Scott Adams's blog, http://blog.dilbert.com/ is an immensely interesting and entertaining source of information on the whole Trump phenomenon.
If what he says is remotely true then politics is never going to be the same again.
If what he says is remotely true then politics is never going to be the same again.
"The magnetic strip makes you think if debt which is bad"
There's no evidence that thinking of debt (a) happens or (b) is bad
The whole post feels like that to me.
What I didn't know until very recently is that S. Adams subscribes to every New Age bullshit under the sun. I mean, the whole lot, law of attraction and all that crap.
One would think that all this goes against his Dilbert character and aligns more with something his PHB would believe... but yeah... surprise!!
It's an amazing feat, but, Clinton managed to change my mind and convince me that Trump is the best candidate of the two. Shudder the thought!
I truly feel for the Amerucan population. The only choice is who to block out, rather than who to vote in.
He thinks he's a trained hypnotist(hypnosis is total baloney) and he thinks he has awesome persuasion skills. Oh by the way he thinks that Trump has awesome persuasion skills as well.
I don't think there's much analysis that needs to be done for the Trump phenomenon. He is a narcissistic douche, exuding "success" according to the contemporary American standards. The mass has been completely brainwashed for the past decades, with regards to what happiness and success looks like. Case closed.
There are no magical persuasion skills at play here.
That "narcissistic douche" just overran the Republican Party, and you doubt that he's persuasive? That's an interesting view.
Also, for future reference, things that should make your alarm bells go off:
a) something works on someone only when you describe it to that someone
b) something works only on some people, not all of them and you don't know why.
EDIT: some people didn't understand that what I'm implying with the above points is that hypnosis is more akin to the placebo effect than anything else(altered state of mind etc).
But no hypnotist says that hypnosis is placebo!!!
I totally agree that it is.
And as with all other evidence around it, I agree that the "altered state of mind" part is total baloney.
If you have evidence to the contrary please share, thanks.
IMHO, there are some flaws in your analysis.
Your only claim is that Trump is successful by today's standard. You're implying that's the reason for his success and not his "persuasive skills" and you don't mention anything else, but you are saying "case closed" as if these words are enough.
So what are you saying?
In fact, by today's standards, to have success one very important ingredient is to have persuasion skills, also known as salesmanship. Many of us, software developers are sadly not good at salesmanship, but at least we can recognize it when we see it. And personally I think Trump has it, even if his style is obnoxious.
That he has skills only because of today's standards, that may be true, but I wouldn't be so sure of causality: are today's standards responsible for Trump's success, or has Trump adapted to today's standards? I guess we'll never know.
My problem with your argument is that it seems you're considering Trump to be unskilled. I think that's a mistake and if I were in Trump's shoes, that's exactly how I'd like for people like us to think, because he's not the kind of man leaning towards dialog, strategies or cooperation, but rather the kind that does battles and in battles you want to be an asshole (people love assholes in battles, because they make a good show and supposedly show "strength"). And also you want to be underestimated.
To everything else you're saying: if you think Trump's past displays awesome management skills and strategy, well ok. We just disagree I guess?
Personally, to people like Trump, I wouldn't even trust them with carrying out the simplest of tasks. If you think he has achieved much, I'd refer you to his family's wealth and connections. If you still disagree, then we just agree to disagree.
There is a lot more to the man. He seems a simpleton on the face of it. He thrives on people underestimating him.
Yet everything points towards him being an excellent player of the "Game of Thrones".
Whether you think him an idiot or not - he is one of the best strategists I have ever seen.
That said, the CIA is no ordinary hypnotist.
If you have evidence that suggests, or better yet proves, otherwise please paste a link.
EDIT: lately it's become apparent to me that whenever you ask for citation, people downvote you. People, just because you disagree you don't have to downvote. Just offer some evidence to what you're supporting.
Here's an excerpt of the declassified MK ULTRA reports released by Freedom of Information Act in 2001 (as well as parts released previously), and printed in Lapham's Quarterly <http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/spies/new-york-state-mind>:
> H experimentation, February 10, 1954
> The group of five subjects appeared on schedule. A posthypnotic of the night before (pointed finger, you will sleep) was enacted. Mses. [redacted] and [redacted] immediately progressed to a deep hypnotic state. [Redacted] was then instructed (having previously expressed a fear of firearms in any fashion) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken [redacted] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep), and failing this, she would pick up a pistol nearby and fire it at [redacted]. She was instructed that her rage would be so great that she would not hesitate to “kill” [redacted] for failing to awaken.
> [Redacted] carried out these suggestions to the letter, including firing the (unloaded pneumatic) gun at [redacted] and then proceeding to fall into a deep sleep. After proper suggestions were made, both were awakened and expressed complete amnesia for the entire sequence. [Re- dacted] was again handed the gun, which she refused (in an awakened state) to pick up or accept from the operator. She expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened.
I believe that counts as doing something against ones will.
Lapham had a widely distributed issue titled "Spies", I recall, in which the linked article (or a variant of it) appeared.
Here is a Gizmodo article: http://gizmodo.com/project-mkultra-one-of-the-most-shocking-... and wired: http://www.wired.com/2010/04/0413mk-ultra-authorized/
There are a lot of other reputable news agencies confirming the same.
The NY Times even hosts the exceptionally well written report of the government here: https://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13inmate_Proje...
There is also the 1999 "based on a true story" called the Sleep Room, which I gather is quite accurate (but obviously not proof in itself).
I hope you find the above interesting, if not persuasive, evidence of hypnosis.
As far as I can see there's nothing new here, other than the usual super-secret 3-letter agency experiments, full of material for great spy movies but thin on substance or evidence. I think you'd agree that the same quality of evidence is abundant for aliens, area 51 and all that.
>I believe that counts as doing something against ones will.
Um nope :)
Hypnotize someone and instruct them to do some kind of self-harm. Jump off a roof. Shoot themselves or whatnot. It won't happen :D
So maybe I wasn't clear earlier. I am aligned with the scientific consensus at this point. And that, at the moment, is that this is hocus-pocus, placebo effect and the usual trait of humans that they need an excuse to justify actions that would usually never do. You know, kinda like "oh no, the alcohol did it!"
Maybe we'll have stronger evidence in the future, but right now it's all smoke. Nevertheless, interesting.
cheers
People can certainly be compelled to do things they would not otherwise do by what people would ordinarily call hypnosis. The focus on harm brings MK ULTRA to mind. However, a more generic definition is widely documented in the medical literature, see e.g.
The Prefrontal Cortex and Suggestion: Hypnosis vs. Placebo Effects. <http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00...
Self-harm may not be possible, as you say. Given the the nature of hypnotic suggestion, I speculate it is possible to suggest a separation of the physical self from the harm, and in that way trick someone into self harm. Particularly when combined with mind-altering drugs like LSD. But I've no evidence other than the reports linked.
The MK ULTRA report was read into evidence at Senate hearings because the truth of the report indicated abominable and deplorable practices. Nobody has, in spite of powerful incentives to do so, denied the truth of these reports. That ought to be a compelling indicator, IMHO.
Though I did not see an article discussing harm, dozens of articles on PubMed describe the effects of hypnosis (versus placebo).
I feel like your standard may be practically unattainable, meaning one must ask: What sort of evidence would convince you?
So all bets(and my opinions) are off, when LSD enters the game :)
I was only discussing pure hypnosis, so I can concede whatever you want if you put LSD into the discussion.
My standards are a bit high, but not unattainable. In general, I stick to what is the current scientific consensus. I appreciate any research in all directions, but until that research produces tangible and specific results, I'll abstain.
Mostly because I've seen what happens when people run wild with their assumptions and imagination. e.g. homeopathy, various other medical conditions(leaky gut syndrome) and other less worrying stuff, like aliens or super-secret technology.
Add on top of it various funny facts, like that CIA has also experimented with telekinesis, telepathy, etc and all kind of crazy loony-baloney that, of course, resulted to nothing, and you've got an explanation about my strong stance against extraordinary claims.
Also keep in mind, just at the back of you head, that no government agency that sunk gazillions of dollars into crazy shit, would like to admit that it was all for nothing. Ain't saying that it's all fabrication, but if it were... it wouldn't be the first time. Better to get caught doing "despicable" acts, rather than spending tax dollars that amounted to nothing. And of course, don't forget that you must terrify your enemies.
My 2 cents, and I'm off for now. See you later.
Cheers