"Relationship" is a Verb!

Things have been pretty rough recently, but I'm learning a great deal and I hope to write some about it now that I have some space to think. I'm always looking for depth, and I haven't been disappointed to find it (although disappointed for other reasons, perhaps). My last few articles have been basically about relationships (sexual, mainly), but I haven't really said much about what makes a good one, or how a relationship is even defined.

Nominalizations, Groupthink and Possession

The first thing I can say about the word "relationship" is that it's a 'nominalization', that is a verb which has been converted into a noun, and thus objectified. There are many words like this; "relationship" (to relate), "government" (to govern), marriage (to marry), etc.

Some of these words also objectify a group as an independent thing that can think, decide, etc, which is not true. Every group is made of individuals each having individual thoughts, making individual actions, and so on. When the capacity to think is attributed to a group, bad things happen. Words like "couple" and "government" exemplify this. Even the simple word "we" can lead you down a slippery slope.

Finally, when it comes to relationships, there is a tendency to cling to the illusion of posession. "My" boyfriend/girlfriend, "my" husband/wife, "my" country, etc. In every case, some exclusion is claimed in general by external coercion. You serve one country, one significant other, one God, etc. to the exclusion of all others, and to do otherwise is a betrayal. It is by this means that everyone is converted into a slave, to their job, their spouse, their country and so on. This is based on a fundamental distrust, and creates a lot of resentment which is ignored until things start to break at the seams.

To Relate

To understand how a 'relationship' works and what makes it good or bad, you have to start with what actually makes it up; actions. The words you say, the gestures, touches, the jokes, laughing, provocations, teasing, activities you do together, and so on. What each person does and how they do it speaks volumes for the nature of a relationship. I should note that 'to love' is also a verb, although it can be strange to consider feelings as actions.

The most important thing is what it is you're actually interacting with. Most people are unable to see the person/people in front of them. All they can see is their own hopes and fears, or else the hopes and fears of others. Unable to see both at the same time, they can't make an intelligent compromise between their own wants and those of others, so they try to manipulate the situation to get what they want.

To Consider

The theme of "being considerate" has come up a lot for me lately, but it hadn't really occurred to me just what it means to consider. To consider what? Well obviously, the other person's feelings. Stereotypically this is something women complain about to men, although the reverse also happens.

To be considerate is a very difficult thing to do no matter what's between your legs. Not only do you need to be able to consider the other person's feelings and context, but you also have to respect your own and strike a fair deal between them. Even if you're willing to do that, figuring out a person's feelings and what's important in their context is not a simple task. That's the kind of stuff psychologists have been arguing about for more than 100 years now. It occurs to me that it's not really so complicated, it's just that they try to stick really complicated names on things that are absurdly ordinary. This is also where the depth is at, and what gives relationships the potential to be great.

To Present

If consideration is the depth, to be present is what brings the depths to the surface. What is it that you present when you're "being present"? No less than your awareness, attention and influence (which are also nominalizations; to be aware, to attend, and to influence). Usually these are preoccupied in thoughts; hopes, fears etc. There is an entire class of meditations (focus meditations) which focuses (facepalm here) on developing presence. This requires a practice of developing flexibility and depth of focus, shifting from the big picture to various levels of details, and expanding your senses as far as they will go, then extending your influence through your awareness. Usually people do the opposite: they look at reality, then at their desires, and try to manipulate reality to get their desires, only looking later to see if they got what they wanted.

Deeper Meaning

This has been the topic of a few arguments I've had recently. How do you know what relationships are worth pursuing? Is it better to have just one romantic relationship or many? Where do you draw the line?

I think there are really two important points here. The first is that, in order for a relationship to be functional, it must be fair. If one partner gives everything and gets nothing back, then it isn't much of a relationship. This doesn't just mean in terms of physical things or favors, either, but also in terms of being considerate and emotional closeness. This requires that both people can see and work out a fair deal, otherwise you get dependency or co-dependency, or one person or both are getting used.

The second is that it is best to maintain only relationships which are truly awesome and which you would keep up with forever. Meaningless self-gratification is an avoidant behavior, a symptom of some imbalance in your life. Time spent satiating that instead of dealing with it is time wasted. It takes time to accumulate worthwhile relationships, but always time well spent. I think it's worth mentioning that there ought to be at least some common interests in such a relationship, although a perfect clone of yourself is obviously not reasonable to expect.

Common Stupidity

As with everything else, there's plenty of common 'wisdom' regarding relationships which is dead wrong and yet it's how people really treat each other more often than not. This is the kind of sickness you should watch out for and either avoid or smash when you run across it. I'm not gonna plagiarize, so you can read it here.

Feminaziism Explained

Now that I've actually had some time to acquire stats, I've been kinda surprised at what I've seen. Apparently I've got readers, regular or random, from every continent except Antarctica (screw you Antarctica!). There's a definite US/english speaking skew, but I've gotten plenty of hits from many places that aren't (and some that I'd hardly heard of). I'm rather pleased with the diversity.

The #1 most popular search that leads people here, ironically, is "is the diamond approach a cult?". I never expected that small comment to be a breadwinner, but there it is. Virtually all of the searches that lead people here are psychology related (go figure) and evenly cover the Diamond Approach, Internal Family Systems, and Milton Erickson. Psychology is definitely a big part of this blog, and there will definitely be more to follow on that, but I'm kind of disappointed that there are few if any people purposefully reading this for any other reason. For now, oh well. Part of it is probably lack of much content, or at least of content that stands out. The rest is advertising in the right places, which I am very lazy about, not that I don't have places I could do that. Maybe later :).

Today's article is somewhat psychology related, and is brought to you courtesy of Valentine's Day and some insane experiences I've been having recently. And no, not the "awesome" sort of insane, either. In particular, I'm referring to feminism and its consequences.

Contradictions and Doublespeak

On the surface, feminism claims itself to represent "equality for women", i.e. sufferage, the abolishment of discrimination and exclusion, and so on. Great, awesome. Except that's not really what they're asking for, nor does that accurately represent the policies that feminists have actually pushed into law. Also, we're no longer living in the dark ages, the "glass ceiling" is nothing more than a myth today (at least in the west) and exclusive men's-only clubs and things are virtually extinct.

What you can see plainly today, rather, is a growing number of exclusive women's-only activities, clubs and so on, justified by "equality", but plainly discriminatory. And that is precisely what they want; positive discrimination. They want to have their cake and eat it, but they don't want to buy the ingredients, do the work of making the cake, or clean up the kitchen when they're done. They have "affirmative action" laws that force businesses to hire women even if they basically refuse to work or do a poor job, laws that force businesses to employ and pay (non-working) mothers, "no-fault divorce" laws that allow a woman to walk away with everything a man owns based solely on her word, and laws around rape which provide no meaningful punishment for false-accusers (and offer zero protection for men who are raped). There's your 'equality'.

And those are just the legal consequences. The social consequences are much more pervasive and insidious. "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" has increasing become the battle cry of the now feminised media. Both in advertisement and on television shows, men are now portrayed as thuggish, stupid, helpless children being 'humorously' guided only by the wise and benevolent nagging of a woman. In public school, it's now apparently mandatory for teachers to repeatedly spout the "fact" (which they pulled out of their feminist asses) that "women on average are smarter than men" (but equal!), since you see so many of them in engineering fields, or actually doing anything meaningful besides filing their nails and occupying a spot on front of a TV, of course. "Sex education" is practically nothing but pseudo-scientific misandry, thinly veiled by the paper authority of the government run school system. Men are portrayed as nothing but sex fiends and rapists, looking to fuck and chuck as many women as possible, and basically implicates them as walking STD infections or potential unplanned pregnancies.

The sort of sickness that feeds feminism (and misandry) comes from both sexes, though, and is a deeper problem than feminism itself. In female "tribal wisdom", "Welfare is only a man away", and in male "tribal wisdom", "the man is supposed to be the provider". Both sexes apparently agree that (strong, independent) women need to be taken care of by a man, nay they are entitled to it and the nearest man is obligated to do so for them immediately (in exchange for {the promise of} sex, of course). In other words, all the woman should have to do is wiggle her ass (or other parts) and the man then offers his paycheck for the mere privilege of being manipulated.

I've noticed personally that women tend to automatically place men into one of three categories. 1) Walking welfare check (ie free lunch), 2) Sex object (the thugs they actually sleep with, married women included), or 3) a creepy loser. In general, women think themselves terribly clever at being able to manipulate and shame men into these roles (and then taking advantage of the free ride), but if you refuse to comply their reality tends to fall apart.

Western women (and women in general really) tend to base their value on how good of a sex object they are, or rather how well they can control men with their bodies and whatever else. In conversations regarding relationships, they usually refer to themselves in the passive-objective form "me". "Romantic stuff should happen to me", "My boyfriend took me on a date", "My boyfriend went shopping with me" and so on. Rarely, if ever do you hear a woman say something like "I decided to do x", or "I took responsibility"; making themselves an active subject just does not occur to them. And yet in the same breath they want to cringe and whine about men treating them as sex objects, but they whine even louder when they don't. They want to be a passive object, with no responsibilities and all the privileges of a relationship, and they also want to be treated as a real person at the same time, again just as long as there are no responsibilities to this (like considering other people's feelings and needs).

The Man Trap

In order to successfully shirk all responsibility for contributing anything to anyone, women require a man that they can manipulate into shouldering that responsibility on their behalf. Unfortunately, in the modern western world, governments are more than happy to assist them in forcing men at gunpoint to do their frivolous bidding. It grants politicians more control, after all, so why shouldn't they?

Probably the most obvious is that divorce courts are extremely biased in favor of women. Even a woman who has no children and contributed nothing to a relationship is entitled by law to alimony for life, to sustain the "lifestyle she's used to". If there are children, she's entitled to them, too. They came from her vagina, after all, and so they must be her sole property. And to child support, since she's a helpless (strong, independent?) woman who can't take care of them without a cash cow to pay for it.

If the man tries to do anything to protect himself, ie a prenup (or stronger contract, preferably), the woman inevitably complains that it's an "unromantic legal contract". Mind you they have no such complaints about marching down to the government office to sign your life away in an unromantic, legal marriage contract. And hey, they even get a big, shiny expensive rock and a huge narcissistic party thrown just for them as a bonus.

If that's not bad enough, in many places they are trying to enact laws that imply that any woman who even lives with you for a certain amount of time is entitled to the full benefits of marriage; ie all of a man's possessions and income. Of course, even if you avoid that, governments have plenty of programs; single mother ghettoes, single mother welfare and so on for which they will force you to pay taxes. Consider yourself successfully parasitized.

Society Pays

Whenever someone tries to get privileges while neglecting any responsibility, there are negative consequences. Aside from the huge legal-economic vacuum that feminism represents, there are social consequences that are far worse.

In the UK especially, women are basically never held accountable for their actions. If a woman does something deliberate and criminal, it's written off as "she couldn't help it, she didn't know any better, she needs a counselor or therapy". As a result, women commit heinous crimes (often against men) and walk free. It's also very popular in the UK for women to abandon newborns in dumpsters, parking lots, and so on which occurs all the time. Of course, all they did was install "baby drops" at hospitals so now women can abandon their children at whim without facing any emotional consequences for it.

Not only that, but if a woman wants welfare without the bother of marriage, she can just have babies, then collect welfare and child support and get a free house on top of that. It's the children who really get screwed, since they're stuck with a manipulative parasite of a mother who tears the family (if there ever was one) apart at whim. They get to live in a ghetto and go to crappy schools while their mothers drink and pop prescription pills all day (and of course screw around with their thuggish boy-toy of the moment).

Indeed, the destruction of the family has created an entire generation of thuggish-whorish delinquents and criminals. And the government, of course, then steps up to "save" everyone from the criminals they created in the first place. So you get fascism as a final cherry on top.

Things aren't quite as extreme in the US or Canada, but there is still a significant burden, and a very significant degree of entitlement and demand for instant gratification that plagues most wealthy societies. Implosion from a critical mass of parasites is only a matter of sooner or later.

A Political Movement

In no way am I trying to suggest that women are inherently insane, or parasites, or that no woman ever takes responsibility for anything, or that women are somehow less intelligent. The real problem is that, from a young age they are trained (in general) to expect infinite free lunches forever, as a part of an ongoing political movement called "Feminism" (free lunches for women only).

The thing is, regardless of what individual women may think, the women who are actively engaged in the political workings get rewarded simply for doing so. You can get funding, prestige, and political power just for whining about having a vagina and about life being totally unfair on account of that fact. Just like every other politician, they are driven by greed and power-trips.

The government also likes feminism, since it allows them to control men through women, and to control women through free-lunch programs. Ultimately, group-think makes people stupid, and totalitarians have no use for intelligent serfs. It's much easier to control a group that undermines itself through competition and groupthink than one of individuals who cooperate and think for themselves. Divide and conquer, and all that.

A Case of Brainwashing

From a young school age forward, kids in school are indoctrinated with feminist double standards, and then especially so in "sex education", which is more like part religious part feminist propaganda. There's a long list of such double standards which degrade both men and women, and create a culture which actively enables female entitlement (to basically anything they want). The gist goes something like this:

“Us women don’t need men…
…what do you mean men are on a Marriage Strike? How are we meant to cope! Grrrr.”

“Children don’t need fathers, and are probably better of without a man in their lives…
…but men who walk out on their children are scum for depriving kids of a father.”

“Women are financially independent from men and can cope easily enough on their own…
…but we still want – nay, demand – child support, alimony, welfare benefits for single mothers, etc.”

“Men and women are equal…
…but women are better.”

“Gender roles are pure social constructs; no behaviour is naturally male or female…
…but men are naturally bad and women naturally good.”

“Women are just as capable as men, if not more so, in the workplace…
…but we do insist on positive discrimination/affirmative action to ensure we can succeed.”

“Women are actually stronger emotionally than men, better able to handle stress and emotional pain…
…but we demand to be wrapped in legal cotton wool to protect us from the evils of sexual harassment.”

“Women are the more gentle, nurturing and caring sex…
…but we want the right to gleefully abort our babies at whim.”

“Feminism is not about hating men, it’s about equality…
…(insert random Andrea Dworkin or Germaine Greer quote here.)”

“Making wide generalisations about a gender is unfair and nasty…
…and all men do it all the time.”

“It is terrible that women are objectified and equated with their sexual organs…
…come on fellow lezzers, let’s watch The Vagina Monologues!”

“Women are not in anyway impaired by PMS…
…but we reserve the right to use PMS as an excuse to justify murder.”

“There is no excuse for domestic violence or child abuse…
…except having a vagina of course.”

“For a woman to sleep around it means she is liberated and free…
…but a man who sleeps around is a womanizing sex-crazed bastard!”

(from another blog)

"Many women do behave as if equality means getting their way all of the time. True equality means equal consequences, equal effort, equal expectations, etc. Many women want their cake, they just don’t want to have to pay for the ingredients, make the cake or clean up the kitchen afterwards."

Links

Eternal Bachelor : Scary tales of feminist reality in the UK.

What I Learned from PUA

Whew! Recently I've been distracted by a conversation with Joe Fobes, who introduced me to a whole lot of new psychology stuff that I'll have to write about later. I've also been working 8AM to 4 or 5PM, and haven't had a whole lot of time to do anything. Now that I've got things reasonably settled, I'm going to try to get at least something written. There's plenty of topics that I haven't touched on yet, and plenty more side stuff to talk about, so as usual it's more a matter of getting it down coherently in text. And having the time and energy to do so.

I've also been having an interesting conversation with Jimmy, who has some very cool (although sometimes hard to follow) insights into Ericksonian Hypnosis. He also links to some very good articles on lesswrong, which I never would have been able to dig up myself. I've also been re-reading Erickson's collected works, and I've edited the second Erickson article to include some clarifications and insights. If you can't tell, I've had a lot on my mind lately.

Today I want to talk about something that I kind of hate, but is also kind of cool. If you've never heard of the "pick up arts", you might want to google it quickly to understand just wtf I'm talking about. Before I even start on what I thought was cool, I think I should preface it with everything that is garbage about the whole industry and the concept in general.

The Lame Stuff

When I first learned about 'game', all I heard about was all the techniques, how to dress, how to make them jealous and how to tell stories about yourself. I got the stupid idea into my head that I could use hypnosis to enhance this, but could never figure out how. That sort of seemed to work the way they said it would, but none of it led to actually getting laid, nor to anything resembling a meaningful relationship. At the same time, they were saying that it doesn't matter what you say, but rather how you feel about what you're saying. I observed this directly myself; sometimes I would say virtually nothing and yet the result was far better than when I tried doing all that stupid acting crap. I decided then that hypnosis would be better used as a therapy rather than a means of control.

So then I got into 'natural game', which focused around dealing with your inner state and being more 'authentic' as opposed to using techniques and acting. They had a lot more interesting things to say, but they were still incongruent in many ways. They still used a lot of cheap "techniques", in spite of the fact that they admitted that they were useless. They advocated forcing your way through your resistances, and that you should go out 7 days a week so that you don't "slip backwards" into your old ways. They also said that men and women are equal, which I agree with, but then they go on to say that if a woman is physically attractive, that is all the value she needs to 'bring to the table', whereas the man should be cool and open and level headed and provide the good time. Utter nonsense. Their focus on actual self-improvement was superficial at best, and as much as they might claim 'radical honesty' or whatever, they were all very artificial in their social interactions.

Aside from that, both 'schools' spoke about eliciting jealousy and making yourself seem "higher value". Jealousy, I found, is a miserable and hateful thing to use, and you invite them to throw it right back at you when you invoke it. As for being "higher value", that's all about living through your own values congruently. That's a topic for another time, however. Flirting is really very, very stupidly simple. All you're doing is demonstrating confidence, playfulness (and general positivity) and interest. Once you understand that, all the other crap they say is superfluous and often backwards. Two out of three works well, too.

The Cool Stuff

The cool stuff I learned was more about social dynamics, and that probably made the whole thing worthwhile. There's a lot more going on in social interactions than most people are consciously aware of, but to which they respond in profound ways unconsciously.

Probably the most ubiquitous example of this is the Reticular Activation System or RAS for short. The RAS is like a visual 'cache' for important reality-objects to pay attention to. This includes both threats (like if you saw a gun out of the corner of your eye, you'd probably freak) as well as desired things (hey, there's a hot girl/guy, or hey, there's a bag of money). When something in our RAS radar comes within our peripheral vision, we automatically look at it without thinking about it, and this happens all the time.

One thing which is naturally almost always in our RAS is to look out for alphas. There's much talk in the PUA community about "being alpha", but they seem to have very little understanding of what this really means. An alpha is simply someone who acts primarily through their values (as opposed to acting through anxiety). A person who acts through their values will tend to produce their own good time, rather than needing to follow along with a group, although there are certainly degrees of 'alpha'. If you go to a club, you can easily observe the phenomena where one person in a group will be the most active leader, and everyone around them will be looking to that person to try to figure out what they should do. This has been called a "chode crystal".

Most of what determines an 'alpha' from a 'beta' depends on non-verbal signals like body language, facial expressions, glances, and voice timbre. What your body projects is interpreted as being strictly more true than what you say. If you say something and your body language or voice projects that you don't believe it, people will think you're trying to trick them or are hiding something. Alphas generally project values which result in a distinct confidence, fluency and grace of movement, whereas betas project uncertainty and a level of disbelief in what they are doing.

In addition to non-verbal signals, people will also use what is known as a "congruence test" to ascertain the social 'pecking order'. Even if a person moves or talks like an alpha, when challenged they may break down and react in a negative or beta fashion. So, people will tease you, insult you, try to manipulate you or get you to be subservient, anything to see if they can put you under them. Essentially, if you violate your own values in your response to them (or sometimes if you respond at all) then you may find your status automatically lowered. It is the strength of your reality or frame which determines your social status and not what you look like, how much money you make or what activities you participate in.

As might be guessed, since displaying "alpha" non-verbal behavior congruently causes people to tend to follow what you are doing, it has a great potential for hypnosis. Instead of trying to copy what they are doing and use that to lead them, you get them to want to follow you (which they may do automatically on an unconscious level) so that you are giving them something when you display similarity to them. Then leading them is nearly effortless.

There are also untold legions of difference social signals that mean "I want to fuck you", which also occur in degrees. One thing I was shocked by is just how quickly a person's attitude can change in that respect, sometimes flip-flopping back and forth in almost comedic fashion. The other thing that surprised me is just how sexually charged almost all casual conversations in all situations are. It seems it doesn't matter what gender you are, or whether they're in a relationship or not, sex is the number one concern for most people. I've also seen that most people are bi to at least some degree under appropriate circumstances. Weird shit, let me tell you.

My general conclusion has been, aside from the three main aspects of flirting, the majority of social action should be directed to people as... well.. people. Surprise? Through a complete lack of understanding of this, PUAs fail to manage meaningful relationships, and usually end up with mentally immature people, and then complain that they don't understand. To those folks, here's a cluebat for you.

Irrational Rationality

Well, I thought I had 'tao' basically finished, and then I found out that Jay Earley from IFS also practices the diamond approach. His article on the relationship between the two is quite a bit different from mine, and mentions some things that I didn't. Apparently his books are primarily focused on IFS as 'therapy', ie goal/problem oriented, whereas the DA is very open-ended. He has worked with some DA students, but generally he keeps IFS and DA separate. Since I have the opportunity, I'm planning to shoot him some questions and see if I can get some clear(er) answers before I rewrite (and yes, I've been slacking).

Today, however, I want to talk about a disturbing trend that I've seen gurgling from the annals of the interwebz. There are a few people who hold 'rationality' as an ideal, and profess that all people should live with 'rationality' as their primary standard. In IFS, you might say they had an over-analytical part, and moreover that they're trying to tell everyone that we should be led by over-analytical parts as well. Speaking 'rationally', though, my bigger complaint is that they often use logic in ways it is not meant to be used, or in ways which are incorrect or not logic at all. At the same time, they have no problem regularly begging for donations for their vaporware projects. There are two main offenders that I'm aware of, Stefan Molyneux of freedomainradio and the folks at lesswrong, who also run the singularity institute and the Center for Applied Rationality. After I've deconstructed them to death, I'll discuss what 'rationality' really is and what it really means.

Stefan Molyneux, 'Universally Preferable Behavior', and 'Real-time Relationships'

Stefan Molyneux is a libertarian activist who has an endless collection of podcasts about libertarianism, austrian economics, psychology, atheism and what he deems 'objective ethics'. While he makes some good points about government, and introduced me to anarcho-capitalism and austrian economics, I can't say that I agree with much else that he says. Several Austrian Economists have pointed out that he has no idea what he's talking about, both in regards to economics (a topic for another time) and to ethics, which is a consistent pattern with most anything he says.

"UPB"

Molyneux's pride, glory, and primary source of income is convincing people that he has discovered something miraculous; a system of 'objective' and 'universal' ethics, which he calls "Universally Preferable Behavior". His definitions of 'objective' and 'universal' are far from standard, however, as is the 'logic' he uses to justify his conclusions.

At first, he acknowledges Hume's observation that you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is', and that there is no objective quality of 'better':

As Hume famously pointed out, it is impossible to derive an “ought” from an “is.” What he meant by that was that preference in no way can be axiomatically derived from existence. It is true that a man who never exercises and eats poorly will be unhealthy. Does that mean that he “ought” to exercise and eat well? No. The “ought” is conditional upon the preference. If he wants to be healthy, he ought to exercise and eat well. It is true that if a man does not eat, he will die – we cannot logically derive from that fact a binding principle that he ought to eat. If he wants to live, then he must eat. However, his choice to live or not remains his own.
Similarly, there is no such thing as a universally “better” direction – it all depends upon the preferred destination. If I want to drive to New York from San Francisco, I “ought” to drive east. If I want to drive into the ocean from San Francisco, I “ought” to drive west. Neither “east” nor “west” can be considered universally “better.”
It is true that very few people do drive into the ocean, but that does not mean that it is universally true that nobody ought to drive into the ocean. Principles are not democratic – or, if they are, we once more face the problem of rank subjectivism, and must throw the entire concept of ethics out the window.

 and acknowledges that a theory must be consistent with observed phenomena in order to be considered valid:

If I say that gravity affects matter, it must affect all matter. If even one pebble proves immune to gravity, my theory is in trouble.

and that preferences cannot be objective:

Preferences do not exist objectively within reality.

but then (actually out of order in the book) he contradicts himself, saying:

When I say that some preferences may be objective, I do not mean that all people follow these preferences at all times. If I were to argue that breathing is an objective preference, I could be easily countered by the example of those who commit suicide by hanging themselves. If I were to argue that eating is an objective preference, my argument could be countered with examples of hunger strikes and anorexia.

and makes arbitrary leaps over the is/ought gap:

If you correct me on an error that I have made, you are implicitly accepting the fact that it would be better for me to correct my error. Your preference for me to correct my error is not subjective, but objective, and universal.

Nevermind the fact that he states originally that behavior is what is objective, universal, and to be preferred but here he clearly states that it is the subjective preference which is 'objective and universal'.

And, to finish it off, he 'proves' his theory in his most favorite way of doing so, circular logic (that's a fallacy for those not aware):

1. The proposition is: the concept “universally preferable behaviour” must be valid.
   
2. Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behaviour demonstrates universally preferable behaviour.
   
3. Therefore no argument against the validity of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.

 Overall the book is nothing but a bunch of pseudo-logical rhetoric designed to convince overanalytical people that morality is objective and universal. The actual content of the book is nowhere near as organized as my deconstruction of it (which I strained to manage) which makes it much easier to hide all the self-contradiction and blatant fallacy. In spite of its "logical" facade, the actual arguments are predominantly emotional, with very little real logic or reasoning and absolutely zero evidence to support the claims he makes. The rest of the book only goes downhill from what I've mentioned, with false dichotomies and the same fallacies repeated in variations.

RTR

Molyneux's other major work he calls "Real-time Relationships" or RTR for short. In spite of its name, the primary focus of RTR is neither being in the moment, nor mindful awareness of one's feelings. Instead it encourages people to analyze every social interaction they have and to judge whether the other person/people are interacting morally or not.

In spite of the fact that Stefan often refers to IFS, both UPB and RTR make assumptions and recommendations that are in direct contradiction to the theory and teachings of Dick Schwartz. Molyneux often advises people to disown their families and to leave abusive relationships. While I agree that you have no obligations to stay in abusive relationships, he also promotes an attitude of judgment towards everyone (x is a bad/immoral person) and blame especially towards 'bad' parents. He also likes to play therapist, although he has never been trained in IFS or anything else, and obviously shows little comprehension of psychology in general.

Lesswrong, SI and CAR

In contrast to Stefan Molyneux, the folks at lesswrong are techno-socialists. They profess that in a short while we will develop a superhuman AI which will either make human effort completely obsolete or else destroy humanity terminator style. They too promote an absolute standard of 'rationality' which they claim will solve all of humanity's problems. However, the fallacies that plague lesswrong's arguments have some general differences from those of Molyneux. They're also somewhat better organized, which makes it much easier to dissect.

Lesswrong's Bayesian Machine

The cornerstone of lesswrong's 'rationality' is bayesian logic and game theory. In their distorted view of reality, human-level intelligence, and for that matter all truth can be achieved using only these things. They seem to be blissfully ignorant of visually-driven thought experiments, meta-logic, epistemology and ontology. They only vaguely acknowledge that psychology exists, mentioning obscure concepts like 'ugh-zones', which describe a very real aversion to confronting psychological 'burdens', but relegate their importance to the sole fact that they interfere with 'rationality' by producing cognitive bias. Their model is extremely oversimplified, to say the least, and not nearly as useful as they claim it to be.

The Singularity Institute Mugs You

Springboarding off their dramatically oversimplified view of psychology and intelligence, they then take a great leap into fantasy land, predicting that in 50 years we will have a superhuman AI that will either be the ultimate nanny or the terminator. Thus, they claim, we need to start now to develop 'friendly AI' just like in an Isaac Asimov book. Even if you ignore the economic and physical problems with their vaporous theory, and the fact that they aren't actually doing AI research, and the fact that real human intelligence cannot be summarized with bayesian networks, their explanation for how we will achieve this is an insult to anyone with any knowledge of computer science.

Namely, they invoke Moore's Law, claiming that since computing power tends to double every two years or so, that we will necessarily have superintelligent computers just around the corner. Ignoring (and this is a lot of ignoring) the problem that Moore's law is soon doomed to face the reality of the limits of atomic scale, the real problem is that Moore's law does not apply to AI research at all. Yes, desktop computers have become much more powerful since they were first introduced; orders of magnitudes more. However, computers still do basically the same mechanical, deterministic tasks. Computing power does not equal intelligence, so no matter how fast or how complex a desktop computer becomes, it will not become a shred more intelligent, except perhaps by means of very complex software. Software which depends on AI research that they're not doing, and which moves far slower than Moore's law.

In fact, SI doesn't actually do anything at all except self-flagellating and 'brand building' (ie taking people's money). Givewell declined to recommend SI, commenting that they didn't actually accomplish anything, and furthermore that their argument was pascal's mugging. I consider that an accurate assessment.

The Center for Applied Fallacy

As part of their campaign to 'rationalize the world', they split off an extra branch of SI which is aimed at imposing 'rationality training' on unsuspecting layfolk. Through this effort, they hope to brainwash the world into becoming good little 'rational' techno-socialists, ready to accept the blessings of their all-benevolent technological singularity dictator in 50 years. They also have an entrepreneurship program, associated with ycombinator, which has become known for ripping off investors with fraudulent tech startups. The only good thing I can say about it is that, given their general ignorance of psychology and complete lack of charisma, they aren't likely to succeed.

So What Is 'Rationality'?

In NLP, we would call the word 'rationality' a nominalization. A nominalization is a verb, which through the magic of the ambiguity of language has been converted into a noun. The verb from which 'rationality' is derived is 'to reason'. So what does it mean to reason? Put simply, reasoning is the capacity to represent and solve problems without having the actual problem in front of you. Reasoning includes thought experiments, meta-analysis, logic, questioning and hypothesis.

In the past there has been much controversy over whether reasoning or empiricism is more useful for discovering truth, and even whether 'truth' can be known at all (it can't, but that's a topic for another time). Over the past century, however, we've pretty much come to the conclusion that they must be used together (reason + evidence = science) in order to achieve results, and even then there is an uncertain element that requires imagination (ie, coming up with theories that interpret the raw data).

Far from being an ideal to live up to, reasoning is something which requires constant questioning of everything in order to remain useful. It is, at best, combined with evidence under proper conditions in order to come to a better understanding of how things work, and at worst fundamentally limited in accuracy thanks to the map-territory distinction and recursive complexity. While there is a definite place for reason and evidence in discovering truth, there is also far more to life and being human. Both lesswrong and Stefan Molyneux seem to be trying, in contrast, to reduce humans to mere machines.

Consumed by Consumerism

Alright, I've been busy polishing up the "Tao of Psychology" series, making minor corrections, adding clarifications, rewording things and so on. I'm basically happy with it now, so I don't expect to be doing any more editing on that in the future. I had also been contemplating rewriting manifesto and sins, but ultimately I decided they don't need it for the moment. I'll probably end up rewriting them at some point so that they flow better, but it's not a top priority. I'm still far from running out of ideas of things to write, although I feel like I need a short break after writing 'tao'. I've already got ideas for the next few articles, so expect business as usual.

Today I want to talk a bit about consumerism (durr) and how your money disappears on things you don't need. For many people, no matter how much money they make, it always seems like it disappears just as quickly. They like to spend their time 'going shopping', they associate entertainment with spending money, they load up on debt, buy an expensive car, and always need to have the latest toy to show off. They keep "perfect" lawns and then spend more money spraying poisons on those lawns to keep them 'perfect'. These people then end up working till they're 60 if they're lucky, usually at some job they despise, and then 'retire' to a life of vegetation and maybe growing vegetables if they actually have enough money and health by that point to maintain hobbies like gardening.

Those that aren't so lucky end up in a retirement home somewhere where they're ignored and rot until there's nothing left of them (or until the bed sores dig completely through their body). Others will end up working as a greeter at wal-mart until they fall apart. There's a term for this lifestyle; it's called the 'rat race', and even if you win you're still a rat.

Impulse Buying

For most people in the developed world, buying things is a matter of desire. Whatever catches your attention this minute is where your money goes, no real thought goes into how much value you're actually getting for your money. As a result, most of that crap ends up piling up around your house and pretty soon you're throwing expensive things away because you really had no use for them in the first place.

Consider a set of knives, for example. If you buy a set of knives at wal-mart, you end up with a bunch of knives, most of which you have no use for, and all of which are equally dull no matter which way you turn them. For the price you paid, you could have gotten a few good (or at least decent) knives that you would actually use. If you buy a cheap pair of shoes, you end up replacing them within a year, often less. For the price you would pay to replace cheap shoes every year you could buy a nice pair of shoes that would last ten years and be far more comfortable. Then you have garbage like this which works even less well than wal-mart knives.

Most of this stuff will get used once (or at least a good attempt!), or maybe a few times, and then it's off to the landfill, along with the mountains of packaging it all came in. Other stuff may sit around in your drawers and on your counters, maybe to come out for a minute once a year. And this junk is where the majority of your money ends up going.

Rat Food

The rat race wouldn't be complete without genuine rat food. Not coincidentally, a large chunk of where people's money disappears to is the overpriced and nutritionally bankrupt packaged/instant foods, fast foods, and eating out in general. Not only does eating that kind of food relieve you of your hard earned dollars, but it also leaves you feeling like a caged rat. If you ever get the chance to visit a country where the people eat fresh produce as the norm, you can see a huge difference in how the people carry themselves, their general attitudes, and the striking lack of obesity and other problems which are epidemic at least in the US.

Cost wise, it's not even a fair comparison. Just as an example, a TV dinner might cost you $2.50, and feed you for one meal, whereas for $4.00 I can buy a 10lb (4kg) bag of potatoes that I can cook out of for two whole weeks. For the cost of 7 TV dinners (ie one meal a day) I could eat for a whole week, and much healthier at that.

Technological Inferiority

In the modern world, we all assume that technology is making our lives easier, better, and more productive. Is this really true though? With the advent of cars, we can now travel farther in less time than was ever before possible. However, you also have to change the oil and spark plugs ($), get things repaired on it ($$$), buy gas regularly ($$$), have your tires rotated, balanced, aligned and occasionally replaced ($$), potentially clean it and other things like putting air in the tires which are fairly time consuming. Then, on top of that you get to sit in rush hour traffic for hours a day going to and from the city just so you can work to pay for all that.

Then you have cell phones and computers. While they started out as practical business devices, they've since evolved to become (mindless) entertainment centers; expensive, complicated, and with their own associated upkeep costs. Now you have a generation of children who live with their faces glued to a phone, and who are so shallow and mindless that they stand no chance of contributing anything meaningful to the world.

And of course the myriad of plastic gadgets and knick-knacks that you can buy for just $19.95! They'll change your life forever by annoying you for several minutes before you give up on trying to make them work and throw them away.

Life in general has, without question, become more complicated, faster paced and more stressful in modern times because of technology. We were probably better off when the most complicated thing we had was a watermill.

Bad Habits

Habits and hobbies alike can also be a life-sucking money pit. The most popular 'hobby' in the western world today is undoubtedly TV. Even the 'educational' stuff on TV generally isn't, it rots your brain, shortens your lifespan, shortens your attention span, and results in delinquency amongst children, who learn to rely on it for attention and to keep themselves entertained. Additionally, TV is both the platform through which consumerism is indoctrinated in the masses, and one platform by which governments keep their citizens intentionally misinformed.

There are of course other hobbies which are destructive to one's wallet. Shopping for instance, if taken on as an activity and source of entertainment in itself, is the fastest way to see your money disappear. Malls are an epicenter of mindless indulgence and useless junk. Going out to eat, watching movies and taking expensive vacations are equally bad. Drugs or alcohol of course also cost money, and even more so if you drink your alcohol in a club or bar.

There are also hobbies which can save you or even make you money. Gardening, for example. If you're skilled and well-educated on soil systems, you can grow a significant part of the food you would normally have to buy. Not only do you save money, but what you get is fresher, and with good choices of breed and soil management much more flavorful and nutritious as well. Knife sharpening is another, not only is it a very zen sort of activity, but people will pay you to sharpen their knives. You can even make a career of it. Watch, clock or bike repair are also similar. Most of these require some investment in equipment and learning, but can easily pay for themselves. There's a large list of other crafts that fit into this category (soap making, tailoring, etc), your imagination and preferences are the only limits.

Economic Consequences

In order for a market to run efficiently, it is necessary that consumers are well educated about the products they buy, and that they choose quality over junk, given the same or similar price. If consumers will buy any garbage that is sold to them, then garbage is what the economy will gear itself to produce. Likewise, the health of an economy and the wealth of a nation both depend on savings and investment. When the average person buys a house, a car or a college degree using debt rather than saving money, then wealth cannot be built and inevitably decay and poverty will result. An economy which both accumulates debt more than savings and which produces garbage more than things of value is doomed to collapse. Similar catastrophes are bound to occur wherever people act without making the effort to understand the consequences of their actions.

Further Reading

If you want to learn more about how not to be a consumer, and how you can live comfortably for ~$7,000 a year, check out Early Retirement Extreme.

Tao of Psychology Part 7: A Secular Spirituality

The book "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert A. Heinlein tells the story of a human boy named Mike who was born and raised on Mars by Martians following the death of his parents and all of the other colonists. When a later mission 'rescues' him and returns him to earth, he is shown to have learned superhuman capabilities from the martians. He can control his breathing, heart rate, muscle growth, and even his sense of time. After struggling for some time to fit in with the other humans, he visits several churches, hoping that the 'old ones' of earth could help him to understand what it means to be human. He finally comes to a realization of the contradictoriness of human nature, which gives him the revelation he needed both to understand his own humanity and to fully understand the teachings of the Martian 'old ones'.

After that, he becomes inspired to start a church in order to teach the people of Earth the things he has learned. He finds that the only way he can do this is by teaching them to speak martian as the human languages completely lack the words needed to describe what he knows. His church becomes very wealthy and prosperous, and several of the other large churches declare him a heretic, sending hoards of angry believers against him. Ultimately, he decides to allow them to have their way, peacefully allowing himself to be martyred to show them the true nature of their hate.

It's often said that the real world is stranger than anything in science fiction, but in this case I'd say they're not too far apart. While humans can't actually make objects disappear into another dimension with our thoughts, or breathe the martian atmosphere (95% CO2, which often freezes), we can learn to control our autonomic functions, our sense of time, and to transcend the artificial limits of personality to find higher meaning in life and reach profound states of awareness. We don't have to learn martian to do it, either. (although Ericksonian language might as well be)

Mr. Ali observed that if parents (or peers or teachers, etc) fail to recognize, mirror and support a child's developing essential nature, the child will dissociate and create self-image parts to protect that nature in whatever way they can. These parts become the story we tell ourselves about ourselves; our 'life story'. By seeing this story objectively for what it is, we can learn to unwrite it, to transcend it and live in the present instead of the past or the future. We can learn to stop our incessant inner 'doing', to center ourselves in being and to transcend the limitations of attachment to the body.

We can do this without invoking gods or ghosts, and without requiring belief in the absence of evidence. Ericksonian Hypnosis can further aid in teaching these things experientially instead of by mere advice or dogma, and to more fully unleash the potential of the human mind both in the inner journey and in living in the world. It is my conviction that this is truly the path which will allow humans to transcend war, prejudice and totalitarianism, and to evolve as a civilization to work towards what is really important and what really does good.

Zen Hypnosis

Recently, while I was digging for free resources on Milton Erickson, I stumbled across uncommon knowledge and their sister sites, uncommon forum and hypnosisdownloads. At first I took little interest in their hypnosis audio, as Erickson commented that no single induction fits perfectly for all people. However, after experiencing a definite effect from a mere text induction (that wasn't directed at me), I decided that it might be worth looking into to see if they had anything that resonated well with the theory I have described. Although it's scattered around randomly, it turns out they have a lot of things which are exactly what I was looking for in terms of converting IFS/DA into a hypnotic format.

Now that I've had the chance to try some of these, I can say more about it. Their inductions suck, so it's bring-your-own-trance. Some of them, particularly the ones Roger Elliot narrates, have very good, very Ericksonian suggestions though, and would be quite useful if you've learned autohypnosis already.

Intro

Harmony with Nature: Unguided visualization to boost inner peace and harmony.

Hypnotic Body Scan Relaxation: Teaches you how to quickly and deeply relax every muscle in your body. An easy way to naturally learn to enter a trance, and extremely useful in general.

Clarity

Know Yourself: Introduces you to the many facets of you.

Cloud Nine: Helps you to have a very zen-like experience, and to connect with your sense of inner harmony.

Mindfulness Meditation Training: Helps you to become more centered in the present, to become more detached from your emotional states, and to gain a wider perspective on things.


These three provide the fundamental skills needed to begin unwinding your personality, and help you to discover a sense of inner calm that underlies all of the chaos you normally experience.

Heart

Strength of Character: Helps you to achieve a deep self honesty, from which your indestructible inner strength and perseverance arise.

Trust Your Instincts: Teaches you to become aware of subtle physiological signals your body sends you, to find and believe in the truth in your heart, and to combine your instincts with your reasoning ability to improve your judgment.

The Meaning of Life: Teaches you to access your inner sense of meaningfulness, and to create greater meaning in your life through it.


These three work synergistically with the last three to amplify the effect of meditation, increase centeredness and awaken your inner guidance.

Intuition

Awaken Intuition: Teaches you to gain access to the subtle and powerful abilities of discrimination of your unconscious.

Learn from Your Mistakes: Become your own best teacher, learn how to learn from your past experience and improve yourself without self-punishment.

Expand Your Comfort Zone: Learn to expand your boundaries gradually, to invite more excitement into your life.

Others' Shoes: Teaches you how to experience what it's like to be another person, and come to understand people better in general.

Misc

Super Senses: (at the bottom) Self-explanatory.

Other Hypnotic Techniques

Recently I found a bunch of related hypnotic techniques through hypnosis.org. Cal Banyan's regression therapy, C. Roy Hunter's parts therapy and spiritual part therapy, ego state therapy and Michelle Beaudry's "Spa of the Inner Mind" unguided imagery and "The Forgiveness Pyramid". From what I understand, connecting with your inner spiritual guidance is a simple and straightforward process, and would be easy to integrate with other techniques.

And that, my friends, is the end of this series. (finally!)

Tao of Psychology Part 6: Erickson Revisited

Surprise! More Milton Erickson :P. In all seriousness, though, in my first article on Erickson, I primarily covered the general character of his therapy and methods. I didn't, however, say much about trance or hypnosis, what those are, how they work and what you can do with them. While I won't be giving any instructions on how to actually induce a trance (ok I lied, sort of), I will be describing what you can do with one, how that relates to what I've been discussing, and some of the latest findings in neuroscience and how that relates to trance.

What is Hypnosis?

While the word 'hypnosis' might bring up images of swinging watches, 'hypnotic gazes' and the like, hypnosis can easily be defined as any communication which causes a change in thinking in another person. Advertisement is hypnosis, teaching is hypnosis, negotiation is hypnosis, even social situations are hypnosis. All of our mental problems can be ascribed to hypnosis, and any successful treatment is also hypnosis.

More specifically, hypnosis affects people on an 'unconscious' level, where responses seem 'automatic', and not voluntary or controlled. "Un-conscious" literally refers to anything that isn't conscious. When you walk down the street, you don't think "ok now left foot go there, now right foot go there, now left foot.." and so on. You just walk, and your unconscious does all the rest. Your unconscious regulates your breathing and immune response, it filters your experience and it performs all the skills you've mastered and no longer need to think about. It also has the reigns on all of those latent mental abilities that you always hear about how we don't use them.

 

Characteristics of Trance

 You can't really talk about 'hypnosis' without also talking about 'trance', although like hypnosis there's a lot of superstition surrounding the phenomenon. Really a trance is just a mental context. When you go to work, you probably put yourself into a 'work trance'. When you 'fly into a rage', you're invoking an 'angry trance'. People who are good at performing or playing music will put themselves into a 'performance trance'. As you might guess, we're in some sort of trance or another all the time.

However, in most of these trances, 'consciousness' is in the foreground; reacting, watching and making the usual fuss. In a 'hypnotic trance', the unconscious is brought to the foreground, which is what makes this sort of trance different and special. It is not, as many hypnotists do their best to convey, a state of 'increased suggestibility'. You do not become a mindless slave or automaton. Rather, you gain more direct access to your more subtle inner machinations, to your imaginative abilities, to your autonomic functions, and to many other abilities that you probably didn't know you had.

There are certain profound differences in awareness that characterize a "trance" as opposed to the normal "waking state". Awareness of 'external reality' is essentially traded for 'internal reality', leading to what is called "rapport", where the person ignores and/or gives no significance to external reality objects. Instead, ideas are given reality, and additionally examined very closely to relevance to the subject as a person. While a person in a trance is very receptive to ideas, they will reject or defeat any ideas which they find objectionable or harmful. It is this very engaged ideation which allows access to various physiological and intellectual capacities. Also, as a result of a limited awareness of reality contexts, a person in a trance may fail to find amusement in things which they normally would in the waking state (like practical jokes).

Outwardly, there are observable differences between someone in a 'hypnotic trance' and someone who is 'normally awake'. Probably the most obvious and profound indicator is that their pupils dilate like satellite dishes. It's almost impossible to miss. They also tend to relax their muscles and take on a sort of spaced-out or stuporous look. Their movements take on a strange rigidity (catelepsy), their attitude becomes more child-like, they lose awareness of most things in reality unless you specifically point them out, and they become very literal in the way they interpret what is said to them (due to the literal interpretation of ideas). Check out the video links at the end of the first Erickson article for examples.

Light vs Deep Trance

 Most hypnotists seem to recognize that there are 'light' and 'deep' trances, and some even add in a 'medium' category, although for reasons I'll explain I don't consider that distinct. Basically, in a 'light' trance, the conscious mind is still 'awake', and can even participate in eliciting and experiencing hypnotic phenomena. In a light trance, you're generally limited to associative phenomena like positive hallucination, although you can also elicit dissociative phenomena in a localized way. For example, you could develop amnesia for your name in a light trance, but if you developed amnesia for the entire experience the trance would automatically 'go deep'. It's really a sliding scale, with fine variation in how far you've 'drifted off', but at some point you really 'zone out', which is called 'deep trance'.

In 'deep' trance, your consciousness has either gone away, or to sleep, or is simply in a state where it is so comfortable that you just don't care about anything. You don't care enough to try to move, or to speak, or to pay attention to anything in reality. In a 'deep' trance, it's possible to elicit all of the associative phenomena with profound lucidity, and to elicit all of the dissociative phenomena like negative hallucination, amnesia and anesthesia in a global way.

Hypnotic Phenomena

There are a number of specific phenomena associated with trance as they are easily identified as unusual and are easy to elicit consistently. There are also many more than I could list, some profound and some subtle, which cover a wide range of experiences and capabilities above and beyond what is well studied. I'll try to give some examples of both to give you a pretty decent overview and an inkling at what sorts of things are possible with hypnotic phenomena.

Some basic phenomena:

• Ideomotor activity (and automatic writing)
• Positive hallucination (experiencing something that isn't there in any of the senses)
• Negative hallucination (not experiencing something that is there)
• Anesthesia/analgesia
• Hyperesthesia (amplification of senses)
• Amnesia
• Hypermnesia (extreme recall)
• Time distortion (time seems faster or slower than what the clock says, sometimes extremely so)
• Control of breathing, heart rate, body temperature, blood pressure, blood flow (to specific areas, has even been used to reduce bleeding during surgery) and immune response (amongst other things)

Erickson also often used hypnosis to awaken people's 'intuition'. He took the position that the unconscious could be aware of more things and process them faster than consciousness can (modern science agrees, more below). He used this to help people improve their performance in sports, to make creative leaps, and went into a trance himself to improve his awareness of his client's state and to allow himself to instantly respond to whatever they did during therapy.

To give a firsthand account of something similar, back in my "pickup" days, I had the opportunity to see someone who was 'in state'. I decided in the moment to see if I couldn't go into a trance to 'copy' that state, and so I defocused my eyes and watched him for a moment; and as he moved and interacted I could see sort of 'swirls' occurring around his elbows and other joints, and soon I felt a strange new feeling arising from my center. This expanded like a flame, and then when I went to walk away it didn't even feel like my body. I moved like he did, almost exactly, and at his pace (which I had to slow down). Later I was making small talk with some customers and it didn't even sound like me (although it wasn't like him either). I was more confident, easygoing and personable than I have ever been; normally I hate making small talk at all.

Of course, that experience didn't last, but it was astounding how I was able to 'absorb' so completely what someone else felt and how they moved. Especially when it was something so alien to my own experience.

There is another case of Erickson's which I think is illustrative. He once had a blind woman come to him because she thought hypnosis might help her see. Having no sense of sight, it was difficult to distract her and limited the kinds of hypnotic phenomena he could elicit. After much effort, he finally managed to get her to manifest arm levitation, and left her only with the suggestion that she would be surprised. Later, she found that she could walk and move easily and smoothly like a sighted person. Being blind all her life, she had built up her senses of hearing and touch over her lifetime which she was able to synthesize so that she could move gracefully without thinking about it.

Posthypnotic Suggestion

By linking a hypnotic suggestion either to a class of experiences or to a future time, it effectively becomes a posthypnotic suggestion. When the trigger for the suggestion is activated, the person goes into a 'posthypnotic trance', during which time they carry out the suggestion. This may persist until the suggestion is fully carried out, or it may only last a moment and then the person wakes up with residual hypnotic phenomena.

Hypnotic Sophistication

To Erickson, unless you intended to purposefully deceive him (and probably even then), he considered you a good subject as a matter of fact. However, he often spoke of a distinction between subjects in terms of "sophistication", which I did not understand for a long time.

In order for a person to carry out a suggestion such as "stay in trance, but act as if you were awake", or "you have an interesting experience, and learn important things", they must first be able to manifest basic hypnotic phenomena such as ideomotor activity and hallucination. The more abstract and complex the suggestion, the more sophisticated the subject must be in order to carry it out.

Autohypnosis

Many of Erickson's first experiences with trance were autohypnotic. You can learn autohypnosis through a posthypnotic suggestion, and/or you can also learn to do it in a 'naturalistic' way which Erickson described. His method was simple: Gather, in your mind, all of the impressions which are relevant to what you want your unconscious to do, focus on them clearly in consciousness, and then set them in the back of your mind for safe keeping, with the knowledge that your unconscious will respond when it has come up with a solution. It may respond like a bolt of lightning out of the blue, or intuitively without you noticing that something has changed, or perhaps in a dream, but you won't know until it does. Of course, sophistication helps, but it isn't necessary to get a good response.

Hypnosis & Neuroscience

While modern neuroscience has found out virtually nothing about trance itself, or hypnosis in general, it has found some fascinating things about representation and memory which are linked to trance phenomena.

It was found that for the primary senses (VAKOG) each could be trained so that you can remember and name more details of things you've seen. Hypnotic games with hallucination and hyperesthesia can achieve the same thing without having to do 'flash card' type work. Nikola Tesla, for example, gained his engineering skill because as a child, he was in such boring and captive circumstances that he found himself drifting off to daydream worlds regularly. Later, when he learned engineering, he figured that because he already had such imaginary prowess that simulating engineering in his head would be easy. Turned out he was right.

They've also found that reaction time can be reduced, regardless of age. This can be trained through martial arts practice, or ironically through first person shooter games like Halo(tm). Posthypnotic suggestions have also been used to aid in improving reaction times.

Previously I mentioned how memory champs use the method of loci to memorize obscenely large bits of information (like 18,000+ digits of pi). The method of loci is a combination of visual representation and anchoring, both skills which can be practiced and improved through hypnosis.

Other experiments have used people as living computers. They showed some subjects pictures of helicopter pads and had them become familiar with what one looked like on a satellite photo. They then hooked the subjects up to an EEG and rapidly flashed many satellite photos in front of them while measuring the output. They found that even though the person wouldn't have any conscious awareness of it, whenever they saw a helicopter pad in a photo their brain would register an 'aha' response, telling the computer to search that frame to find a pad. The photos were cycled fast enough that they could barely see anything at all.

Closing Thoughts

Hypnosis not only offers the possibility of directly teaching the fundamental skills and states needed for inner work, but also the possibility of awakening the latent potential of the human intellect and human action.  It can be used to bypass and break up rigid conscious states, and to achieve rapid change and growth. It's faster and more powerful than meditation, and I almost consider it to be a way of life. Ultimately, it's something you'll have to experience for yourself.

Links

• "What Every Body is Saying" by Joe Navarro 
• "Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Expressions" by Paul Ekman and Wallace V. Friesan
• The Dog Whisperer: The Complete First Season
  (Humans act more like dogs than you think)
• Uncommon Knowledge