It has seemed to me in my very unscientific experiences in life that women, at least in our society, are more likely to believe in destiny or anything about "it was meant to be!" especially in relationships.

Perhaps they are more likely to believe their readings if they feel slightly attracted to him? He puts on quite a show and certainly dresses well.

You ever flip through one of those cosmopolitan mags? Pick any of the ladies mags. Flip through it. Try to avoid the Horoscope. In some of those mags, its over 2 pages long.

Eye candy. makes good tv.

Right, but doesn't really apply to the clip.

Actually, if I understood it right, this clip was about cold reading rather than about astrology. The headline might be misleading.

I have not seen the whole show, but in the end of the clip he says he used cold reading, which could only be used to find the persons his letters applied to, as those were written in advance. What you characterized as flaws was actually what was supposed to happen.

It wasn't a "study" about astrology, it was just a way to show off cold reading skills, probably to debunk those "talking to the dead" maniacs.

Although i disagree with the bulk of what you say, and the conclusions you make, i think you bring up an interesting point.

I dont know exactly how cold reading works, but i would imagine that it would be a lot easier to create a singular "cold reading statement" (as in this clip) for people of a similar age than one for a wide range of ages.

But then again thats probably why typical generalised astrology readings that you find in newspapers, magazines and such are so vague - whereas a tarot card reader for instance can present a more bespoke reading because they can see how old you are, and therefore better deduce your lifestyle, expectations, fears, hopes etc.

At the end of the day though, as we say in the UK, it a load of old bollocks!

The astrological construct at play was the inclusion of the person's birthday, which is key to astrology. Secondly, n did not equal 5, it was actually 10, 15, whatever. Just cause they went in groups of 5 doesn't mean that n=5. Thirdly, your assertion that the info was obtained by interviews is without any basis. Besides, cold readers don't need to interview people to pull off their tricks, so why would they.

That being said, yeah, this experiment didn't 'scientifically disprove' anything. However, it did provide a reasonable, logical, and demonstrable alternative to the claims of astrology. Not proof in the purest form, but enough to get you to discard 'magic stars and planets' as a belief system.

Yes the possiblity of interveiws is there. But on the other hand there is no basis to say he did.

N=5 because there could have been three different essays for three different groups, but it could still be 10 or 15. again there is no basis to say that there were 3 different essays.

per0oxide's point is don't trust whatever Derren Browns says because he says he is using science. Do it for your self. Its not hard. And i bet you will find that Derren is right.

You have completely missed the point. This video does not claim to be an "experiment" or a "study." It is simply a demonstration of the Forer Effect, which plays a strong part (some would say the only part) in the "success" of astrology, cold reading, tarot cards, and other types of fortune telling.

I've seen many other demonstrations of the Forer Effect, and these results are not unusual. Your assertion (without evidence) that the subjects were hand-picked to match the pre-written reading is laughable.

Also, you might want to try to learn to count higher than five.

I think perhaps you're responding more to the title "Derren Brown Debunks Astrology" than to the actual content of the video. Note that the title is arbitrarily applied by whoever posted the video, not by the original producers of the segment. If you'll go back and watch, you'll see that the point being made isn't one of "Astrology itself is debunked" but rather, "This is what and how successful cold readings are." It's an introduction to the concept.

Yes the sample is a similar group of people. (It's actually 15 not 5 as the same profile was supplied to all three groups). That's only relevant in that cold readers determine what they will say to a person by physical attributes and discovered knowledge. For example, if a woman shows up at a palm reader's in her mid-forties and dressed all in black, the reader will assume a recent death - either of a parent or her husband. If it's a child with a single parent, it's assumed to be the father/spouse. Generalizations and similarities are the cold reader's bread and butter, so your "point" is a moot one. It makes no difference that there's an age similarity, because using age as a determining factor is part of a cold reading.

This is a demonstation - not a study. Recorded studies exist, and are easily searched on the web. This was never presented as a study, and you do yourself a disservice by assigning it that definition. The hardest part of debunking those who cheat others using this and similar methods is that their victims are so desperate to believe that even with overwhelming evidence of a scam, they'll close their eyes, shake their heads, stamp their feet and say, "I don't care if it's a lie. It's what I want to believe."

With no intended disrespect, I suggest you watch the video again (to confirm that it really is just a demonstration, and that one message was given to all 15 people), and then do some surfing to examine the long history of people who have spent - literally - centuries debunking charlitans who would prey on people in need of support.

It's in his 2006 book 'Tricks of the Mind'