All glory to the Hypno-Toad!
- Thread starter tomtom94
- Start date
Look into the eyes. Not around the eyes, into the eyes...
If 'tis true, I want to know how to hypnotise people. Damn hypnotic bastards.
Also
How do I hypnotised people?
If 'tis true, I want to know how to hypnotise people. Damn hypnotic bastards.
Also
How do I hypnotised people?
Well, isn't it just convincing people to do things? Preoccupying them and getting them to sign a check or something while they think they're floating. That could be real as long as drugs are involved, albeit secretly.
i do believe in hypnosis,
if anyone has seen peter powers, he hypnotized me, i wasnt put on the actual show because it was a small show that he did for a few of the workers in our hotel (used to be a chef)
he made me believe i was scared of my shoes.... and that i was i could read minds but think that they were thinking of me naked... awesome experience!!!
if anyone has seen peter powers, he hypnotized me, i wasnt put on the actual show because it was a small show that he did for a few of the workers in our hotel (used to be a chef)
he made me believe i was scared of my shoes.... and that i was i could read minds but think that they were thinking of me naked... awesome experience!!!
I think it's fair to say that hypnotism can alter the mood of some (not necessarily all) subjects, and consequently suggestible for the short-term. Whether it's therapeutically effective over the long term to a greater than placebo, I'm not sure, and suspect effect would be minimal.
One bit of research I am aware of, however, was done into post-hypnotic recall. Against control subjects, post-hypnotic recall subjects recalled more facts, and were more confident about their recollections. However, they were _less_ accurate than control subjects. So those kind of restored memories are crap.
One bit of research I am aware of, however, was done into post-hypnotic recall. Against control subjects, post-hypnotic recall subjects recalled more facts, and were more confident about their recollections. However, they were _less_ accurate than control subjects. So those kind of restored memories are crap.
I believe that hypnotists, fortune-tellers and palm-readers and the like can do what they say they can do, but not in the way they say they do it.
A hypnosist CANNOT hypnotise you (the street-corner ones, not the swiss psychatrist types who use it for medical reasons) Instead, they use leading questions, suggestive statements and self-cancelling suggestions to trick you into believing they know what they're saying
for example
A leading question is one where the way the question is posed is biased and can subconciously lean you to one side. E.G. If I were to ask "Should we have school uniforms or not?" would be a question. If I said "School uniforms are stupid and should go, do you agree?" it lends to the non-unifom side of the argument
Suggestive statements are basically crap bluffing, where they'll say something and then try to justify it when they screw up. "You know an Emma..." "No I don't" "Do you know someone who is a nurse?" "My Gran used to be a nurse" "Ah, because Emma is the German for Nurse..."
Self-cancelling suggestions and suchlike are ones where the statement slowly cancels itself out so that it's vague enough to apply to everyone. Like saying "You are a very charitable person, but feel like you don't donate enough". Everyone looks upon themselves with a favourable bias, so they'd like to consider themselves charitable, even if they haven't donated a penny. That's where the Haven't Donated Enough comes in. Now their brains can justify calling themselves charitable without having donated (It's the thought that counts! Honest!)
It's all very clever, and takes a lot of skill to pass off, so I respect them for that. But it's not what they say it is. It's like a particularly elaborate con. It's still lying, but pulled off in a clever manner
A hypnosist CANNOT hypnotise you (the street-corner ones, not the swiss psychatrist types who use it for medical reasons) Instead, they use leading questions, suggestive statements and self-cancelling suggestions to trick you into believing they know what they're saying
for example
A leading question is one where the way the question is posed is biased and can subconciously lean you to one side. E.G. If I were to ask "Should we have school uniforms or not?" would be a question. If I said "School uniforms are stupid and should go, do you agree?" it lends to the non-unifom side of the argument
Suggestive statements are basically crap bluffing, where they'll say something and then try to justify it when they screw up. "You know an Emma..." "No I don't" "Do you know someone who is a nurse?" "My Gran used to be a nurse" "Ah, because Emma is the German for Nurse..."
Self-cancelling suggestions and suchlike are ones where the statement slowly cancels itself out so that it's vague enough to apply to everyone. Like saying "You are a very charitable person, but feel like you don't donate enough". Everyone looks upon themselves with a favourable bias, so they'd like to consider themselves charitable, even if they haven't donated a penny. That's where the Haven't Donated Enough comes in. Now their brains can justify calling themselves charitable without having donated (It's the thought that counts! Honest!)
It's all very clever, and takes a lot of skill to pass off, so I respect them for that. But it's not what they say it is. It's like a particularly elaborate con. It's still lying, but pulled off in a clever manner