Derren Brown: Archive
| Message ID: 01758 | [ Previous ] [ Next ] [ Up Thread ] |
From: Blue Chip
Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 4:15am
Subject: Grouping and dividing as an aide memoire
Hi,
Having taken some time to read nearly every message on this board, I think
it is about time I shared a few of my thoughts with you in return.
There was talk that the group is split into two halves. 'Those who know
and those who don't.' This is a lovely example of information grouping and
immediately presents each of us with the opportunity to use this 'rule' as
an example of how _grouping_ works. It is obvious to everyone that there
MUST be a grey area; and there is certainly one which leaps out at me
immediately. Each group can be clearly divided again.
Them who know:
Them who know and want to build the air of mystery
Them who know and want to spread the word
Them who don't:
Them who don't but like the funfair "ride of illusions"
Them who don't but want to take a multimeter and slide-rule to it
(keep dividing the rules until you get bored)
But we take all that for granted. We, as intellects, KNOW that personality
dictates that some [members] will share, and others will hoard, so we do
not need to state that in our rule. It is taken as a
'presupposition'; Within a group of people we 'presuppose' that there will
be a selection of personality traits. And we instinctively apply that
presupposition to any place where people collect.
Of course, but what about the "national society of altruists" - you're not
gonna find a lot of hoarders there. DAMN! our rule just fell over - BIG
time. So badly we could call this an 'anti-rule'.
So, how about this rule: "every rule has an exception and every exception
has a rule" - It's paradoxical, so surely that makes the rule stupid, and
hence a pointless rule to have.
No (he exclaims arrogantly), but the reasoning here is a little
differnt. Rather than try and divide it down, one immediately says to
themselves, "well I can find an example that disproves that rule... How
about <there is no word English with 'eee' at the start> - there's no
exception to that!?".
See how long it takes you to come up with another <un-exceptional example>
before reading on .:.:^:.:.
I would suggest that you came up with another quite quickly, and thus
proving my (forthcoming) point, that you do not need a complete set of
rules for everything; Often the rule is so wrong, that it immediately
spwans its own 'anti-rule'. And this is a phenomenal way of tricking your
mind into storing more information than it at first appears.
A nice simple example...
"Why simple?" you ask (and being intellectual, I expect you to question
me). I understand this theory, I'm not sure now if I read it somewhere or
if I concluded it from the information I did read, but it feels like MY
IDEA. I, of course, understand ALL of MY IDEAS, but that doesn't really
help much in day-to-day life. The clever bit, is not _having_ an idea, it
is in being able to _share_ the idea with another**. Complex exmaples of a
theory rarely serve this purpose well.
**I do not plan to go into the sociology of why communication is paramount
to society, maybe another day.
Rule: People are Right Handed (RH)
Note that I do NOT say "All people..."
The first thing we can suspect about this example is that at some point a
Left Handed (LH) person is going to turn up. And let us look up to the sky
for some divine intervention that keeps all the ambidextrous (AD) anomolies
in Atlantis for the duration of our laboratory test.
Here we go... You are in 'laboratory conditions' and there is a man on the
other side of the table from you. And a few items on the table between
you. The voice in your headphones says:
"He will now, in a manner which is natural to him, pick up the pen and sign
his name. Which hand will he use?"
Now (and =please= realise that these numbers are flexible) I can say with
90% certainty that he will pick it up with his RH, because I have a
rule. "[And if] you can cheat effectively or stack the odds at least 90%
in your favour..."
Go on, say "RIGHT", and you'll most likely take the first step on the
journey of proving you're psychic.
Okay. Shit luck or a well schemed test leads the guy in the room pick up
the pen and proceed to sign his name with his LEFT hand.
The voice starts again:
"He will now, in a manner which is natural to him, pick up the glass and
drink from it. Which hand will he use?"
Okay. We've just seen him use his LH so we've ruled out 90% of the problem
(all the RH people), so now we're down to LH and AD. There are
significantly few AD people, say 1% of all people. Again the odds are
stacked firmly in your favour, so you call "LEFT"
You haven't kept up your confessional, and Atlantis is a myth. The guy
picks up the glass with his RIGHT hand :(
Anyway, again with the voice:
"He will now, in a manner which is natural to him, pick up the pen and sign
his name. Which hand will he use?"
Hmmmm, sounds familiar...
At the end of this sentence, pause, and answer: Which hand WILL he use? o
Hopefully your brain just said something like "I've got a 99% chance he
will do the same thing again, but as he is AD, he could well swap"... So
call it! "LEFT AGAIN" the odds are 99% in your favour - AND DO IT
CONFIDENTLY - there's nothing more depressing that watching an insecure
mentalist/performer/psychologist. They all look like they've "just been
robbed of their objectivity." (It put hope into my heart watching Derren
shred that guy ("that guy", I'm sorry, I know it's rude of me, but I have
yet to solve my inability to remember names <looks embarrased>))
Anyway, back in the lab... You call "LEFT AGAIN" and the guy screws with
you once more and sign with his RIGHT hand this time. Give up! You've
just been framed!
...But did you see how the simple rule "People are right handed" just kept
expanding and expanding into a very comprehesive rule set and without any
effort on your behalf. The fact that we were surprised by our 'wrongness'
at every step gives us 'the exception that proves the rule.'
But we WILL misuse this experience. The next time we are presented with a
similar problem we will panic and think "I was caught out by this once, I'm
not taking any chances like that again." Why?? The next time it happens
you will still have a 90% chance of being right on the first guess - ask
ANY gambler - they are incredible odds - take them - every time - it WILL
pay off overall (unless you're my friend Paul, who is the unluckiest guy I
have ever met!)
How can you apply this? Well to take another straight-forward
example: Eye accessing cues.
I AM NOT GOING TO DRAW A CHART, they only serve to confuse. Stop thinking
about up-left and up-right, they are words! WATCH the eyes, and remember
up-and-this-way, and up-and-that-way (up and down will be fine unless you
plan to examine people hanging by their ankles?). Try it on a bunch of
friends and see how your rule did - you may want to change it for next
time, no-one said that your rules have to be perfect first time. I believe
Derren was quoted as taking 10 years in the development of his rule set.
Make up a rule: "Up and this-a-way means visual recollection"
Now go and prove it. Ask your friend 'John' at some point in the evening
"John... What was the coolest thing you ever got for christmas?" Saying
his name and pausing at the start of the question will get him to look you
in the eye; it makes eye movement so much easier when they look straight at
you. You can spawn a whole conversation from this... "Mine was a
bike. Hey, Bob... Did you ever have a bike?" ... "Yeah? What colour was
it?" <visual recollection> ... "I got knocked off mine, wow, YOU SHOULD
IMAGINE THE PAIN" <visual construction>
Before you ask, guess where the eyes will go, and then see if you are
right. With any luck you will have a good selection of people in your
crowd and will find 90% are one type, 9% are the exact opposite, and
there's one weirdo who just DOESN'T conform to your rule-set. Forget the
99% now, we've got a rule which they either completely-DO or
completely-DONT conform to, and I can work out which they are in a couple
of simple questions**. Concentrate your efforts on working out the weirdo,
for it will be from this rule-set that you evaluate future weirdos.
**How did you get here this evening? Nice jacket where did you get it
from? Where are you going when you leave? etcetera etcetera and so forth
...You see how from the rule "Up and this-a-way means visual recollection"
I have eliminated 99% of my problem (with a quick question or two) and will
in future only be caught out by weirdos. For 'weirdos' also read 'people
who are deliberately screwing with you.' If they are scewing with you make
them thnk you are watching the eyes and monitor their fingers instead -
they stand little chance of controlling EVERYTHING. Even The Mighty Derren
has his tells.
You can do this with so much information. If you're playing blackjack
start with a presupposition like "each card is worth 10 points" and it
could be said that your odds have just gone from 1-in-52 to about
1-in-3. Then start to work out how this rule unfolds until in encomapsses
the whole deck.
I hope you've had as much fun reading this, as I had writing it. Good luck
with your memory improvement.
Bc
