|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Im literally taking a poo poo right now and could do all those things. For the record, this is an un-hypnotized pooping session. Excellent poo poo post. Some parts of it can be measured. The Stanford Medical School study link in the OP shows that there is a marked change in three regions of the brain while under hypnosis. And there are noticeable physical changes that happen with a decent percentage of people that are hypnotized. But depth? Hypnotizability? There have been three or four suggested scales of depth and about the same amount of scales for hypnotizability, but both of them seem to me to be the equivalent of pinning a tail on an ocean. It's like trying describe macroeconomics with 5-10 people. To me, they're shots in the dark, because someone needed to make it more scientific-sounding.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
Abugadu posted:Excellent poo poo post. What are these noticeable physical changes? Why is every sentence you write deliberately vague? Differences in fMRI readings are not a proof of any kind for the existence of an hypnotic state. To stay with my theme; pooping, feeling the urge to poop or clenching your but all do the same thing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16758465
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Scudworth posted:The Amazing Kreskin, a professional stage "hypnotist" for decades, has some great stuff to say about the hypnotism suicide lawsuit settlement. They already do this it's called advertising.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:What are these noticeable physical changes? Why is every sentence you write deliberately vague? I'm indeliberately vague, habit from my job. The noticeable physical changes are: eyelid flickering, similar to REM movement. Temperature rise, with the corresponding flush to the skin. Sometimes the eyes roll to the back of the head, which is visible through the flicker of the eyelids. Increased tearing in the eyes, or if the eyes are open, extreme periods of non-blinking and a glazed look. Breathing shift. And a heavy head, the neck muscles relax and the full weight of the head seems to pull down more. Sometimes they collapse onto the floor like a sack of potatoes, which you have to be ready for and make sure there's no furniture for them to bonk into. For you, pooping may be a state where your judgment and logic are temporarily suspended, and that's fine, and kind of amazing. But the goal of hypnotism is to induce this state artificially, and use that state to provide the grounds for selective thinking. No one's going to be able to prove this to you but yourself. I can post videos, studies, books, whatever, I can get people to talk about being in a stage show where they weren't paid anything, and it won't mean anything to you until you experience it yourself, either as hypnotist or as hypnotized. Some people can trance out via Youtube vids, though those rarely work for me. Getting someone live who can adjust their technique to what you appear to respond to makes a world of difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Jacobus Spades posted:They already do this it's called advertising. Haha lol no, the social science of making someone want something based on their demographic and their various assumed aspirations in life is not anything like "hypnotism". It's basic market research. It's not subconscious, it's blatant. Also that can be quantified, proven, measured, and studied, and often is. If hypnosis was real and a % of people were highly susceptible to it, you'd have yourself the most effective television or radio ads in history. Imagine what movies could be like! And yet here we are, with that not happening, with many companies having all the money and time and R&D to do so any time they want. Captain Monkey posted:I guess keeping the goal posts mobile is necessary in pseudoscience. This is the "ask me about being a chiropractor" thread all over again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Jacobus Spades posted:They already do this it's called advertising. Advertising doesn't quite cross the line, though they try. Some religions do as well, though some far more than others. Scientology is the worst offender, Hubbard incorporated a lot of it into his indoctrination, while at the same time decrying it. He was obviously aware of it while writing Dianetics. But some of the materials I've seen that have been released look a heck of a lot like an induction, which would explain a lot about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Scudworth posted:Haha lol no, the social science of making someone want something based on their demographic and their various assumed aspirations in life is not anything like "hypnotism". It's basic market research. It's not subconscious, it's blatant. Also that can be quantified, proven, measured, and studied, and often is. You do have Ericksonian language or NLP language in ads, but full hypnosis isn't going to happen remotely in a 30-second blurb. You don't have stage performers inducing full hypnosis without physical contact in under 5 minutes. Plus the government is well aware of how it works, see, e.g., Projects Bluebird and Artichoke, and would likely step in. Watch a stage show. If we're talking about the highly susceptible %, let's say 30, it takes about 2-3 minutes of induction exercises to get that first bypass, usually a hand-lock or stiff arm catalepsy. Then they're brought up, and an additional instant induction is used on top of that, which is a physical shock immediately followed by a directed command. (This is the exact same technique used by faith healers - throw someone off balance, with a loud directed command of 'HEAL' or something similar, and the person is now convinced their injury is gone). Then followed by some mild deepening techniques, then easy phenomena to convince and get the ball rolling. That's effectively the shortest amount of time it takes to get a highly susceptible group under and suggestible, like 5-8 minutes, with individual physical attention given to most of them. You're not going to get that in a TV/radio/movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:I'm indeliberately vague, habit from my job. Show me a trial where hypnosis in a controlled environment raises the core body temperature by more than 1 degrees Celsius compared to placebo. With placebo in this case being the act of taking a poo poo in the same room, and I might believe there's something to it. Alternatively, post some high quality studies that you claim exist but have failed to supply within the first 2 pages. Please don't plead that your, or my, personal experiences /anecdotes are worth more than the poo poo I took a couple of hours ago as it pertains to providing scientific, verifiable support for hypnosis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Show me a trial where hypnosis in a controlled environment raises the core body temperature by more than 1 degrees Celsius compared to placebo. With placebo in this case being the act of taking a poo poo in the same room, and I might believe there's something to it. like a one-second google search https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7322783 or http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/09/science/science-watch-heat-from-meditation.html Abugadu fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:like a one-second google search Have you read this paper?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...=LICENSE_DENIED Haven't read that particular one, just the abstract.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
http://empresa.rediris.es/pub/bscw.cgi/d4999883/Kissen-Modification_thermoregulatory_responses_cold_hypnosis.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/fl-queenb-hypnosis-hot-flashes-story.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
But like I said, you're not going to believe it at this point, even if I fill the rest of page 2 with studies. Give it a try.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Stop flinging poo poo at the wall and asking me to do your work for you. You claim there are studies that should convince me. Post the best study you know, preferably one you actually had the god dam decency to actually read and explain its merits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Stop flinging poo poo at the wall and asking me to do your work for you. You claim there are studies that should convince me. Post the best study you know, preferably one you actually had the god dam decency to actually read and explain its merits. I'm saying no study will convince you. None of this poo poo will convince you. Two hundred years of history, practice, books, treatises, etc will not convince you. Doing it is the only thing that will actually convince you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Literally the same bullshit talking points spouted by astrologers, reiki healers, tarot card readers, homeopaths and the rest of the quacks. It's fine dude, embrace the woo and live your life, but stop presenting yourself as a sceptic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Scudworth posted:Haha lol no, the social science of making someone want something based on their demographic and their various assumed aspirations in life is not anything like "hypnotism". It's basic market research. It's not subconscious, it's blatant. Also that can be quantified, proven, measured, and studied, and often is. Abugadu posted:Advertising doesn't quite cross the line, though they try. Some religions do as well, though some far more than others. Scientology is the worst offender, Hubbard incorporated a lot of it into his indoctrination, while at the same time decrying it. He was obviously aware of it while writing Dianetics. But some of the materials I've seen that have been released look a heck of a lot like an induction, which would explain a lot about it. woosh
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:I'm saying no study will convince you. idk about hypnosis but you're making a pretty good case that you, personally, are full of poo poo here
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Ok, so we're at an impasse. I'm not going to disbelieve something I've been doing successfully, and you won't take the 5-10 minutes to learn and do an induction with someone. But would any skeptics please give me their opinions on the Fine case?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:Ok, so we're at an impasse. I'm not going to disbelieve something I've been doing successfully, and you won't take the 5-10 minutes to learn and do an induction with someone. A particularly skilled persuader managed to convince several women that they had no choice but to let him molest them, he was caught and duly punished. This is a crime regardless of the whether you tell them you have a gun and will shoot them if they don't comply or that you are a dark wizard and have cast the Slutamorous Curse on them. Either way, you're still illegally coercing them; it doesn't matter how unbelievable your claims are or how gullible the victim is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:A particularly skilled persuader managed to convince several women that they had no choice but to let him molest them, he was caught and duly punished. This is a crime regardless of the whether you tell them you have a gun and will shoot them if they don't comply or that you are a dark wizard and have cast the Slutamorous Curse on them. Either way, you're still illegally coercing them; it doesn't matter how unbelievable your claims are or how gullible the victim is. Ok, but the fact that they had no memory of the event? Any of the six of them? (The six that came forward, at least?) Not hypnosis? And the fact that he didn't fight it in a trial?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:Ok, but the fact that they had no memory of the event? Any of the six of them? (The six that came forward, at least?) It was "hypnosis" in the sense that they were convinced that they were hypnotized, and behaved accordingly. They believed that they could not remember what happened, and so they could not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:- you can't get a hypnotized person to do something that's against their morals or ethics Would the hypnotism believer's view be that these women wanted to be sexually assaulted by their lawyer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:It was "hypnosis" in the sense that they were convinced that they were hypnotized, and behaved accordingly. They believed that they could not remember what happened, and so they could not. Ok... but if this is all placebo, the equivalent of phrenology or astrology, how does that work? If there's no legitimate change to the mind, how does the mind obliterate the memory of everything that just happened? Could you, by yourself, take the next 5 minutes, and convince yourself that you're not going to remember a single thing that happens, and then accomplish that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Scudworth posted:Would the hypnotism believer's view be that these women wanted to be sexually assaulted by their lawyer? No. As I pointed out earlier, and part of why the derail happened in the other thread, there's a grey area surrounding the limits of hypnotism vis a vis the moral/ethical line that causes someone to 'snap out of it'. If I handed a hypnotized person a loaded gun and told them to kill themselves or others, they wouldn't do it, and would likely come out of it and be upset. But if there's no immediate obvious reason why not to do something (act like a chicken, freeze on command, or in this case, have an orgasm), the person will likely do it. You don't have to 'want' to act like a chicken to follow the suggestion to act like a chicken. But the skeptic's view, which I haven't heard anything to the contrary, would be that at least six women wanted to be sexually assaulted by their lawyer. I've been asking for where's the middle ground between 'they were hypnotized' and 'six slutty women independently conspired with the police and the Ohio Bar Association to put an innocent man in jail for 12 years', and haven't gotten a legitimate response yet. Abugadu fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Let's say someone consults a professional who's job involves helping their client during a time of great stress, like a divorce lawyer or a therapist. The professional proposes that the patient engage in a relaxation exercise with them, not mentioning erotica at all. The client has no reason or desire to engage in sexual activity with the professional. The professional spends a few minutes telling the person to perform various pseudo-meditative tasks to establish themselves as an authority and build trust. When the client has relaxed, the professional instructs the person to remove their clothes and masturbate. Do you think that someone might, in those circumstances, comply out of fear of being further victimized if they resisted?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:But if there's no immediate obvious reason why not to do something (act like a chicken, freeze on command, or in this case, have an orgasm), the person will likely do it. You don't have to 'want' to act like a chicken to follow the suggestion to act like a chicken. There are plain, immediate, and obvious reasons not to masturbate in front of their divorce attorney. Extremely immediate moral and ethical reasons. Again, what you keep calling the skeptic's view is the opposite. The skeptic's view is that the answer is anything but hypnotism, not some slut shaming crap. The middle ground you seek is massive, as the psychology of sexual abuse is complex and the american legal system regarding it a scary crazy joke for victims. It is the hypnotism side that's suggesting these women saw nothing wrong morally with getting off in full view of or with the lawyer. Or else they would have snapped out of it or whatever. You're putting "do some heavy sexual poo poo in a lawyer's office alone that you'll be upset about enough later to go to the cops for" alongside "act like a chicken for fun in a volunteer stage show for laughs". I'm throwing it out there that things you're writing victim impact statements about later on are things that the hypnotism snap out "rules" clearly cover. Unless hypnotism is far more powerful than any of us foolish mortal dare to believe. Ooooor that it wasn't hypnotism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:A particularly skilled persuader managed to convince several women that they had no choice but to let him molest them, he was caught and duly punished. This is a crime regardless of the whether you tell them you have a gun and will shoot them if they don't comply or that you are a dark wizard and have cast the Slutamorous Curse on them. Either way, you're still illegally coercing them; it doesn't matter how unbelievable your claims are or how gullible the victim is. This is a great post that gets right to the heart of it. A shared delusion between perpetrator and client doesnt' make it a real thing. Some people get acupuncture to cure their headaches. The person performing the acupuncture believes it works. The person receiving the acupuncture believes it works. Their headaches are gone! Acupuncture is still horse poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
Every single one of them can't remember what happened. Not bizarre in the least?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:It was "hypnosis" in the sense that they were convinced that they were hypnotized, and behaved accordingly. They believed that they could not remember what happened, and so they could not. What we have here, it seems to me, is a "distinction without a difference." You say that hypnotism doesn't exist, but have simply defined it as "powerful persuasion."
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
Scudworth posted:Would the hypnotism believer's view be that these women wanted to be sexually assaulted by their lawyer? I think there would be the sense that having sex isn't something foundationally contrary to their code of ethics and morality, but this doesn't mean that they want to have sex with the hypnotist. So, for example, someone who believes foundationally that sex is evil and should never ever be done, would be immune from this effect. Such people are vanishingly rare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:Let's say someone consults a professional who's job involves helping their client during a time of great stress, like a divorce lawyer or a therapist. The professional proposes that the patient engage in a relaxation exercise with them, not mentioning erotica at all. The client has no reason or desire to engage in sexual activity with the professional. The professional spends a few minutes telling the person to perform various pseudo-meditative tasks to establish themselves as an authority and build trust. When the client has relaxed, the professional instructs the person to remove their clothes and masturbate. Do you think that someone might, in those circumstances, comply out of fear of being further victimized if they resisted? Lol no. It's a divorce attorney, not a cop. An old, fat dude. Not one in at least six, possibly several more, women failed to not only 'go along with it' but then all blocked it out of their memories? I'm saying the non-hypnosis story is not only fantastical, but near impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
Re: 'they wouldn't do that under hypnosis', people's thought processes become hyper-focused, one thought at a time, not complex processes. They aren't thinking 'what are the people watching this thinking', that never enters in there. You can get someone to masturbate or orgasm because unless they're fundamentalist and have deep seated fear of it, there's no direct reason not to. You can find youtube vids of 'handshake causes orgasm' quite easily, in social situations that no one would consider doing that, normally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:Lol no. Do you think a woman retaining the services of a divorce attorney could, potentially, be abused by an attorney with bad intentions? Do you think a divorce attorney with bad intentions might be able, by virtue of his vocation, to identify psychologically vulnerable women among his clients? Do you think there might be any psychological utility in a victim of sexual assault blocking out the memory of being assaulted? Do you think there might be any advantage in court in saying "it was hypnosis" instead of a more prosaic explanation, especially considering the perpetrator believed he was employing hypnotism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:Do you think a woman retaining the services of a divorce attorney could, potentially, be abused by an attorney with bad intentions? 1. Yes, 2. Yes, 3. Yes, 4. Yes - but does every victim block out the assault? And just the 20-30 min of assault and nothing before and after? Why would a perpetrator rely on that outcome so heavily without fully expecting it ahead of time? And is it technically assault, under the law? If hypnotism doesn't exist, this guy just suggested women should feel excited, and they did - is that a crime, if there's no contact? I feel like the arguments you guys have made would make for a solid criminal defense for this guy, but he didn't even try to go to trial. He ate a 12 year prison sentence, will likely go bankrupt and get divorced. Why didn't he pull a St. James or Kreskin and make the prosecution prove its case?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:No. As I pointed out earlier, and part of why the derail happened in the other thread, there's a grey area surrounding the limits of hypnotism vis a vis the moral/ethical line that causes someone to 'snap out of it'. If I handed a hypnotized person a loaded gun and told them to kill themselves or others, they wouldn't do it, and would likely come out of it and be upset. But if there's no immediate obvious reason why not to do something (act like a chicken, freeze on command, or in this case, have an orgasm), the person will likely do it. You don't have to 'want' to act like a chicken to follow the suggestion to act like a chicken. Remember the guy who prank called McDonald's claiming he was a police officer who needed help detaining a suspect, and convinced the manager she needed to detain a young woman, strip her, and force her to do a series of humiliating sexual tasks? Do you think the manager was just a monster who couldn't wait for an excuse to kidnap and sexually abuse someone and the caller was fundamentally innocent of wrongdoing? You do not need hypnosis to deceive someone into taking actions they would not voluntarily take on their own. Or are you going to tell me that every single con artist, salesperson, and stage magician is actually hypnotizing people all the time? (In my experience, probably yes. Hypnotists love claiming that hypnosis is everywhere, so how can it be fake since literally every mental process is actually hypnosis  )Abugadu posted:Ok... but if this is all placebo, the equivalent of phrenology or astrology, how does that work? If there's no legitimate change to the mind, how does the mind obliterate the memory of everything that just happened? Could you, by yourself, take the next 5 minutes, and convince yourself that you're not going to remember a single thing that happens, and then accomplish that? Hypnosis doesn't "obliterate" memories. If you hypnotize someone into "forgetting" something, you're not actually doing anything to alter their memories, you're just convincing them that they don't need to try to remember it--so, if you're persuasive enough and they're credulous enough, they don't, at least for the time being. That doesn't mean they're making a conscious decision "I've been hypnotized that I can't remember that thing, so I should pretend that I can't remember it." They're acting on a sincerely held belief. From there, the mind's natural processes take over--if you go long enough without thinking of a given memory, it eventually fades. The longer you've held the memory, the harder it is to forget. Trying to convince someone to completely forget a long-held memory is more difficult and takes a lot of time and voluntary cooperation, because as soon as they challenge their belief that they can't remember they'll realize that, oh wait, those memories still exist. But losing memories of things that just happened is a lot easier (people do so all the time, in an absolutely literal sense) and only requires a brief period of compliance. CountFosco posted:What we have here, it seems to me, is a "distinction without a difference." You say that hypnotism doesn't exist, but have simply defined it as "powerful persuasion." "Hypnosis" is the distinction without a difference. The methods of hypnotism are indistinguishable from the methods of persuasion. Hypnotically induced actions are indistinguishable from consciously taken actions. The mechanism of hypnosis as it's commonly known is pretty simple. The hypnotist tells the subject that they're becoming more relaxed, they walk them through a couple relaxation exercises, the subject become more relaxed, this simultaneously lowers their guard while establishing a pattern where "hypnotist says thing -> thing actually happens" is true. From there you can reinforce that idea by asking the subject to comply with a few simple voluntary tasks and getting them to accept the idea that the hypnotist, not the subject, is actually causing those things to happen. If you walk someone through a series of increasingly improbably tasks you can persuade them to perform seemingly impossible feats--but there have been a number of studies into hypnotically induced feats and to my knowledge they've all found that they can be duplicated via conscious trained behavior. Most biofeedback techniques, for example, do not actually involve hypnosis. Sure, you can say hypnosis is "real" in the sense that there's a method of persuasion that uses relaxation states as a prop and it's commonly known as "hypnosis." This is like saying that magic is "real" in the sense that there's a method of deception that uses smoke and mirrors as props and it's commonly known as "magic." the holy poopacy fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:Remember the guy who prank called McDonald's claiming he was a police officer who needed help detaining a suspect, and convinced the manager she needed to detain a young woman, strip her, and force her to do a series of humiliating sexual tasks? Do you think the manager was just a monster who couldn't wait for an excuse to kidnap and sexually abuse someone and the caller was fundamentally innocent of wrongdoing? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
How does the practice of things like 'past life regression' and the like figure into hypnosis? I've never been a believer of much in that line, but I did it with a friend that wanted to try it and it many years ago and the process definitely induced some weird hallucinations, if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:47 |
|
|
OP, if hypnotizing ladies into tickling the clam for you is a real thing then why do you think there aren't there cases of it happening more often? I'm guessing the main reason this case seems remarkable is because there are no similar cases. I mean if some guys are so desperate they will pay thousands for a washed up magician to teach them how to insult women into banging them surely there would be as many trying to hypnose their way into some action.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:39
|
|
