Jump to content
IGNORED

Derren Brown : The Events Fridays 9pm


Capwn
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wednesday was brilliant? It was nice to speculate how he did it, but now it's obvious it was a camera trick AND he made up a load of shit just makes it pretty terrible all round really.

Surely someone of his intelligence and resourcefulness could have come up with something more entertaining and believable than that.

And Wednesday was not brilliant. It was designed to make you watch 5 commercial breaks.

Fucksake.

We're all here discussing it though. That's the brilliance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to re-iterate - there's no possibly way, using maths or averages or any mechanism whatsoever, to predict the outcome of six randomly generated numbers beforehand, for the simple reason that randomness has nothing to do with averages. Any numbers that have appeared in previous draws are irrelevant here.

Well no, I know that, I'm not for once suggesting that he actually predicted the numbers, simply that he could have revealed each persons guesses at the end of the show and shown that the averages corresponded with the actual numbers, just with a bit of maths trickery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to re-iterate - there's no possibly way, using maths or averages or any mechanism whatsoever, to predict the outcome of six randomly generated numbers beforehand, for the simple reason that randomness has nothing to do with averages. Any numbers that have appeared in previous draws are irrelevant here.

therearerules is right. Except rather than having anything to do with maths whatsoever he's just re-hashed the paradox of the infinite number of monkeys sitting at an infinite number of type writers re-producing the complete works of Shakespeare. If you have enough people making random guesses of course you could cherry pick two of them that just happen to have the right mean numbers between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errr.. how come the averages for all the numbers were whole numbers? Should there not have been a decimal or two in there?

Not that that's the only flaw, obviously. Just saying...

Could just round up or down to the nearest integer. Nothing to say you shouldn't do that. In fact, mathematically he's right to round to the correct number of significant figures he started with*.

*Assuming you go along with this rubbish in the first place ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

therearerules is right. Except rather than having anything to do with maths whatsoever he's just re-hashed the paradox of the infinite number of monkeys sitting at an infinite number of type writers re-producing the complete works of Shakespeare. If you have enough people making random guesses of course you could cherry pick two of them that just happen to have the right mean numbers between them.

Or if you have enough you could cherry pick enough of them (more than two) to get the correct answers. I figured that's why he was allowing negatives and massive numbers, and if people write it without looking at the paper he could claim some of them were illegible. It's not like the monkey paradox because you can match the numbers after the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no, I know that, I'm not for once suggesting that he actually predicted the numbers, simply that he could have revealed each persons guesses at the end of the show and shown that the averages corresponded with the actual numbers, just with a bit of maths trickery.

Ah, sorry I see - yes. That's certainly possible (I think its a sort of confirmation bias). However, I don't think that the numbers written by the people in the room were the ones that were given to the person working the averages out.

Any amateur magician here will know the trick (note: written in pencil then passed to someone else, bad handwriting etc.). In fact, any time Derren says "Excuse the poor hand writing" he's using the same technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any amateur magician here will know the trick (note: written in pencil then passed to someone else, bad handwriting etc.). In fact, any time Derren says "Excuse the poor hand writing" he's using the same technique.

What's the technique. Can you give an example trick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, sorry I see - yes. That's certainly possible (I think its a sort of confirmation bias). However, I don't think that the numbers written by the people in the room were the ones that were given to the person working the averages out.

Any amateur magician here will know the trick (note: written in pencil then passed to someone else, bad handwriting etc.). In fact, any time Derren says "Excuse the poor hand writing" he's using the same technique.

Yup, I would have liked that though, moreso than "and then I magically got the 6 numbers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or if you have enough you could cherry pick enough of them (more than two) to get the correct answers. I figured that's why he was allowing negatives and massive numbers, and if people write it without looking at the paper he could claim some of them were illegible. It's not like the monkey paradox because you can match the numbers after the event.

The execution is of course different, but it's the same in principle. You have enough random rubbish that somewhere within it you can find exactly what you want out of it. With the monkeys on typewriters not only would one of them (actually an infinite number of them) produce the complete works of shakespeare, but you could also look at two (or two thousand, or infinity) of them who happen to have typed a random series of six numbers that happen to average between them to equal another series of six random numbers.

I think I need to lie down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tally up the number of people on here and on Digital Spy who know it was split screen.

WISDOM OF THE CROWDS.

And you're over there in the corner. We're all laughing.

I never said it was wisdom of the fucking crowds. I said it was not split screen, which it patently wasn't. To pull that special effect off on a pre record, let alone live would take extremely complex motion control systems, which to be frank, a show like that can't afford.

I have no idea how he did it, and clearly neither do you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it was wisdom of the fucking crowds. I said it was not split screen, which it patently wasn't. To pull that special effect off on a pre record, let alone live would take extremely complex motion control systems, which to be frank, a show like that can't afford.

I have no idea how he did it, and clearly neither do you.

Hang on. You did see this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ, it's like an E3 press conference in here, both in terms of the number and the amount of moaning.

So he didn't 'reveal' that he uses the geek-tacular method of e-ink? What a bastard.

It's not that he didn't reveal a geektastic method. It's the he didn't reveal anything. At all. What he "revealed" is obviously not what actually happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it was wisdom of the fucking crowds. I said it was not split screen, which it patently wasn't. To pull that special effect off on a pre record, let alone live would take extremely complex motion control systems, which to be frank, a show like that can't afford.

I have no idea how he did it, and clearly neither do you.

Jesus man. You are never going to be outvoted more with this. It was a fucking split screen. His shows cost LOADS of money to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's done essentially the same trick loads of times before with a live audience. Hell, David Blaine did it close up in the programme after. I have no idea how either did it, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't build a whole trick around something as vulgar as a camera trick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's done essentially the same trick loads of times before with a live audience. Hell, David Blaine did it close up in the programme after. I have no idea how either did it, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't build a whole trick around something as vulgar as a camera trick.

Why not? If it worked?

You can dress a trick up to be the most elaborate thing in the world but at the end of the day the trick is that the guy isn't in the box in the first place before it bursts into flames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.