It’s 37 minutes via YouTube.
I’d prefer the text version if you have a link. That would only waste about five minutes of my time.
I’m about to hit the sack, but just reading some of the PDF, I came across this:
This seems to be indicative of the rest of the paper, and awfully inadequate to explain what’s really going on in such situations. Most would simply consider this day-dreaming, or focused attention… maybe mixed with force-of-habit. To call this “Real Hypnosis” seems to really be stretching it.
None of this is going on when I’m listening to anyone’s speeches, let alone Obama’s. Perhaps he gloms on more and more as his paper goes on, but I’d be curious as to your take on it. Since you’ve already read and understand the paper, bring out what you think are the strong arguments for this type of mass-hypnosis, and how Obama is employing it.
If not the Pit, this belongs in GD, because the veracity of hypnosis has been challenged (nor resolved) for a very long time.
You make too many assumptions. As to the truth or otherwise of the thesis, I have no idea as to how plausible it is as I have not (see my OP) bothered to watch any of the candidates in action on TV.
False equivalence.
In the absence of evidence I will not assume that you believe hypnosis involves powdered unicorn horn.
You’re asking us to read a mind-numbing 67 page PDF, but can’t spare 37 mins of time to watch a speech about the very candidate the thesis puts under scrutiny? How are we supposed to take your OP seriously if you’ve never even heard one of his speeches? :rolleyes:
Are you afraid of becoming hypnotized?
Then what good does asking any of us do? No one has any evidence that hypnosis works or is real.
We’re making assumptions about you, only because you’ve been too vague. What, exactly, is your question? Because if the question is is there any plausibility to the thesis, and that is all you want to discuss, I can assure you the resounding answer will be: No. And that’s about it.
Yawn.
No, of course I don’t think hypnosis involves powdered unicorn horn. I’m saying, I find the thesis that Obama has gained power through mass hypnosis as believable as the thesis that he has gained power through the charms of powdered unicorn horn.
I have not watched Obama deliver a speech (see the OP).
In order for me to to have a valid “take” on it I would need to observe him in action in the light of claims made in the PDF. This would also be needed to properly “read and understand” the paper.
I am not the author of the paper and am not, therefore, in a position to make arguments, weak or strong, for or against the claims made by the author of the paper.
I agree that veracity of hypnosis is under some challenge, but only to extent of trying to qualify some of the more extravagent claims about its powers that have been made by some of its practitioners.
What a load of horseshit. There’s ten minutes of my life I won’t get back.
The pdf linked off the OP isn’t some sort of scientific analysis, it’s a polemic written by some sort of tinfoilhatted lunatic. It cites mostly some particular quack with psychobabble theories about hypnosis. There isn’t a relevant reference to any peer reviewed reputable paper in the first 17 pages (I gave up after that). I haven’t seen a single reference to any hard data suggesting that any of the theories propounded about hypnosis actually work.
After reading through page after page after page of repetitive drivel asserting the conclusion over and over again I finally got to the bit where the author supposedly conducts an analysis of Obama’s speeches. Great Og on a pogo stick. He finds hypnotic techniques in everything. Obama using catchphrases is teh hypnosis. Obama saying “I” and “We” a lot is [dramatic chord] hypnosis. Obama voicing a non sequitur is, you guessed it, hypnosis. And that was just the first few pages. There were about 50 to go.
By this guy’s reckoning, any dramatic political speech and quite possibly any speech at all is going to be capable of hypnosis. There is no way he could apply his bullshit technique honestly to speeches by McCain, Biden, Palin, Clinton, Churchill, Shakespeare’s heroic characters and for that matter any speech written by any halfway decent hack Hollywood writer and fail to conclude that we’re all being mind controlled, all the time, man!
What a crock.
Ha ha.
It’s certainly extremely repetitive and polemical, which is usually a red flag for papers of this kind.
I’m not exactly enamoured of the theory myself but I wanted to get a bit of feedback from people who have spent many hours watching Obama in action and get their views.
Then, y’know, watch one.
Then, y’know, watch one.
Beside, you also said this earlier: I wondered that initially, but when I did a quick scan through the document it all became crystal clear to me…
Then why bring it up? We aren’t the author either, so that puts us in the same boat you are. Besides, that’s just silly. One can still make arguments for General Relativity, even though they aren’t Einstein.
And what some of the convincing evidence for hypnosis?
I beginning to not take you seriously at all here. Your question cannot be answered factually, you’re not satisfied by any reasonable answer given so far, and now you’re being coy (to put it lightly).
Not only that, but you say we’re assuming too much about you, when it’s clear from your OP alone where your opinions lay (Bolded by me for relevance):
This simply isn’t necessary. Simply read the “analysis” and recognise that it is vague to the point where any intentionally stirring speech will fit. Look up a speech by your favourite most trusted politician and apply the analysis. It will fit.
The entire 67 pages of blather can be summed up thusly:
"I choose to regard the effect of standard rhetorical techniques used in making stirring emotional speeches upon humans as falling within my definition of “hypnotism”.
It’s about as important and underhanded as smiling at someone and saying please if you want them to do something for you. It’s shockingly underhanded stuff.
It wasn’t made clear to me that everyone in this thread recognizes that hypnosis is a real phenomenon. Just interrupting here to point out that it is.
And when you say hypnosis is a real phenomenon, exactly what kind of effects are you referring to?
No, he’s just using voice modulation - standard Bene Gesserit stuff.
What, you didn’t know that Obama was the Kwitzath Haderach?
I could do a lit search on Google scholar, but so could you (did you, btw?), so let me relay an IME. My intro psych professor, Brett King, still hypnotizes students each semester. He asks for volunteers and around 20 of them sit in chairs in the front of the auditorium. He relaxes them with his voice, says soothing words to them, and many of them start nodding off to various degrees. One guy started drooling and slouched over so much he had to be stopped from falling out of his chair. King talks to them for a few minutes and when he feels the time is right, he tells them that when he claps his hands twice they should stand straight up. Then he gently wakes them up, and they return to their seats. 45 minutes later, I myself (unhypnotized), had completely forgotten about the impending command. Then he claps twice, and books go flying as 20 students stand straight up, totally obvious to their desks. Biggest laugh you’ve ever seen follows.
I took pictures btw: http://www.flickr.com/photos/breflection/sets/310285/
The whole thing could be a farce. The literature backs him up.
Yes, Obama does hypnotize his supporters, however he does it as much as any leader in history does, at the most a little more, and definitely more masterfully. Hell, we used similar techniques in MARCHING BAND. He (or at least his speechwriters) are using bits of psychology to their advantage, but that’s damn near required so that you are perceived as charismatic.
I’m not entirely uncertain you couldn’t break down analysis of any remotely viable candidate and get at least a high percentage of the same “techniques.” However, back to my first line, when I say hypnotize I don’t mean evil “magical” hypnotism or “movie” hypnotism, I mean he puts his supporters into a pumped up, supportive, driven state, in other words, crowd leading. On the other hand, look at a McCain Palin rally, you can’t tell me with all those shoutouts of killing Obama they haven’t used similar techniques to lead the crowd and pump THEM up and get THEIR supporters ready to go and implant little subconscious suggestions into THEIR minds. It’s first grade techniques any cheerleader learns that they gave fancy names to, at least if I’m reading it correctly.
let’s see how this works:
Hmm… that sounds about right.
Not convinced?
Hey, that fits too!
Every candidate in history (well, except the boring ones with no strong views, I’m looking at you, Rutherford B. Hayes) could be substituted in there, maybe edit the end a little bit like I did for McCain (though I did that more so that my simple replacement was more clear) has used crowd leading, soundbites, chanting (gets people focused), etc. They keep claiming it’s “different from a powerful speech” but I fail to see what a speech is OTHER than an attempt at mass hypnosis. It’s not like these methods are secret. Look at the bottom of page 53, we talked about those “magic loaded words” in AP Government, they’re called condensation symbols, people really need to read more Murray Edelman.
Not to mention this paper uses similar techniques “hey, wanna be part of the cool club? You didn’t hear it from me, but [9/11 | Obama] [was | is] [an inside job | using mass hypnosis techniques], but all those SHEEP are falling for it, you don’t wanna be a sheep, do you?”
That’s just my analysis/first impression though, it could just be COMPLETE bullshit, and not merely clever masking of terms.
On the other hand, it looks like it could make one hell of a speech-writing guide.
I’ve heard a fair bit about ‘Ericksonian hypnosis techniques’ from my brother, (he’s been interested in NLP and similar things for years,) and I think that there’s something to them. Based on my knowledge, the basic thesis is true, but misleading, as Jragon also pointed out.
EVERYBODY uses these sort of ‘techniques’ at least by accident, and all politicians/speechwriters have probably learned some of them under other names. By Erickson’s definitions, he admitted that almost all people go into ‘trance states’ several times per day or more, just because of a reaction to something that someone else tells them. It’s not nearly the same thing as how hypnosis is portrayed in the movies.
Attribute it to were so sick of Bush policies, we won’t vote for anyone of his supporters unless Obama starts to drool and exhibit an IQ below 10. It was down to him or Clinton, and Clinton lost out on her party nomination. Please remember the country has been split in half the last two elections as to electing Bush in.
It’s disgust with Bush and his cronies that gives Obama support, not hypnotism.
<mod>
Let’s try this over in Great Debates.
It’s quite obviously more than a simple question.
GQ > GD
</mod>