To think Darren Brown "the push" is horiffic

[MrsA2015]

Just sat and howled through it. Can't believe what I've just watched really. Brilliant but horrible to watch

And it's not clever to manipulate people. It's called bullying.

But he did put himself up for this by auditioning so it's hardly like picking a vulnerable person off the street and bullying them. As I've said I know Chris very well, he''s a lovely bloke and he doesn't feel in any way bullied, just pleased he''s been part of a social experiment. Maybe that is part of the manipulation too... that he feels OK and not bullied. But even so as long as Chris and the others feel OK about it now surely that's the main thing!

Well, again, one could cite other arenas of law in which ostensibly being OK with something doesn't mean it's OK. To adapt my last analogy, let's assume the 13-year-old girl had been real, that she had gotten to know a man in real life, seduced him, they had been intimate together, she was happy about it all. The judge and society wouldn't accept that. The seeds of everlasting damage would have been firmly planted in her mind. What's to say the participants in the show aren't in such a situation?

What's to say the participants in the show aren't in such a situation?

Because they are not thirteen years old? They are adults. They were specifically picked because they were susceptible/conformists but they gave adult consent to take part.
And the lawyers would have been all over it.

But the message is, "This could be you. Don't let that happen. Don't sleepwalk into situations. Don't be bullied into situations. Don't e manipulated for someone else's benefit. Think for yourself." If someone said this in Thought for the Day then you wouldn't listen. You are only taking about it because of the show's dramatic format. Unfortunately you are talking about the format, not the message.

Let's not forget the important message here, one which Derren stressed, namely that people can be vulnerable to such peer pressure, even to the point of being blind about other people's humanity or murdering them. How many of you would have succumbed to the pressure? How many of you would have lynched people in the Deep South in the 1930s, or jeered as heretics were burned at the stake in the 17th century? How many of you are pro-homosexual now but would have taunted or abused them if you'd been alive 150 years ago? The point of the show was to reveal something about us as a species, not about those four individuals.

I don't buy the 'adult consent' nonsense. The science on consent reveals it as a culturally generated myth. (See the 8 studies carried out by Priscilla Alderson et al.) Besides, when we talk of consent, we are talking of 'informed consent'. Any manipulation or coercion overrides that element of being informed.

Omueltone - but it's not a 13 year old girl and there's been no intimacy. It's a TV programme, that consenting adults have applied to participate in. They know that no one knows what the long term effects may be and have made as informed decision as they can do to apply. I wouldn't apply because I would be too scared about how it might affect me or how I might behave. These people have decided to. The message is a good one. It's a TV programme. Chris is fine and pleased he took part, I can't speak for the others obviously. You can cite as many arenas of law as you want to try and manipulate everyone to think in the same way as you but having close contact with one of the participants who is happy to have been part of the show us good enough for me. I'm not conforming to your line of thinking!

Any manipulation or coercion overrides that element of being informed.

Yes, because no-one expects to be manipulated or coerced on a Derren Brown programme, do they?

I was wondering if they at the very least knew that it was a DB thing that they were to be on!

I'm not arguing a particular position, but simply playing devil's advocate to avoid us becoming entrenched in orthodoxy. Can they (with the exception of Chris) be considered guilty of attempted murder, irrespective of the lack of a real victim? Were they properly informed? Are they aware of the potential long-term effects?

The one position that I do fully endorse is that this show highlighted our own capacity to be blind to others as individual human beings. A blindness that is subtly apparent when we adopt generic categories such as 'adult', incidentally, and in our insistence on their capacity to consent based on platitudinous assumptions, namely that such capacity exists over an arbitrary age set (for sexual activity alone) 130 years ago in response to public hysteria over issues pushed by the so-called 'social purity' movement. So with that as our oh so scientific basis, we deem them capable of informed consent in this case by virtue of their inclusion in a culturally relativistic category defined solely by chronological age.

Because of what I've just said, I hope it will be clear that I probably value the message of the show more than most. Chris may be fine. The others may be fine. If so, good, I wish them well. I certainly like the idea that such an important message could be put across with no harm done. But I also think we need to have a good look at our own tendencies towards black-and-white thinking, platitudinous thinking, reliance on 'received wisdom', and solipsism.

I totally agree with Jux. I studied the Milgram experiment, all the participants had given prior consent but didn't know if they would be picked etc and all were debriefed afterwards. The psychological trauma caused meant that a six week (?) experiment was cut short after two weeks because they were legitimately worried about the participants mental state. They realised the ethics implications which were not predicted in the start. Derren Brown knew people would be pushed that far (why put it on telly otherwise lets be real) and went ahead with it any way.
Anyone who's studied even basic psychology should know that consent and debriefing can only be used to counteract deception if it's believed it will counteract any potential psychological harm. How the hell he got ethical clearance is beyond me.
Imagine you'd been tricked into "pushing" someone off a building, you really believed that you'd actually killed someone. Then someone comes along and tells you no you haven't killed someone (phew) and you'd been coerced and manipulated (you understand you'd signed up to this but I'd still feel a little wronged to put it lightly) you're told that it could have happened to anybody (do you really believe that), plus some other psych eval or something similar where I'm sure you'll feel stable at that point if a little shaken.
Now you might be feeling rough but okish now, you've signed all the consent forms for it to be aired on tv etc. Then you realise as you sit down to watch your big tv debut that you've just sat down with your family and friends to watch you kill someone. That this is on national television and thousands of people are potentially watching this. That you have no idea if your own family will look at you in the same way again.
And then, to top it all off, you watch someone else walk away. And all that "it could happen to anyone" speech you heard falls away and you wonder why you're not as good or as strong as that guy and you wonder what you're capable of and if you're the decent person you thought you were.
But its ok because it telly and it taught us that peer pressure is bad.
I refused to watch it by the way and the whole idea sickens me. I hope it was faked for the sake of those poor people.

If you look at the way it was marketed, that might explain why he was given 'ethical clearance'. It talks about tricking people into believing they have killed someone. That's rather different rhetoric than the truth: pressuring people into murder, and only subsequently revealing that it was all a stunt.

consent based on platitudinous assumptions, namely that such capacity exists over an arbitrary age set

Interesting. How else would you do it? Should we treat it like driving - that you have to pass an exam or test before you are allowed to have sex or drink or vote or be allowed to buy a knife or ...? Is this one test or several? What is the conclusion if you pass, say, the drink section but fail the voting section?

I don't think this should have been allowed on ethical grounds. Won't the 'killers' now face a massive amount of social stigma and find getting a job more of an obstacle? If I'd been a participant who 'killed' I think I'd still be feeling traumatised and adversely affected for a long time.

Omuelltone
you have a very interesting point regarding police entrapment of online criminals.

I refuse to watch this arsehole's programmes and can't understand why people do. It's pure manipulation in every possible way from start to finish, you're being manipulated too - walk away.

Sorry but I think the man's a cunt.

Senua
Actually, consent for children with medical treatment IS by assessment of ability to comprehend the situation -Google Gillick.

Seriously...it's TV, they gave consent, hell they even applied. They are not 'poor people'! Well at least Chris isn't. I work as a psychologist and I'm not in the least bit concerned with this programme. It clearly got ethical approval, there's lawyers all over this. Worse things actually happen to people. Moreover people choose to do worse things and live with the consequences. Anyway if nothing else the programme got people talking and that's why Derren Brown will probably do another one like it and people will apply to be on it.

tuilamum I don't know if it makes any difference but the 'murderers' were told - by Derren - within seconds of the 'murder' that it was all a set-up. They were bullied coerced by the group, did the push and were 'released from their sin' before they had time to think about what they had done.
I'm only explaining (not condoning, just explaining) because you said that you hadn't seen it.

Thanks, BlueSmarties76.

You raise some good questions, senua. I don't have answers to them, but that doesn't detract from the fact that I have good grounds to call them into question. The rhetoric in the sexual arena is certainly very different to the rhetoric in other arenas. Indeed, a capacity for informed consent seems to be attributed to minors insofar as it suits our agenda. Alderson, who has studied consent in children extensively, concludes that children as young as 5 or 6 are capable of informed consent to surgery. Waites (2009) shows how her conclusions have repercussions for other arenas. I can, if you like, cite a document by medical researchers that states that 'it should not be assumed that even young children are incapable of informed consent'.

So I don't buy the assertion that the dupes on this show were consenting because they were 'adults'. It's a far more nuanced picture than that assertion would suggest, especially as a great deal of deception and manipulation was involved.

"But that's OK, it was entertaining."

Well that's another thing, isn't it?

If there was no, or not a big enough market, would this sort of stuff get made?

The Milgram experiments were genuine sociological and psychological research - and some were even stopped early when they realised they were unethical. The participants remained anonymous.

This was done for the sake of entertainment and the names and faces of the participants splashed all over national TV.

Maybe Derren has hypnotised them into believing that they are now happy with the outcome, and they contributed towards valuable insight...

Would he have had to have got ethical clearance for it? Research Ethics Committees are attached to universities and hospitals. They have no jurisdiction over what people do outside of these places. It's TV, other than making sure that the legal side of things is water tight, what's to stop him doing whatever he wants?

I haven't seen it, and have no interest in doing so. From what I have read here, if the participants were not actors, it sounds dreadful. It's completely redundant as well. We already know that under certain circumstances (peer pressure, threats of violence, coercion, 'under orders') people who in every other way are 'normal, and 'ordinary', law abiding, and have a moral code, are capable of doing the most appalling things to other people. There's nothing new here at all.

Well yes, alias - ensuring participant anonymity and confidentiality is a cornerstone of ethically conducted research....

Disclaimer - I haven't watched it. The entire concept of Derren Brown's shows makes me a little queasy tbh but it's not the same as the Milgram experiment because Derren Brown's shows take place in a context where most people know about Derren Brown; and where most people know that 'projects/experiments' like this have a likelihood of being for tv. You can't discount the effect that both of those facts have on the 'experiments'.

Both of those provide a buffer which the Milgram experiment didn't have. Firstly the fact that it's always a 'Derren Brown' show puts him front and centre. He is taking responsibility for what happens next. (yy at a meta level this means that by watching and volunteering you are condoning what happens and adding to the conditioning but it also means that people will feel more able to absolve themselves of responsibility.) Secondly,at a subconscious level, the participants may be aware that there is the possibility it's one of 'those TV shows'.

It's like pretending everyone on Celebrity Big Brother doesn't have one eye on the cameras. YY masks will slip but it's not the same as people going about their lives unobserved. YY people will be affected by what happens on a Derren Brown show but the very fact that it is packaged and accepted as 'entertainment' helps to offset the horror.

I assumed the three pushers were actors.