Comments on: Classifying

By: Breki Tomasson

Breki Tomasson — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:07:11 +0000

Also, the “could you” in the beginning of the “Could you hold this for me” puts the man in an expectant state, he’s already performed two services (guiding and holding a bottle), so he’s in a “giving” state of mind, so to speak.

… or at least; that’s how I interpret it.

By: Ellie

Ellie — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:52:42 +0000

I see! The bottle had really seemed like an anchor, but I see your point. I think the word “cheers” is one, though.

By: Breki Tomasson

Breki Tomasson — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:27:03 +0000

Yeah, this is definitely closer to NLP and “manipulation” than a typical hypnotic trance. Then again, it’s an area where the borders between the two blur, and really depends on your take on whether hypnosis is a state or non-state.

What I’m not sure about is whether the handing of the bottle is an anchor or not. I mean; it makes sense for it to be one, and it might very well work as one, but I think Derren is using it as a way of enhancing what’s already a very confusing situation. When somebody asks you to hold something for them, you’re automatically placed in a state of anticipating “he needs to do something that requires both hands”. Derren, however, interrupts this pattern before it’s even started by asking “Can I have your watch?” and reaching for it before he’s even let go of the bottle properly.

By: Ellie

Ellie — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:19:21 +0000

Breki,

Thanks for the analysis video. Interesting. So, a couple of questions - so would you say this is more NLP as opposed to hypnosis? Also, what do you not agree with in the analysis?

Ellie

By: Breki Tomasson

Breki Tomasson — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:50:18 +0000

Well, in the Derren Brown video, there is an obvious sense of rapport. Note how Derren takes a step back and the guy follows him to keep at a similar distance.

Then also listen to the words he’s using: “You’re happy to give that to me”, when asking if it’s okay to ask him these questions. The handshake after he’s asked the questions is a handshake interrupt, causing even more confusion.

There’s another youtube video up there, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybmOlQRuaYM - which describes the method better than I’ve done here. I don’t entirely agree with all of it, but most of it is a good analysis.

Oh, and the name is Tomasson - I misspelled it in my previous comments

By: Ellie

Ellie — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:20:03 +0000

Thanks Michael. I am not sure why the video is not coming up. I am using a Mac and have checked it on another machine (Safari and Firefox). It is just the standard embedding from Youtube. Anyone else having problems?

Great explanation.

By: Michael Raugh, C.H.

Michael Raugh, C.H. — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:03:46 +0000

(The video isn’t coming up for me, by the way. Is it something that only works on a Windows machine?)

Fast-talking con artists have been around since the invention of language, I suspect. From the brief pieces of the security-cam video that I’ve seen, I’d tell a client that this is not hypnosis because:

There is no establishment of rapport between the robber and the cashier
The cashier, accounts say, is either unsure what happened or remembers nothing

I would explain to the client that hypnosis is a process that occurs between the two of us, or internally in the case of self-hypnosis. It starts with rapport, that sense of connectedness that we get as we talk, and is a clear, guided process of focus and concentration during which the client’s mind hears and accepts suggestion.

What I see on the video looks to me like someone getting confused and losing track of what they’re doing. That’s a loss of focus and concentration — the opposite of hypnosis. Con artists have been inducing that state in people to bilk them out of money for thousands of years. This example is nothing new.