I didn’t make it all the way the through the 67 pages (why should I when the OP can’t be arsed to listen to more than a few seconds of a speech?) but it seems like the author is insisting that we accept two contradictory premises. 1) Hypnosis is a powerful form of mind control that renders ordinary people helpless to resist, and employing it without full informed consent is ***evil ***. 2) Hypnosis is something we experience everyday, like when we get out of an elevator on the wrong floor, or when we drive somewhere and then don’t remember every turn we took on the way.
That’s ridiculous, who would want to vote fo- ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
Okay, I think I know what it is… Aquila Be has determined that the only rational way to choose a candidate is to READ the speech without all the voice inflections and visual clues. S/He has chosen his/her candidate based only on written speeches, and was completely stumped as to how anybody else could not draw his/her same conclusions. I mean, how in the world could anybody read both McCain’s and Obama’s speeches and still choose Obama? WTH? But oh, there must be something sinister and subliminal in the visual and audio presentations. Then off to the internet to look for an answer that justifies the suspicion. Yep, it must be hypnosis. And a boring, repetitive (and deluded) 67 page pdf fits the bill very nicely. Obamamania. (And who else besides someone on a mission could make it through 67 boring pages anyway?)
BTW, I just got around to watching the video of Powell explaining why he is supporting Obama. I had already read the entire transcript a few days ago, but while watching the video I found myself agreeing with Powell again, and even nodding in agreement, and smiling a lot. So I wonder, did Powell just hypnotize me? :eek:
Also, what about those who hear Obama’s speeches and feel strongly opposed to what he says, even hatred towards him? Are they being hypnotized by him too? 
Aquila Be, it was obvious to me even in your OP that what you were asking could be asked of any speechmaker. Specifically putting Obama’s name in the thread title (when the hypnosis theory could be applied to ANY speechmaker) clearly reveals your leanings and biases.
Which is weird, considering he’s Australian and has no vote. (unless he’s an American living there?)
^ Hmm, yeah, I kinda missed that part. I really thought I was responding to someone who had given very thoughtful consideration to choosing our country’s next president.
Aquila Be, are you an American citizen who is voting by absentee ballot?
And now I’m wondering if the writer of the 67 page pdf is even American?
The effectiveness of “traditional” one-on-one hypnosis in a controlled environment is questionable enough, the idea of mass hypnosis is ridiculous.
Then he kills the jack.
The truly amazing thing is how strongly the effectiveness of the hypnosys aligns with prior party preference. Sure, there’s some slippage, but for the most part all the people who can resist the hypnosis were already republicans, and virtaully all democrats fell prey to the hypnosis almost immidiately.
Clearly the only rational explanation is that the Democratic polititians have been hypnotizing their constituents this entire time, and that absent hypnotism people are all naturally republican. Because obviously nobody in their right mind could be anything but republican, right?
The number quoted in my book, The Illusion of Conscious Will, puts it around 10% for high susceptibility on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Suceptibility and Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale.
In practical terms, does that mean that, addressing a crowd, you can reasonably hope to hypnotize one member in ten?
'Cause that’s a piss-poor achievement compared to countless generations of orators from ancient times to modern with no knowledge of scientifically tested techniques.
BrainGlutton until you know what the distribution of susceptibility to hypnosis looks like your last post has zero meaning. You have no idea what ‘high susceptibility’ means.
Take note that post #90 includes a question mark. And not for rhetorical purposes alone.
Sort of. There’s a group dynamic when addressing a crowd, and if you manage to get a few influential types hooked it might be easier to get those who are otherwise difficult. I don’t think these scales address that, and anyway that’s all just speculation and not really important. Of course there are varying degrees. It’s not just black and white “hypnotized” or “not hypnotized.”
I watched until minute 10.44 at your post #21 (Christians in the Lions’ den???) and maybe I’ll watch some of the rest later when it’s fully loaded. So far it’s the usual politician pabulum but delivered in a much superior, measured style than you’d expect from even the most seasoned politicians.
I haven’t seen a single hand gesture yet.
Please crowd out of your mind any notion that the thesis is mine to defend.
This aspect has been covered quite adequately by other posters.
The only opinion I expressed related to the content of those Obama speeches I’ve read. See also my response near the top of this post.
^So after all that’s been discussed about this thesis, have you formed any opinion at all about it? If you have, how has it (or hasn’t it?), differed from before you started this thread.
Do you have anything to offer to the discussion you started other then repeatedly saying you did not author the thesis?
I wouldn’t argue against that summation. Then from your own observations of Obama in action you’d consider that his oration style is nothing different or special, as claimed by the person who wrote the paper.
BWAH?
I think he’s saying it’s a 67 page practice in rhetorical bullshit to try and redefine a host of body language and natural human behavior that has been employed by every capable human being since the dawn of time as “hypnotism”. And that’s despite the whole Obama-is-evil slant. In other words, horsershit.
It comes down to this, Obama’s a natural public speaker. GASP!
False.
Then let’s try this (please choose one):
-
You posted the link to the thesis, and you disagreed with it?
-
You posted the link to the thesis, and you have zero opinion about it?
-
You posted the link to the thesis, and you don’t understand it?
-
You posted the link to the thesis, and you wanted to see what our reactions to it would be?
-
You posted the link to the thesis, and you _____________?
That’s not an assumption, it’s an opinion based on reading some of his speeches and extracts from same.
Yes it does. That’s not an assumption, it’s an opinion.
Re your quote from one of my posts:
I wondered that initially, but when I did a quick scan through the document it all became crystal clear to me.
They’re dot points that are explained in greater detail within the body of the document.
I was being facetious. It’s really quite obvious that dot points at the start of a document are usually explained in full in the body of that document.
I don’t see why I should copy paste large extracts from the document when you could just as easily find them in the document and read them for yourself.
Only in response to your repeated demands directed at me to me to justify the contents of the paper.
That’s a direct accusation that I’m the author.