Derren Brown - his memory techniques
may
Are there any experts on such things in this "esteemed" group
who would like to comment or spill the beans on how
to memorize facts and recall with apparent ease ?
thanks
AC
"may" <m...@may.com> wrote in message
news:m5udndczqO1Ib4HV...@giganews.com...
Its impossible to do in they way it was presented. Its a trick dressed up as
what you saw. A trick on both the viewer and the subject.
If you are really that interested you can spend some time with google and
P2P and find out exactly how Derren and others do what they do. Its highly
skilled and if you cant do the research and work, you don't really deserve
to know. With out the research you wouldn't even really understand a one
paragraph answer, let alone implement it.
Sorry
AC
middl...@googlemail.com
>> Are there any experts on such things in this "esteemed" group
>> who would like to comment or spill the beans on how
>> to memorize facts and recall with apparent ease ?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>
>Its impossible to do in they way it was presented. Its a trick dressed up as
>what you saw. A trick on both the viewer and the subject.
>
>If you are really that interested you can spend some time with google and
>P2P and find out exactly how Derren and others do what they do. Its highly
>skilled and if you cant do the research and work, you don't really deserve
>to know. With out the research you wouldn't even really understand a one
>paragraph answer, let alone implement it.
DR?
may
Blimey !
i only asked a question - i didn't realise a "google fascist" would reply
what an attitiude you have - started out sensible then lost it
i didnt realise you knew everybody in the group and so decided google was
my best avenue
there are legitimate methods out there for speed learning and i thought
somebody who knew something about them would reply
you fucking idiot
sorry indeed
"AC" <xx...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:xjfTj.121234$4f4....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
Deano
> who would like to comment or spill the beans on how
> to memorize facts and recall with apparent ease ?
>
One technique is to use a memorable walk and associate the items you want to
recall with buildings and objects you see on the way. Or you could convert
numbers into visual objects you can then link to e.g 1 look like a t, which
becomes a teacup. You then think of a memorable association between a
teacup and the item you wish to remember. Then recalling item 1 in your
list of say 100 items should be as easy as recalling item 79.
Deano
>
> Blimey !
>
> i only asked a question - i didn't realise a "google fascist" would reply
>
> what an attitiude you have - started out sensible then lost it
>
> i didnt realise you knew everybody in the group and so decided google was
> my best avenue
>
> there are legitimate methods out there for speed learning and i thought
> somebody who knew something about them would reply
>
> you fucking idiot
>
> sorry indeed
Yes a bit of a strange reply unless he means "you" to be everyone in
general. Either way he should have made that clear to avoid offence.
middl...@googlemail.com
wrote:
That's one of a number of techniques which turn the things you want to
remember into memorable images that link up in some way. However,
that clearly wasn't the technique used on ToT, as the bloke was
skimming through hundreds (if not thousands!) of books in the one
week, and would not have been able to construct such associations for
such a massive amount of information. It was also made clear by DB
that the "method" used only allowed you to retain the information for
a few days, whereas the method you've described should work for much
longer periods of retention.
(I say "method" because, as is often the case with DB, I don't believe
that what we were shown and told was happening was what was actually
happening.)
DannyT
You patronising arsehole. Must be great to be so clever eh?
tims next home
<middl...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:jhhr14po3686rhitf...@4ax.com...
No neither do I, and I have stopped watching him because of it.
tim
Poldie
> <middleli...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
So you've stopped voting too, I take it?
tims next home
"Poldie" <Pol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:23381882-bb75-48be...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
sorry don't see the connection.
DB is entertainment, which I personally get little value from
One votes for an entirely different reason.
tim
Col
"tims next home" <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6886c0F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> DB is entertainment, which I personally get little value from
>
> One votes for an entirely different reason.
Unless you voted for Boris Johnson that is....
--
Col
Steal a spaceship and head for the sun,
Shoot the stars with a lemonade ray gun.
Richard Brooks
> "tims next home" <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6886c0F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>> DB is entertainment, which I personally get little value from
>>
>> One votes for an entirely different reason.
>
> Unless you voted for Boris Johnson that is....
You noticed the BJ subliminal messages in DB's programme too? ;-)
Ahoyhoy
> who would like to comment or spill the beans on how
> to memorize facts and recall with apparent ease ?
Fuck, I forgot it was on.
Francis Burton
> > (I say "method" because, as is often the case with DB, I don't believe
> > that what we were shown and told was happening was what was actually
> > happening.)
>
> No neither do I, and I have stopped watching him because of it.
Is there any particular reason to believe the TV audience is being
deceived in this way - just that it *has* to be in order to explain
how some (or all) of the tricks/feats are performed?
Francis
tims next home
"Francis Burton" <F.L.B...@bio.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:481F1D53...@bio.gla.ac.uk...
> tims next home wrote:
>> > (I say "method" because, as is often the case with DB, I don't believe
>> > that what we were shown and told was happening was what was actually
>> > happening.)
>>
>> No neither do I, and I have stopped watching him because of it.
>
> Is there any particular reason to believe the TV audience is being
> deceived in this way - just that it *has* to be in order to explain
Deceived in which way?
Magicians cheat, it's what they do.
There are some forms of cheating that I find entertaining, and some that I
don't.
tim
Francis Burton
> >> > (I say "method" because, as is often the case with DB, I don't believe
> >> > that what we were shown and told was happening was what was actually
> >> > happening.)
> >>
> >> No neither do I, and I have stopped watching him because of it.
> >
> > Is there any particular reason to believe the TV audience is being
> > deceived in this way - just that it *has* to be in order to explain
>
> Deceived in which way?
I assumed you meant that DB and the programme team used stooges or
actors (contrary to the disclaimer at the beginning of the show) and
that the effects were created by means other than "magic, suggestion,
psychology, misdirection and showmanship", e.g. by post-production
fakery. Sorry if I misunderstood.
If that what you *did* in fact mean, I'd be interested to hear what
in particular gives you reason to think this.
> Magicians cheat, it's what they do.
>
> There are some forms of cheating that I find entertaining, and some that I
> don't.
Do you find the kind of cheating that magicians do entertaining? If
not, it comes down to a difference in taste and there's nothing more
to discuss.
Francis
Tommo
<snip>
>
> > Magicians cheat, it's what they do.
>
> > There are some forms of cheating that I find entertaining, and some that I
> > don't.
>
> Do you find the kind of cheating that magicians do entertaining? If
> not, it comes down to a difference in taste and there's nothing more
> to discuss.
>
> Francis
'Magic' is just one of the things DB does.
I remember one thing he did where he correctly 'predicted' the
contents of someones shopping list. The only way he could have done
this is to have picked his pocket, read it, and returned it.
However, there are a number of things that he does that can only be
explained by some *very* impressive techniques, or out and out
cheating. This last show falls within this category. I am inclined to
think the former until someone proves otherwise.
tims next home
> tims next home wrote:
>> >> > (I say "method" because, as is often the case with DB, I don't
>> >> > believe
>> >> > that what we were shown and told was happening was what was actually
>> >> > happening.)
>> >>
>> >> No neither do I, and I have stopped watching him because of it.
>> >
>> > Is there any particular reason to believe the TV audience is being
>> > deceived in this way - just that it *has* to be in order to explain
>>
>> Deceived in which way?
>
> I assumed you meant that DB and the programme team used stooges or
> actors (contrary to the disclaimer at the beginning of the show) and
> that the effects were created by means other than "magic, suggestion,
> psychology, misdirection and showmanship", e.g. by post-production
> fakery. Sorry if I misunderstood.
>
> If that what you *did* in fact mean, I'd be interested to hear what
> in particular gives you reason to think this.
I once saw Paul Daniels claim that he never uses stooges. A few weeks
later, on one of his shows he "randomly" picked someone out of the audience
to "cut in half". Unless I am very much mistaken, cutting someone in half
requires 'cooperation' from the subject. I came to the conclusion that (a)
this person was a stooge and (b) Magician's have no qualms in their cheating
reaching the point of blatant lying.
> Do you find the kind of cheating that magicians do entertaining?
I find slight of hand and similar entertaining
I find tricks which require "cooperation" from alledged random subjects as
not.
tim
Francis Burton
> > I assumed you meant that DB and the programme team used stooges or
> > actors (contrary to the disclaimer at the beginning of the show) and
> > that the effects were created by means other than "magic, suggestion,
> > psychology, misdirection and showmanship", e.g. by post-production
> > fakery. Sorry if I misunderstood.
> >
> > If that what you *did* in fact mean, I'd be interested to hear what
> > in particular gives you reason to think this.
>
> I once saw Paul Daniels claim that he never uses stooges. A few weeks
> later, on one of his shows he "randomly" picked someone out of the audience
> to "cut in half". Unless I am very much mistaken, cutting someone in half
> requires 'cooperation' from the subject. I came to the conclusion that (a)
> this person was a stooge and (b) Magician's have no qualms in their cheating
> reaching the point of blatant lying.
I see your point, but doesn't a real stooge have prior knowledge by
definition? PD could have picked a genuinely naive member of the
audience and persuaded her (extremely easily I suspect) to cooperate
in performing the trick.
> > Do you find the kind of cheating that magicians do entertaining?
>
> I find slight of hand and similar entertaining
>
> I find tricks which require "cooperation" from alledged random subjects as
> not.
Fair enough.
As far as DB's earlier series go (I haven't seen the latest), I am
inclined to believe that his random subjects really are naive and
he achieves his effects through the methods stated at the beginning
of the show. Personally I'm less interested in the sleight of hand
than the psychological aspects, i.e. the suggestibility of people
and DB's (apparent) ability to pick up subtle body-language clues.
Francis