
Sue - were you eating eggs whilst watching Derren perchance?Rosemary Roberts wrote:I found myself looking for an anagram thereSue Sanders wrote:maybe 'being legs disabled' ?
Yeah it was shithouse, wasn't it? It was much more impressive when he did the same sort of thing with the cards on the table, moments before, when there was a long pause in between her selecting the card, and ample opportunity for him to misdirect and switch it with the marked card.Gavin Chipper wrote:When that girl had to pick one person out of 20 and happened to pick the "lose" one, Derren revealed beforehand which one it was. I found that really unimpressive!
Not especially, but I'm actually expecting it to be better than the previous two shows. Less hype, less disappointment I guess.Jon Corby wrote:Anybody getting excited about being a 'psychic spy' tonight?
Down with that assessment. Actually thought the lottery one was ok, last week's was just annoying. Even though (as I think Jon pointed out somewhere) the 'time-filler' tricks were more interesting than the lottery crap, it just lost so much magic by having such a failure of an audience interaction thing as the main focus. So I guess this one could go the same way.Kieran Child wrote:Not especially, but I'm actually expecting it to be better than the previous two shows. Less hype, less disappointment I guess.Jon Corby wrote:Anybody getting excited about being a 'psychic spy' tonight?
I drew a duck walking away from a unicycle. Somebody on digitalSpy rumbled the "draw concentric circles" adverts. Not very subtle !Kieran Child wrote:< drew concentric circles. That was brilliant I thought.
I wanna hear more about this. Did his face look dejected, like "2 years of practice and I've still not manage this for more than 3 seconds "?Jon Corby wrote:I drew a duck walking away from a unicycle.
Kieran Child wrote:< drew concentric circles. That was brilliant I thought.
I seriously doubt this had much to do with it. Why would people only draw one eye when persuaded to draw two?Sue Sanders wrote:Kieran Child wrote:< drew concentric circles. That was brilliant I thought.
'Look into her eyes, not around the eyes, into the eyes, look into her concentric circle eyes'. Pretty amazing that they actually reflected an additional circle right into her pupil so her eyes looked like her drawing. He's a shamen, man!
Kieran Child wrote:I seriously doubt this had much to do with it. Why would people only draw one eye when persuaded to draw two?Sue Sanders wrote:Kieran Child wrote:< drew concentric circles. That was brilliant I thought.
'Look into her eyes, not around the eyes, into the eyes, look into her concentric circle eyes'. Pretty amazing that they actually reflected an additional circle right into her pupil so her eyes looked like her drawing. He's a shamen, man!
Jeffrey Burgin wrote:Her pupils were also ridiculously diluted.
I wondered whether the outcome would be affected by the drawing ability of the people involved. When asked to draw what comes into my head, it isn't likely to be geometric shapes. As a confident drawer, I draw actual things - so I drew a yacht on the sea plus seagulls, a horse pulling a gypsy caravan, a train coming out of a tunnel and a sweep of railway track, a desert island with palm tree and fallen coconuts, a duck walking away from a unicycle. And I think this choice of things that fill my head when I think about being able to draw the first things that come into my head would block out any boring old concentric circles and rectangular stones and lintels. I'm guessing the subject girl was not a very good drawer. However had she been.......did you notice the number of people who mentioned drawing horses? Hmmm.Jeffrey Burgin wrote:I also drew a spiral, which I guess is a concentric circle. I'm sure it would be good enough for Derren anyway.
Woopsie, meant to say dilated but couldn't think of the right word at the time! I do this regularly, even in the show- at one point you'll noticed I got confused and said, "Not by a long chalk of the imag...yeah," and somewhere else I said, "You've got to be on your...guard," when talking about debating against the likes of Eton- I realised guard sounds like they're going to try and seduce you (they are Eton after all), I wanted to say mettle but that sounded like they were looking for a fight, when the word I really wanted was game. Dang.Sue Sanders wrote:Jeffrey Burgin wrote:Her pupils were also ridiculously diluted.
Dilated, maybe?? I was wondering is that one of those little mix-ups you've been making for years? Mine was invasive/evasive. I have to remember when talking to people about their garden plants, not to suggest some varieties may be trying to dodge the issue.
Yeah, he was definitely walking away specifically from the unicycle (as opposed to just having walked past it, for example.) I reckon he hadn't been trying anywhere near that long though, probably just a few attempts before realising it was impossible.Kieran Child wrote:I wanna hear more about this. Did his face look dejected, like "2 years of practice and I've still not manage this for more than 3 seconds "?Jon Corby wrote:I drew a duck walking away from a unicycle.
I just did.Jon O'Neill wrote:Who says it was nonsense?
I'm gonna really stick my neck out here and say you can't make someone shoplift a TV by scratching your nose at the same time as them.Jon O'Neill wrote:Now I'm saying it wasn't!
The problem with the Lottery shit is that nobody will take him seriously any more, so I understand your skepticism. But I think you can.Jon Corby wrote:I'm gonna really stick my neck out here and say you can't make someone shoplift a TV by scratching your nose at the same time as them.Jon O'Neill wrote:Now I'm saying it wasn't!
The same technique was demonstrated brilliantly on The Brittas Empire by Chris Barrie (Whom God Preserve).Kieran Child wrote:The technique of mirroring was not just an act. It is known to cause positive reactions, and is used sometimes by psychological magic in order to get someone to be more susceptible.
That's a nice wikipedia article, but surely only a complete penis would read that and conclude you could make people commit crimes against their will by copying their actions?Kieran Child wrote:The technique of mirroring was not just an act. It is known to cause positive reactions, and is used sometimes by psychological magic in order to get someone to be more susceptible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_(psychology)
It was used by Derren for a trick called "The Russian Scam" but for a much less extreme requirement than happened here.
Could it be used to perform the effect shown? mmmmmmaybe. But if so, Derren is the first person to have managed to use it this amazingly.
The big question for me was how did he manage to get so far down the street walking whilst carrying a heavy TV, being followed by at least two store assistants who were running? They were so slow to actually get out of the store as well, must have been on the computers looking at c4c.Jon Corby wrote:That's a nice wikipedia article, but surely only a complete penis would read that and conclude you could make people commit crimes against their will by copying their actions?
(The guy was also a really, really bad actor when confronted by the shop.)
I didn't want to say those things. Derren made me.Jon Corby wrote:I discussed this briefly with my dad, who still claims that Derren is a fantastically clever guy who can memorise the London A-Z (I say he didn't, he simply has an earpiece) and work out what name someone is thinking of based on their unconscious facial movements (I say bullcrap), and he just messed up slightly with one poor trick (meaning the lottery one).
Of course it theoretically *can* (memorising 100 objects + ?? additional steps ?? = memorising London A-Z) , but why fucking bother? My memory isn't as good as Derren's so I forget the exact presentation of the piece, but didn't it conclude with him tearing down some big screens to reveal the "recalled" location in 20ft high letters, and the exact page from the A-Z and stuff? Which all hardly suggests it was a simple exercise in memory skills...Kieran Child wrote:The London A-Z thing can be done genuinely. It requires a number of memory tricks that anyone can learn. Start off learning the 'peg system' and you'll find yourself able to memorise a list of 100 objects in and out of order. You will need some additional steps to get to the London A-Z, but maybe at that point you'll believe that it can be done. Could have used an earpiece though. *shrug*.
Another fantastic leap. Memorising one number isn't really analogous to memorising a phone book.Kieran Child wrote:No really, your memory CAN be that good.
Excel random number generator -
0.510032011109162734
Might be hard to remember, but I can recite it perfectly, and probably will be able to for a couple of days now. Because of this:
1=T (one stroke)
2=N (two strokes)
3=M (three strokes)
4=R (last letter)
5=L (50 in roman)
6=SH
7=K
8=F (can look like a flowery lower case f)
9=P (backwards)
0=Z (first letter)
Learn that phonetically, and then I read the number as
"Ocelots seem nice today despite shin-camera."
^ Which you can remember almost instantly. If you know the right tricks, the person with a self-proclaimed worst memory ever could learn the phone book.
Kieran, pet, wait til you're over 40. You might be able to remember your codes but after a night's sleep you won't remember "Ocelots seem nice today despite shin-camera." I've come up with lots of little memory jogs to remember things by in recent years, but generally, can't remember them. Can't even recall any examples to give you.Kieran Child wrote:No really, your memory CAN be that good.
Excel random number generator -
0.510032011109162734
Might be hard to remember, but I can recite it perfectly, and probably will be able to for a couple of days now. Because of this:
1=T (one stroke)
2=N (two strokes)
3=M (three strokes)
4=R (last letter)
5=L (50 in roman)
6=SH
7=K
8=F (can look like a flowery lower case f)
9=P (backwards)
0=Z (first letter)
Learn that phonetically, and then I read the number as
"Ocelots seem nice today despite shin-camera."
^ Which you can remember almost instantly. If you know the right tricks, the person with a self-proclaimed worst memory ever could learn the phone book.
Given there must be at least 50'000 numbers in your average phone book (and that's pessimistic), you'd have to remember that many strange sentences, which would be harder than reciting a massive novel (and you'd have to put a name to each sentence). I think there comes a point where some sort of natural capacity for memory comes into play.Kieran Child wrote:If you know the right tricks, the person with a self-proclaimed worst memory ever could learn the phone book.
That does sound like fun.Kirk Bevins wrote:I had memorised pi up to 257 decimal places at A-level and it was fun to recite it.
Oh Jon! Now I don't believe anything you say!Jon Corby wrote:That does sound like fun.Kirk Bevins wrote:I had memorised pi up to 257 decimal places at A-level and it was fun to recite it.
For 50,000 numbers, that would be 25,000 sentences.Ben Hunter wrote:Given there must be at least 50'000 numbers in your average phone book (and that's pessimistic), you'd have to remember that many strange sentences, which would be harder than reciting a massive novel (and you'd have to put a name to each sentence). I think there comes a point where some sort of natural capacity for memory comes into play.Kieran Child wrote:If you know the right tricks, the person with a self-proclaimed worst memory ever could learn the phone book.
But surely you only remember the lyrics to songs because they're generally quite simple, follow logically and are combined with a memorable melody? You'd have to write 1,000 songs with good melodies and then attempt to shoehorn in all these meaningless sentences, few of which would make any sort of sense alone, never mind in combination. If you used existing melodies, it would probably be even harder as you wouldn't be able to get anything to scan properly. Can't see it, myself.Kieran Child wrote:For 50,000 numbers, that would be 25,000 sentences.
If you group them into songs, that is fewer than 1,000 songs.
I don't know how many songs you know the lyrics to, but I reckon you could get there.
Cool pi thing. I only know 50 places, which was best for my school, so I stopped. I don't know whether or not Derren uses the techniques I do. It would definitely be easier to perform it other ways, but it is possible. It sounds like the trick you're describing is something known as a 'book test' by mentalists. There are a couple of book tests on youtube but it looks like they all use the crappest method going, so I won't link to any of them. You are right in being suspicious. I have never seen a method for book tests that involves memory to the extreme degree that it appears to show.Kirk Bevins wrote:I had memorised pi up to 257 decimal places at A-level and it was fun to recite it. I decided to stop there though as my subject studying was suffering. I believe people, with the right techniques, can remember things but Derren doesn't do this. He claimed to memorise the whole encyclopedia/dictionary or something in an episode involving a library and some dude chose a page and a line and Derren recited the words to him. He claimed it was memory from that morning but, again, it seems like he's using trickery to dupe some of us into thinking he is a memory master. I wonder why he doesn't hold many records for memorising in the Guinness Book of World Records.