freaked out

>>>>jimmyh wrote:
Just because you don't understand the importance of precision in cases like this does not mean that precision is not important in cases like this.
>>>Empirically false jimmy.
>>So you're saying that the fact that you don't understand the importance of precision in cases like this *does* mean that precision is not important in cases like this?
>No. It is not what I’m saying or have said.

That is the direct negation of the thing you said is false, which makes it directly equivalent to your statement I was responding to.

Disagreement does not equal misunderstanding.

Disagreement does *not* equal misunderstanding, this is true. I think you may have missed my point, so I'll see if I can explain better.

Proving a negative is a difficult thing. In order to be able to justifiably state that there exist black swans, all one needs is a single example. If you see a black swan, you know that at least one exists. In order to justifiably state that "black swans exist" is *empirically false*, you need to be able to justifiably claim to have seen all swans and found none of them to be black. In order to say that you've seen all swans, you have to be able to claim that there exists no place that a swan could be hiding that you didn't see. In other words, you'd have to have checked all possible places such that it is not possible for there to be a black swan that you failed to see. Empirically proving a negative is a difficult thing to do, and that makes "empirically false" quite a bold claim.

Saying "x is important in cases like y" is "empirically false" is equivalent to saying "it is empirically verified that there exist no consequences of x that have any importance". Making that claim *is* making the claim that one's inability to find a connection of x to importance means that there is none to be found -- since if it's possible that you've missed something then you cannot be said to have empirically verified that there's nothing about x that makes it important.

Saying that the idea that precision is important here is "empirically false" is far stronger than "I disagree, as it is my personal belief that precision is unimportant here", and even if you were to have only said the latter, and even if you were to be right that precision is unimportant here, it would *still* be a lack of ability to understand, since "I believe that precision is unimportant here" directly implies that you can't find any connection between precision in cases like this and things which are important.

You can disagree about whether it’s important if you want, and that's fine. But there is a difference between "disagreeing because you have empirically verified that there exist no considerations which link precision in cases like this to things of importance" and "disagreeing because you simply cannot find any such consideration, even though you know that you could potentially be missing an important connection".

Which is your claim?

A person that does not believe in hypnosis will see a suggestion that they cannot remember their name as an obvious lie.

This is also empirically false. Plenty of people who do not believe in hypnosis end up getting hypnotized anyway, and then accepting suggestions such as these. Suggestibility is not the same thing as belief in hypnosis.

Those that believe in hypnosis will frame it differently, that the suggestion that they can’t remember their name is not a truth, until the person accepts the suggestion as true.

And again, empirically false. I “believe in hypnosis”, and I’ll tell you that the person who has accepted the person who has accepted the suggestion that they can’t remember their name is just wrong about whether they can remember their name. They believe it, and therefore they do not test. However, even as they are responding to the suggestion the *reality* remains that “they can stop imagining whenever they want”. And again, it’s not *just* me. Plenty of competent hypnotists agree with me here.

Wow... Round and round we go.... This is getting off track rather. although I am finding JimmyH answers very interesting. However, on the point of social interaction how "ONE" should behave / respond when hypnotised varies.... There are no set rules that's what makes hypnosis interesting. Saying that "involuntariness" to a certain response set... There is always an exception to the rule. Take the lifting of an arm for example bouncing it up and down for a while. The majority would leave it hanging thus creating catalepsy.
However in my experience which annoyed many. I let it drop because my perception was Loose limp and relax. that's what you're "Supposed" to do?
What is it you are trying to articulate here JimmyH?

Richard: The culmination of creating the perfect suggestion is to phrase it in such a way that what ever the "subject" chooses it matches the hypnotists outcome.

the merging of the two perspectives gives a lot of insight about exactly *how* to hypnotise them to forget, or what exactly to do instead.

Can we please come to some conclusion as I am sure Ahimsa2 Would like that too.

What is it you are trying to articulate here JimmyH?

You mean in this quote in particular?:

the merging of the two perspectives gives a lot of insight about exactly *how* to hypnotise them to forget, or what exactly to do instead.

Hi JimmyH.
I hoped I was self explanatory. The quote in particular was a comment you made about "Involuntariness" when it comes to responding to suggestions given by the hypnotist and what is generally expected from the "subject/volunteer"
The "Merging of two perspectives" was from Richard not you I don't think. although I could be wrong I addressed that issue already. I just want to come to some kind of conclusion as "We" seem to be going round in circles to no resolve. The original Question from Ahimsa2 was: "How is it possible to genuinely forget the number 4 when hypnotised?" He was asking about other trance phenomena as well.
Point being....I gave an example where the known response wasn't understood. That it isn't a given always. with the lifting of the arm to create catalepsy for example. (see previous post)

cathB wrote:The "Merging of two perspectives" was from Richard not you

Hi cathB, I’m not necessarily sure merging or a resolution is needed or even beneficial.

A problem can be viewed from different angles, i.e. different perspectives. A symbol from one perspective is a 6 and the other perspective it is a 9. Each uses the symbol from their own perspective to meet their needs, to resolve the issue from their angle. It is not always necessary or beneficial to declare some ultimate truth.

Applied to this thread, ahimsa42 seems to struggle with a need for control, for resolution in a single unwavering direction. He does not want to live in a world where control is not always the best option. I’m exaggerating slightly, but I don’t think I’m too far off. By his own admission he struggles with being able to accept that anyone is capable of accepting a suggestion as true and thereby consider talking into a shoe as a display of strength.

There is no “yes” it is strength or “no” it is not strength. It can be both a 6 or a 9. My caution for ahimsa42 is that he entered a butchers shop, where many if not most people very much see it as 9. This is counter to how ahimsa42 wants to see it and not only does he say it is a 6, but continues to struggle with understanding how anyone might possibly view it as a 9.

My advice to the OP, a resolution if you will, is twofold:

-1- There is nothing to fear with hypnosis. No one can make you do something and;

-2- People have different perspectives. People have a different view of the world, therefore they see an issue from a different angle. Both can be correct. It doesn’t need to be either/or. Hypnosis can be seen as strength or weakness.

Does that effectively merge or come to a resolution?

Yes, Thank you Richard.
Although.... He comes the "But" we haven't managed to persuade him to see that when "one" is hypnotised what the hypnotist says becomes their reality. So they do see the Number 6 as that was what was required of them.
I am certain that I have specified this already in one of my earlier posts at the beginning?
Weakness or strength doesn't come into it. As we all know that the "Imagination/Subconscious mind" Always over rides the "Free Will " aspect
or Conscious awareness. When hypnotised.

Anthony Gaille is very good at explaining this. I referred to him on my first post on the topic. I can't post links but he often does a sketch whereby He ask someone to try and stay awake when he's already given them the "Sleep Command." I don't know why I'm explaining this? You know all this stuff! Perhaps we should address the issue of compounding suggestions and why the first installed becomes the strongest?
What do you think Richard.... Would that help come to resolution?

CathB, ahimsa

You should have been told at the beginning of this thread that Richard is neither a hypnotist nor does he have any experience with hypnosis. Apologies for that.

This should have been linked to, too.

moonlightress wrote:CathB, ahimsa

You should have been told at the beginning of this thread that Richard is neither a hypnotist nor does he have any experience with hypnosis. Apologies for that.

True, I am not a hypnotist. That doesn’t mean that I have no knowledge of hypnosis. Moonlightress is also not a hypnotist, but it has no bearing on her opinion. I don’t discount her opinions on grounds she lacks qualifications. Arguments grounded on credentials are weak. They are a step above name calling, such as those offered up by jimmy and in the link Moonlightress just provided.

I get it. Providing opinions that are less than fully endorsing hypnosis as capable of achieving all your hopes and dreams is off putting to some. I realize I’m in a butchers shop, so personal attacks are to be expected as are claims that credentials are relevant to truth.

Anyone that does consider credentials relevant, mine are easy enough to find. I’m not hiding behind some anonymous username.

cathB wrote:...we haven't managed to persuade him to see that when "one" is hypnotised what the hypnotist says becomes their reality. So they do see the Number 6 as that was what was required of them.

I’m not all that concerned with the extent to which he was persuaded, i.e. to what extent his original views are now aligned with my views. In my opinion, it was a good back and forth and maybe his views have shifted slightly. I don’t know. Hopefully all of our views have made at least some small adjustment.

I agree wth you about the shift in perceived reality. It was my second point, which maybe could have been articulated better. The person allows their perception of reality to be altered. This doesn’t make it reality, it makes it a change of perspective.

Perhaps we should address the issue of compounding suggestions and why the first installed becomes the strongest?

We can discuss if you like. It comes down to the research on “primacy and recency effects”. This has been well documented in psychology across multiple domains.

If I give you a list of random items, X, B, 1, T, 42, V, P, 7, you will typically remember the first and last items. The first item is strongest, the last is second strongest, the items in between are less powerful from the standpoint of working memory. On the other hand, if I give you A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H then the effects are not as strong. There is a learned pattern and the ability to “chunk” items that are similar.

The same psychological mechanisms work in compounding suggestions.

It also works in regards to creating false memories, in that novel items will be more memorable than items considered normal. In one study, suggesting a person pretend to roll dice verses suggesting they put the dice in their mouth, resulted in a stronger recall of putting the dice in their mouth. The participants were more able to accurately recall whether or not they really or only imagined performing the suggestions based on novelty rather than primacy or recency.

Therefore, while the first installed often becomes the strongest due to primacy effects, this could be overshadowed by a novel suggestion.

Have you ever researched primacy/recency effects or false memory?

What do you think Richard.... Would that help come to resolution?

At least for me, I’m still not clear on why a definitive resolution is important. To some extent I would hope the original question has led to more questions. I think the thread will take it’s natural course and whenever we have tired of discussing the topic it will resolve by lack of further interest. For instance, you just asked a question about compounding suggestions. That is an interesting topic that opens up rather than closes a thread.

Moonlightress & Richard.
Sorry I was only trying to help. I suppose I can't call myself a Hypnotist either I just have some experience with it meaning I don't get "Paid" to do it. As for the Compounding comment... It wasn't for my benefit I know what a compounding suggestion is. lol. Thanks for explaining anyway. I do hope what has been said recently has helped Ahimsa.

cathB wrote:Moonlightress & Richard.
Sorry I was only trying to help. I suppose I can't call myself a Hypnotist either I just have some experience with it meaning I don't get "Paid" to do it.... do hope what has been said recently has helped Ahimsa.

No worries. No need to apologize, The knowledge you provide contributes to the overall discussion. The knowledge you offer can be evaluated by the readers just like everyone else in here. Moonlightress is not a professional, she is the same as you or I, a person interested in the topic that contributes her opinions. Creating an account only requires an email, not that you get paid for your expertise.

Moonlightress just likes to attack whenever it makes her feel good. She uses someone else’s words in an effort to demean me under the guise of informing others that whatever I offer isn’t credible. It’s her thing. It is no reflection on you or the knowledge you bring to the table.

I hoped I was self explanatory. The quote in particular was a comment you made about "Involuntariness" when it comes to responding to suggestions given by the hypnotist and what is generally expected from the "subject/volunteer"

Heh, I’m still not following. What about “involuntariness”, exactly?

The "Merging of two perspectives" was from Richard not you I don't think. although I could be wrong

Heh, that was me. “Merging of two perspectives” alone is a pretty good tell that it’s me over Richard, but also the fat that I was talking about hypnosis as a not-black-box phenomena and using asterisks for *emphasis*.

Sorry I was only trying to help. I suppose I can't call myself a Hypnotist either I just have some experience with it meaning I don't get "Paid" to do it.

Nah, you’ve done nothing wrong. Moonlightress didn’t mean “he’s not a *professional* hypnotist”, she meant “he’s not a hypnotist at all, and as far as we know he’s never even attempted to hypnotize anyone even a single time”.

Richard is just a nuisance character around here more often than not. He sometimes has helpful things to say and he does have a degree in psychology, but just as often he ends up coming across as rude/hostile/ignorant/arrogant/etc and then doubling down when people point out what he’s doing wrong. He likes to make stuff up to try to fool people who haven’t seen his post history and aren’t following that closely, and to fool himself into believing that it’s not obvious. You’ll notice that when you ask him to back things up he often turns silent, and that everything everyone else says about him can be backed up. You just happened to show up during a period of good behavior and then got a front row seat at what happens when he says something he can’t back up.

You should have been told at the beginning of this thread that Richard is neither a hypnotist nor does he have any experience with hypnosis. Apologies for that.

True, I am not a hypnotist. That doesn’t mean that I have no knowledge of hypnosis. Moonlightress is also not a hypnotist, but it has no bearing on her opinion. I don’t discount her opinions on grounds she lacks qualifications.

It doesn’t logically require it, but it does pretty heavily suggest it. When combined with the fact that you have no experience as a subject either and don’t listen to hypnotists or do your research, it pretty much requires it.

Either way, her statement was “X *and* Y” not “X *therefore* Y”, and both X and Y are demonstrably “true enough”. Yes, it’s not literally true that you know *nothing* about hypnosis, but over and over you’ve shown that you can’t say much without making empirically false statements, and that you really don’t know very much at all on the topic of hypnosis. Certainly not at a level to be trying to answer questions instead of asking them.

Arguments grounded on credentials are weak. They are a step above name calling, such as those offered up by jimmy and in the link Moonlightress just provided.

You’re embarrassing yourself again.

We’ve been through this, and you understand that the labels applied to you are both accurate and non-fallacious. You don’t even dispute this.

You also know that you’re the one that repeatedly avoids the actual object level of discussion, including flat out refusing to read the science when it goes against your claims.

Citations for all of these things are available upon request for anyone that is curious or would like to challenge these assertions.

I get it. Providing opinions that are less than fully endorsing hypnosis as capable of achieving all your hopes and dreams is off putting to some. I realize I’m in a butchers shop, so personal attacks are to be expected as are claims that credentials are relevant to truth.

You also know this to be untrue, and you are being deliberately dense out of attempt to save face. The reality is that you can’t keep up on the object level, so you try to distract when actual evidence and arguments are brought to the table which contradict your assertions.

(Citations available here too, as well as anywhere else where I might not call it out explicitly)

jimmyh wrote:You’re embarrassing yourself again.

Thanks for your personal opinion. I’m good with it.

Thanks for your personal opinion. I’m good with it.

I actually mean that in a much bolder sense.

What I'm saying is not only that *I* would be embarrassed to be in your shoes, but that any sane person who understands your situation would also be embarrassed. I'm saying that if you have a wife, and you were to do this kind of thing when she brings you to a party, she would say "Stop it Richard, you're embarrassing me".

I'm saying that embarrassment is *adaptive* in situations like yours, and those who would be more embarrassed in your situation will tend to do better in life than those who would not, because people who fail to heed your hypothetical wife's advice don't get invited to parties, and instead get everyone thinking "man, that guy is a fool".

I'm saying that even you have to suppress the shame you feel in order to behave in this way, and that if you were to ever release that suppression you would be embarrassed as **** -- and that this is why you don't do it.

These are all empirical statements about reality, not personal statements about my feelings. I could conceivably be wrong, and I am sticking my neck out and daring you to chop it off. I confidently predict that you cannot actually argue against any of the things I just said, and I'm not even sure you can bring yourself to deny any of them either.