talkmagic.co.uk

Part-Timer wrote:

Robbie wrote:I think the "Experiments" are supposed to be more documentary-like, rather than a whiz-bang mentalism act. They're really mini-essays illustrated by experiments.

The second one, about mob mentality, was purely a documentary. Knowing the point of it beforehand, it was actually rather draggy to watch the whole experiment play out -- and yet it was necessary to watch the whole experiment in order to really feel the ending. And that lump-of-lead-in-the-stomach feeling at the end was the point of the programme.

But as the premise was so flawed, it didn't really work as a documentary or an experiment. In the previous show, he'd stressed that it was important for the guy not to know he was being filmed, as this might affect his behaviour. Apparently, putting people in a TV studio won't have the slightest effect.

I was under the impression that the premise of the show was to show how easy it is for people to get caught up in things and how situations arise that make your average person behave in ways that could be described as morally dubious i.e. by presenting someone as a bit of a s*** and then giving people choices that gradually escalate in cruelty- normal people like you and me can be manipulated into deciding that it's ok to vote to have a strangers house smashed up and then be kidnapped by thugs rather than given a reward for all the abuse you've put them through. It wasn't an experiment to see if people will behave that way in their day to day lives as if it were true you'd be scared to step out of your front door!The point was to show that the baying hungry mob lurks within us all and it only takes the right type of circumstances to let the monster out.

By manipulating a bunch of strangers in a tv studio with masks on to make them feel anonymous, Derren was showing how a mob mentality can be created and how it can be done to anyone- not just hghly suggestible people. In the last one it was important that the guy didn't know he was being filmed- in this one the opposite was the case. Because the audience felt that they were part of a tv show and therefore there was a production company who would take responsibility for everything that happened- they were quite happy to surrender any feelings of responsibility for their own actions and therfore act like complete b******s. Forget your normal moral values; you're on a tv show so act without restraint!

The same way that anonymity or semi-anonymity on the internet makes people feel alright with being rude or aggressive to complete strangers in ways that they'd never do if they were face to face, the environment of the tv show along with all the little manipulative tweaks that were part of how the events were presented to the studio audience allowed them to treat another human being in ways that they never usually would.

I think the crowd's constant picking of the negative outcome was less to do with the anonymity and more to do with that fact that no-one would expect any real harm to come to the subject as a result of their actions. Derren's presentation of the show, light heartedly disapproving of the audience choices, would have reinforced the idea that there is always a TV show "safety net" (he'd never come to any physical harm, they'd replace his broken TV etc.). Without the masks I think they would have made exactly the same choices, just from the way it was presented. The end result seemed to be more about retribution on the audience for their choices than actually proving any salient point other than "It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt".

The show was, as always, very entertaining. But from the scientific point of view, completely problematic. It did not prove or disprove anything. Still, I loved it.

I like Derren but I can't help but think he was not being totally truthful in the last show about the 'subject' not being in on it.

If the bloke didn't know he was being set up they basically broke a number of laws which would have left them open to prosicution and I can't see any production company or tv channel signing off on it.

By my reckoning they could have been done for.

False imprisonment
Impersonating a police officer
Criminal damage
trespass

and problably a few more on top of that. Added to this they had no idea how he would react to being asked outside for a fight in the bar and I can't help but think he must have been in on it also.

I think anyone who thinks that this whole show wasn't a faked set-up is naive in the extreme. I think Harry Potter was more realistic looking than this!

Lord Freddie wrote:I think anyone who thinks that this whole show wasn't a faked set-up is naive in the extreme. I think Harry Potter was more realistic looking than this!

Oh god Freddie, please don't try and tell us thatHarry Potter isn't real! You are starting to make a fool of yourself!

Sandman wrote:I like Derren but I can't help but think he was not being totally truthful ....

"MAGICIAN NOT BEING TRUTHFUL"

Remember you read it here first in Talkmagic

Remember, the subject of the "game show" experiment was the studio audience, not their supposed target. It doesn't matter whether he was in on it or not.

A J Irving wrote:The point was to show that the baying hungry mob lurks within us all and it only takes the right type of circumstances to let the monster out.

And it failed to do that, because:

DJBenz wrote:I think the crowd's constant picking of the negative outcome was less to do with the anonymity and more to do with that fact that no-one would expect any real harm to come to the subject as a result of their actions. Derren's presentation of the show, light heartedly disapproving of the audience choices, would have reinforced the idea that there is always a TV show "safety net" (he'd never come to any physical harm, they'd replace his broken TV etc.). Without the masks I think they would have made exactly the same choices, just from the way it was presented. The end result seemed to be more about retribution on the audience for their choices than actually proving any salient point other than "It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt".

The only circumstances in which it proved anything was during the controlled environment of a TV show hosted by Derren Brown, where people are led to think it's just a bit of fun. Even then, the bad outcome was rarely chosen by a storming majority. Contrary to what the programme was trying to show, the numbers of people voting for the nasty outcome dipped quite a bit after the initial incident and seemed to stay around the 60% mark. Not quite "mob mentality" in my book.

I actually suspect mob mentality has more to do with fitting in and peer pressure than anonymity. But what do I know?

Plus you don't know what the audience were told before. They could have been told that nothing really bad will happen, it's just a tv show, always go for the option that will be more entertainng for viewers at home etc...

A fake reaction is a faked environment.

And Derren used to be so good.....

Lord Freddie wrote:Plus you don't know what the audience were told before. They could have been told that nothing really bad will happen, it's just a tv show, always go for the option that will be more entertainng for viewers at home etc...

Quite so, and even if the audience wasn't actually told that, it is implicit in the context of such a show.

I don't think it was one of Darren's best shows, & I am a huge fan of his.
I think he is a very clever young man.

One thing that did come across, certainly for me anyway is.

Always give someone the benefit of the doubt, & Never kick anyone when they are down.

CArl...