monline

In this show Derren Brown shows the basic concepts of brainwashing (although the Wikipedia page does not explicitly mention this phrase, I believe his technique fits the definition). He used various so-called "anchors" (some sort of external stimulus like a sound, smell, touch, etc.) to trigger a previously experienced feeling (or a combination of all the "good" and excited feelings that the subject has experienced before). He also planted criminal thoughts and ideas into the subjects using the same "highly-motivated state" (as he called it in the show). The point was to make some ordinary people commit an armed robbery and 3 of the 4 selected subjects have indeed done it. Read on to see why I disapprove of this "experiment".

I must admit that it was fascinating. But ... The subjects did not have much of a choice. They were dragged into the experiment without their knowledge and consent. Of course the "trick" would have most probably not worked if they knew ... and most probably the subjects would not have agreed to participate at all. At the end of the show it was said (actually written on the screen) that all of the finally selected subjects were "de-programmed" (freed of their artificially "implanted" criminal inclinations) and all of them have consulted both Derren and an independent psychologist to make sure they were just fine. And it also said that Derren met with the four selected subjects weeks after filming and "they were all more than happy with their involvement".

Now that's were I object. The whole point of the show was to bind criminal behaviour with a very good/positive and intensive feeling in the subjects. Since this was all an experiment and the participants were "tricked" into doing what they've done, in the end they were freed of any responsibility of their actions. They proved to be good people doing bad things just because they were influenced. So it's kind of cool to be in the show, isn't it? At least that's what Derren wants us to think. And the subjects experienced "being high" without a long term addiction (like drugs or the like), so why not be happy with the outcome? However who says that this experience had no negative effect on their lives? Who says that they are really free from any influence this experience might have put on them? Eg. are all the subjects' friends and familiars going to be just as forgiving as the subjects themselves?

I think that Derren has designed the show so that the final participants (the selected subjects) were almost guaranteed not to have anything against having them in the film. I bet that if this was shot in the US, Derren got a big fat suite from at least one of the subjects' lawyers. Just because one can:

1. select a few people and make them do things that they would have never agreed to do willingly
2. and selected them in a way that in the end they would even feel great about being fooled

does not make it less wrong.

I think that Derren is an experienced and proficient con artist (mentalist ... or whatever you'd like to call him), but he went too far with this show. He should have been allowed to make it only with the preliminary agreement of the participants ... which would have most probably make the trick impossible to work.

PS: btw. the TV series "The Mentalist" is based on a character much like Derren Brown. It's an interesting show, give it a shot. The protagonist actually uses his skills for the good (but only after he suffered a severe trauma - his wife and child was murdered by a serial killer whom he foolishly insulted by making look like a fool in a talk show).