Hypnosis is not magic, nor is it some CIA mind control technique; it’s basically just a sugar pill in ritual form, leveraging the mind’s natural ability to fuck with itself. That means that, while it’s ultimately just a very versatile parlor trick, it can be handy for dealing with issues that are, themselves, all in your head. I take great pride in being able to replicate or one-up the results of any faith healer or acupuncturist, without any of the bullshit–because unlike them, I know what’s actually going on, and what I can and can’t do.
Of course, there are some hypnotists who veer into woo-woo–claiming they can help you visit previous lives, uncover repressed memories, even make your dick bigger. I freely admit that I can’t do that–though if you wanted to believe it badly enough, I could probably make you think I did, at least for a little bit.
God, my first comment in the fediverse and it’s about this.
“Hypnosis – state of extreme relaxation and inner focus in which a person is unusually responsive to suggestions made by the hypnotist. The modern practice has its roots in the idea of animal magnetism, or mesmerism, originated by Franz Mesmer.[443] Mesmer’s explanations were thoroughly discredited, and to this day there is no agreement amongst researchers whether hypnosis is a real phenomenon, or merely a form of participatory role-enactment.[272][444][445] Some aspects of suggestion have been clinically useful.[446][447] Other claimed uses of hypnosis more clearly fall within the area of pseudoscience. Such areas include the use of hypnotic regression, including past life regression.[448]”
Some aspects of mythology or alchemy are also useful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an overall respected science or isn’t caused by a secondary phenomenon. As that wiki states, it’s the suggestion aspect that is useful, not the hypnosis itself (the methodology) and there isn’t really a consensus on its efficacy.
The statement “If it’s useful for anything, then it’s not pseudoscience” is an example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy or a false dilemma. This fallacy occurs when someone presents a situation as if there are only two mutually exclusive options or possibilities when, in fact, there are more potential alternatives or nuances to consider.
In this case, the statement implies that something can either be “useful” or “pseudoscience,” with no middle ground or other possibilities. In reality, an idea or concept can have some utility or practical applications while still being considered pseudoscientific or lacking scientific validity. The two categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and this oversimplified dichotomy ignores the complexity of the subject matter.
This is basically part of the joke that this headline implies.
Psuedoscience is psuedoscience because it produces no objectively useful results, if Hypnosis demonstrates measurable and repeatably provable results, then it’s not psuedoscience
Wait hypnotism is real? I thought it was dismissed as quackery?
It’s a journal version of The Onion. ;)
But is hypnosis legit?
Depends on what you mean by legit.
Hypnosis is not magic, nor is it some CIA mind control technique; it’s basically just a sugar pill in ritual form, leveraging the mind’s natural ability to fuck with itself. That means that, while it’s ultimately just a very versatile parlor trick, it can be handy for dealing with issues that are, themselves, all in your head. I take great pride in being able to replicate or one-up the results of any faith healer or acupuncturist, without any of the bullshit–because unlike them, I know what’s actually going on, and what I can and can’t do.
Of course, there are some hypnotists who veer into woo-woo–claiming they can help you visit previous lives, uncover repressed memories, even make your dick bigger. I freely admit that I can’t do that–though if you wanted to believe it badly enough, I could probably make you think I did, at least for a little bit.
God, my first comment in the fediverse and it’s about this.
I mean Hypnosis, as in, a genuine way of interacting with the mind.
they answered your question
Go easy on them, they’re obviously hypnotized.
They implied one in return and I’m answering it, specifically, I’m answering this part.
No.
Are you sure?
“Hypnosis – state of extreme relaxation and inner focus in which a person is unusually responsive to suggestions made by the hypnotist. The modern practice has its roots in the idea of animal magnetism, or mesmerism, originated by Franz Mesmer.[443] Mesmer’s explanations were thoroughly discredited, and to this day there is no agreement amongst researchers whether hypnosis is a real phenomenon, or merely a form of participatory role-enactment.[272][444][445] Some aspects of suggestion have been clinically useful.[446][447] Other claimed uses of hypnosis more clearly fall within the area of pseudoscience. Such areas include the use of hypnotic regression, including past life regression.[448]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
It seems it’s possibly useful for IBS and that’s about it lmao.
If it’s useful for anything then it’s not pseudoscience
Some aspects of mythology or alchemy are also useful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an overall respected science or isn’t caused by a secondary phenomenon. As that wiki states, it’s the suggestion aspect that is useful, not the hypnosis itself (the methodology) and there isn’t really a consensus on its efficacy.
The statement “If it’s useful for anything, then it’s not pseudoscience” is an example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy or a false dilemma. This fallacy occurs when someone presents a situation as if there are only two mutually exclusive options or possibilities when, in fact, there are more potential alternatives or nuances to consider.
In this case, the statement implies that something can either be “useful” or “pseudoscience,” with no middle ground or other possibilities. In reality, an idea or concept can have some utility or practical applications while still being considered pseudoscientific or lacking scientific validity. The two categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and this oversimplified dichotomy ignores the complexity of the subject matter.
This is basically part of the joke that this headline implies.
Psuedoscience is psuedoscience because it produces no objectively useful results, if Hypnosis demonstrates measurable and repeatably provable results, then it’s not psuedoscience