Slashdot Mirror
Hypnosis Gets Positive Recognition
An anonymous reader writes to tell us the New York Times is reporting that, despite its negative history, hypnosis is now getting some favorable attention from neuroscientists. From the article: "These extensive feedback circuits mean that consciousness, what people see, hear, feel and believe, is based on what neuroscientists call "top down processing." What you see is not always what you get, because what you see depends on a framework built by experience that stands ready to interpret the raw information - as a flower or a hammer or a face."
Actually... thats sort of how hypnosis works - its considered a lowered state of conciousness (though not quite sleeping) where the subject is extremely succeptible to suggestions, and thus acts outs those suggestions (which is why hypnosis is not considered valid legal evidence)
Perception is reality. Which is why two people can look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions. Change the perception, change the reality. A marketer's dream.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Will there come a day where the study of hypnosis, or other forms of cognitive suggestion, is abused by firms for marketing? Perhaps some allready are. What kind of privacy law would restrict this?
From a cold steel rail..
Took them long enough. Maybe in another decade they'll conclude that meditation is a good way to relieve stress. Seriously, I wish people would read about these things before adopting negative stereotypes about them. Of course, a stereotype, by definition, is an uninformed opinion.
No offence, but you're a *clinical* psychologist - as opposed to an *experimental* psychologist. The former is not evidence based (read: can't be falsified), while the latter is. Big difference. Your opinion is just that... an opinion.
What you're talking about is a person's interpretation, which is based on their biases, preferences, interests and other such factors. Reality is reality.
Take the recent invasion of Iraq, for instance. It is _fact_ that innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed by American soldiers and American bombs. That's reality. However, the interpretation of the situation by different people may differ. If you ask a neo-con or a redneck, chances are they'll justify the killing, for whatever reason. A conservative or a libertarian, on the other hand, would most likely point out that it is wrong to kill innocent civilians.
Of course people will have differing interpretations of reality. But reality itself is just that: reality.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Erickson was one of the first people to discover and utilise covert hypnosis.
l
Since he was an MD reportedly getting miracle results, the medical board assumed he was a crank and tried to remove his license. Twice.
The meetings both went the same way. Erickson would start talking in his monotonous drawl, which would be the only thing board members would remember, apart from letting him keep his license.
So much of what Milton did is mindblowing. One of his patients wanted to lose weight. Erickson hypnotised her so that, whilst eating, she would experience time going so slowly that each spoonful would subjectively take an hour to reach her mouth.
Perhaps one of the most interesting of his papers was his collaboration with Aldous Huxley.
There is a copy here, third item down:
http://www.geocities.com/franzbardon/erickson.htm
It's not as if the medically sanctioned psychiatrists are any more effective.
I don't have mod points, so I can't voice my opinion that way, but this is the kind of predictable drivel that makes Slashdot comments more stale than network sitcoms. I know we can do better than this...
__________
[Big Brick Wall]
Our aversion to risk is limiting our sensory perception of our shared experiences.
Uh, hello?
Read your email inbox lately?
Our aversion to that sort of risk is keeping us alive.
Good luck with that "open source brain" thing.
(Tone note: I'm completely serious.)