Hypnosis in the news

enrich wrote:Isn't this just another way of confirming the hemispheres model utilised by Erickson in Patterns 1?

What other ways of confirming the hemispheres model utilised by Erickson exist?

Does it constitute confirmation?

What does your signature mean, out of interest?

Kev

"Can I ask you Kev, have you never come to a conclusion based upon facts which you have gatherd only to later discover that your conclusion was incorrect? Or are you always in the right?"

Enrich...

500 years ago I would have burnt you at the stake for a question like that...

enrich wrote:That's what we like to see, Kev on the attack again.

I am rarely "on the attack" although I apologise if you think that I am. I simply like to question; call me a sceptic if you like.

enrich wrote:Other ways, well the one written by Bandler and Grinder in Patterns 1 for example.

Well, that was kind of why I was asking. Patterns 1 is quite academic from a linguistic perspective but not at all from a neuroscientific perspective. This article in New Scientist was the first time I had seen any evidence to support how hemispheric differences might affect hypnotism.

enrich wrote:No, it doesn't confirmation per se but it does confirm that others have come to the same findings and conclusions.

True. I think it's worth pointing out that New Scientist is not peer-reviewed. It's a good magazine about science, but it's not Nature.

enrich wrote:Signature... And I know you take this one personally on the grounds that your reality is built upon an accumulation of facts rather than posibilities and speculation...

Woah there. You "know" this? What are you, a mind reader? (Or are you psychic? )

My reality is built the same way as any other's reality, through interaction with the environment and other people (including the written and recorded word). Perhaps I am more critical over whether I assimilate information presented to me as facts. Where others see facts I see evidence or opinion. I think my signature hints towards that.

enrich wrote:A collection of facts does not automatically constitute truth. Facts are based upon research and findings, but this does not mean that the end conclusion is correct. Omit certain facts, or place them in the incorrect order and it will most likely amount to an incorrect conclusion.

What facts are you claiming here? Research produces evidence; evidence can vary in its value, significance, reach, clarity and many other characteristics; assessment of evidence produces theories that can be tested (through attempted falsification) by further research. Theories tend to present means by which we can reliably predict the outcome of future actions, within the constraints presented by the theories, based upon the limitations of the evidence.

Maybe you could give an example of where certain facts have been omitted or placed in an incorrect order and the conclusions drawn were incorrect?

enrich wrote:Can I ask you Kev, have you never come to a conclusion based upon facts which you have gatherd only to later discover that your conclusion was incorrect? Or are you always in the right?

I think facts are only really relevant in axiomatic systems, such as maths or philosophical logic. In these subjects it is always possible to misunderstand the facts or apply the rules incorrectly or inconsistently, producing incorrect conclusions. Handing over the wrong amount of change when buying lunch would be a real world maths example.

In non-axiomatic systems, such as the acquisition of knowledge, facts don't exist, but lots of evidence and opinion does. Due to the volume available, some evidence and opinions will be sampled before others; conclusions will always be drawn from an incomplete set. Conclusions should always be considered to be temporal because more evidence could be discovered in the future that may contradict.

All conclusions, and therefore all beliefs, are likely to be incorrect. By being critical and sceptical we can apply reason and research to reduce the margin of error. I'd like the conclusions that I act upon to have as little error as possible.

Can I assume your reality is built on possibilities and speculation? Except when it comes to trusting air-flight, car brakes and the nutritional need for food, I suspect.

Kev

enrich wrote:I've no doubt that Kev will when he reads it, it's in his nature.

I'm not the witch nor the witch-murderer. I leave that to the religious and psychic.

"it's in his nature." How would you know what my "nature" is? We've never met Enrich.

Kev

Oh sorry....didnt want to interrupt you two ladies....

I am a new member.Hope to share a good time.Its a interesting information.

enrich wrote:You see, secretly Kev and I share the same fetish...

You must have been really happy and confident with your previous post to resort to childishness before I'd even had chance to read it.

You don't appear to understand how reason works. I'm no longer interested in educating you. BTW the tone you imagine when you read my posts does not appear to represent my state of mind when I write them.

Kev

Take this elsewhere.

Talk hypnosis or get your coat. Personal attacks will not be tolerated unless they are very very funny.

Ant

It´s not like I didnt try to warn anyone.

Ill talk some hypnosis and NLP here...

@ Everyone:

just dissociate from what is going on and look at how Enrich structured his last post....


Cool, huh?

enrich wrote:
I think that from now on Kev and I would simply be better off not addressing each other at all, wouldn't you agree?

If neither of you can resist personal remarks then yes I agree.

Anthony Jacquin wrote:

enrich wrote:
I think that from now on Kev and I would simply be better off not addressing each other at all, wouldn't you agree?

If neither of you can resist personal remarks then yes I agree.

Enrich asked for an emotional response (he had misunderstood my previous post as being emotional) so I gave him one. I was tired and dehydrated and fired off a terse reaction to his off-topic nonsense. I apologise to everyone caught in the crossfire and to Enrich who was on the end of it. My previous posts were that of debate with no hidden agenda or implied malice.

Enrich, you appear to think that I think that I am/feel "superior" to others but that I also need to grow up. (I think you are wrong but hey.) Perhaps you should spend less time judging others and more time picking apart anything I've posted that you disagree with. I am here to debate hypnotism and related concepts.

Kev

I am a medical student.And I am doing project on Hypnosis therapy .How Hypnosis therapy works for weight loss.can u me please give some details.

McKenna paid 20k to speak to young Scottish unemployed. Money well spent?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -talk.html

Ant

Modern Milgram experiment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8571598.stm