Religious Experiences And The Power Of Suggestion

In this 47 minute video, Derren Brown performs several experiments showing the tremendous power of suggestion. It's all done with a mostly atheist/agnostic audience.

The crowning achievement at the end, is when he induces a religious experience in an extremely skeptical stem cell researcher, using only 15 minutes of dialogue in which he uses subconscious priming of emotions and concepts. During the entire conversation he never once says the word "god", or "christ", or anything like that. It's all to do with invoking emotions and feelings of presence (to which we are hard wired).

Really great watch, dare you not to cringe at least a few times at how foolish the audience must feel.

I hope it gives some food for thought about real reasons why people choose to believe what they believe, and the real truth values of those beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51B8MzcxOX0

I've only just discovered Derren now, and I see he has many other shows where he also tricks people into no longer having the fears they have through use of the placebo effect, and also infiltrates a faith healing community and reveals the charlatanism and greed within it.

To me, knowing facts about human psychology such as the ones presented here, it really is offensive to me to suggest that any religion is true. People who say we should nonetheless respect those beliefs, I wonder if those people respect these facts as much as they respect unfounded beliefs?

 

wow, thanks for posting this. these are exactly the mechanisms that social engineering exploits. actually, this experiment was in fact social engineering. our minds are subject to being programmed by external input.

 

I want to watch this video and I will within the next few days, hopefully...It looks extremely fascinating.

 

47 minutes? Lol.

Fuck.
That.
Up.
The.
Arse.

 

It was an interesting show with some good points and unique demonstrations but it felt with like with how much reliance on deception was used in it, I'm not even convinced Natalie wasn't an actor.

 

tbh, im not either (she probably was). that doesnt necessarily invalidate it completely though.

 

The deception was intentional and broadcasted to showcase the power of suggestion . . . the point is to imagine how easy it is to convince someone to convert to a particular religion using much more overt tactics such as televangelism and so forth. If people's behavior can be modulated by the kinds of trivial exercises done in this video, how trivially easy is it to get people to join a religion?

 

The demonstration(s) may be applicable to people sitting on the fence in regards to religious belief and it certainly shows how naïvely trustworthly people can be. However, I am skeptical a 10 minute conversation in a church, relying on flattery and a few finger taps from a known illusionist (let alone pastor/televangelist) would be enough to convert most people who have maintained an atheist position throughout their adult, if not entire lives.

Also, as far as I am aware, atheism has been mentioned in both the East and West for as long as theistic beliefs have, so I think the way he presents God as being an evolutionarily developed concept hardwired into the brain to explain our independent morality is, on the surface a bogus assumption. Although I have not read the work who he based those statements on which perhaps may elucidate Brown's claims..

 

Sweet, haven't seen that one. The dude's a genius, highly recommend his other progs.

GB, it's essentially hypnosis. There has to be an element of openness towards things. People who actively resist being put under hypnosis will never be hypnotised. Flattery that's natural and that doesn't seem contrived lulls people into a state of comfort, which leads to an increased receptiveness towards the flatterer. The flattered, therefore, is more willing to involve themselves into whatever's being said by the flatterer. The art of business, politics, pick-up etc..

In Derren's case, and most politicians and pick-up artists, they're aware of what they're doing to their "subject", but the same result occurs in someone who isn't aware of what they're doing, but actually believes what they're saying, especially if the listeners are lost or passive thinkers. As a species, we respond to confidence and authority.

I think the current state of dogmatism is perfectly natural, and I'd be worried if people didn't defend their beliefs from head on attacks. As posited by Derren, the power of suggestion is far more influential, primarily because it works with the mental constructs already present and the listener willingly agrees to adapt themselves to circumstance, rather than working directly against them and attempting to capsize someones boat in the middle of a vast and unknown waters.

 

If he's using hypnosis doesn't that make it even less relatable to conversion in the real world?


I think, certainly would like to think, most atheist/agnostic individuals who rely on evidence and science to formulate their viewpoints regarding a cosmological paradigm are above having their entire notion of the cosmos shift over a few compliments. In fact, I've seen flattery used here and there on individuals in this thread, without such drastic changes to their paradigms. (Perhaps the X-factor was that it was not face to face?) Emotional appeal may make one feel good and have the individual even respect the flatterer but it's essentially a useless tactic, basically the opposite of an hominem attack with the same result, it's irrelevant to the arguments of the position.

Again, it's a tactic which may work for someone on the fence seeking some sort of emotional comfort or perhaps feeling the need to fill a void but I doubt many atheists would be convinced like the participant in the video.

 

Plus why even talk to people to convert them when you can just touch them to convert them ?


11:00-22:00

http://youtu.be/MT3izBQfh5M

 

I'd suggest there is no state of "non-hypnosis", but varying degrees of hypnosis.

A better description would be that we're constantly processing information, but how and what we process varies, and can be altered and influenced by subtle coercions, either planned or naturally present(the "Intervention" girl for instance). Hypnosis is just focusing attention. Meditation is self hypnosis.

It's not just down to flattery, flattery is one tiny aspect of a more general idea. It's down to creating an atmosphere, both physically and mentally, and then relating the two together. Flattery invokes an emotional response, a right brain function. Build on that and the left brain takes the back seat and begins to reinforce the emotional aspects of her current state of reality instead of leading it with "cold hearted" rationality.


And let's not kid ourselves, everyone seeks emotional comfort.



I'll check Messiah tomorrow




Edit: He's not converting them, they're converting themselves. That's the key. It's just a matter of paving the way to the realisation of inherent Beauty. That same experiment could have been conducted with a vastly different physical and conceptual context, but if all the emotional triggers were pulled in the same way the emotional result would have been the same.

 

if you want to see his craziest shit, look up the zombie video game where he puts an audience member inside a zombie arcade game.

also, another crazy one is where he makes people forget their own names on the bus.

 

Exactly, the specifics of the demonstration are irrelevant. What does matter is the knowledge of how easily we are swayed by the things around us, and how primed our brains are to be deceived by certain patterns of thinking and feeling.

If it's all coming from within, then it can't be from the things that people assign their experiences to; ie, a catholic has a religious experience and thinks its the holy ghost, a muslim has one and thinks its allah. Are both right? They can't be. Is one of them right, and every other myriad religious system in the history of humanity has been wrong? that's absurd. It's obvious that they are both wrong, and they are both conflating two separate things; the spiritual experience, which comes "from within", and whatever system of religiosity they happen to have been swayed by in that particular point of their life.

 

Suggesting we're always under a form of hypnosis is rather interesting and a bold proposition that I think I'll leave alone.

Having watched a few televangelists here and there (although usually maintaining critical thought) and having been flattered in regards to my own "God given abilities" from time to time, I'm not buying your explanation of the phenomena. However, that's not taking anything away from Brown, he seems really adept at what he does.

In regards to seeking comfort from a supernatural deity, no not everyone seeks emotional comfort from such. I think this is one of the primary fallacies of theistic believers when discussing beliefs with atheists. Perhaps it's difficult to imagine not receiving invisible hugs or having a non-physical friend to rely on listening to all your existential quandries, or (insert other comforting idea) but really, and I don't want to speak for all atheists, I as well as others I've discussed this topic with cannot relate to emotional comfort in a supernatural deity.

 

That was pretty wild, I was thinking that guy is probably going to have PTSD surface in a few years but I'm sure he's been shown that video.

 

i think this is a major factor, but that there can also be more to it, at least for some individuals.

i am of course skeptical when a claimed 'religious experience' resembles too closely things that have been written or spoken before,
especially those of an obviously orthodox slant, which clearly are influenced dominant dogmas.

at the same time, i don't arbitrary reject my own experiences, nor those others may have had,
which are of a very different nature. one not shaped by the thoughts of others.

 

Hypnosis is just a awareness brought into focus. Like... studying. Same principle, people just call it hypnosis and make it seem oh-so-mysterious because the awareness is focused on a part of the psyche that most people are not generally aware of, like the dark side of the moon. We all know it's there really, but barely think about it when we look up. The shiny bit we can see holds our attention.

And you put words in my mouth, I never mentioned a supernatural deity, although that is one form emotional comfort can take. Faith in science is another, and so is a lover. Emotions are abstract and aren't linked to specific concepts until we, ourselves, decide to rationalise and pigeon hole them.

Pulling this in from the "How real do you consider the psychedelic experience" thread:

Psychedelics plunge us into the strangest states of mind, and although there may not actually be Machine Elves, the emotional significance and the perspective that comes with such and experience is undeniable, as we return swimming in the most fundamental aspect of life.. mystery.

Replace psychedelics with "mystical experiences", and Machine Elves with "God", and mystery is synonymous with beauty and awe.


Again, everyone seeks emotional comfort.

 

Knowing the facts of human psychology your experience of feeling offended comes not from their assertion but from your own. Taking offense is not an appropriate or clear headed reaction to an energetic display. It suggests that you psychologically labor from a disproportionate sense or view. Anxiety of this nature speaks to an emotional displacement, it is caused by the misapprehension of what is so.

One interesting thing about this psychology is that the use of words engenders emotional tones. This is because our relationship with these symbols begins with primal utterances and in hearing and speaking we recall.

What if you are familiar with and wholly respect the facts human psychology and yet come upon an objective reason for belief?

 

Those who are comfortable have it to share. The only reason to be concerned about hypnosis is for mindless habit.