Although hypnosis is prohibited by law in the State of Israel, there are many other tools that deal with the subconscious, reprogram, and plant ideas. We encounter it everywhere: advertisements, interactions with people, sometimes we even do it ourselves without noticing
There are people who have the ability to convince others to do almost anything. You've probably come across this: Don Juan who always gets the girls, the salesman who is said to be "successful in selling ice to Eskimos", and those colleagues who always convince others to do the work for them.
Although hypnosis is prohibited by law in the State of Israel, there are many other tools that deal with the subconscious, reprogram, and plant ideas. We encounter it everywhere - advertisements, interactions with people, sometimes we even do it ourselves without noticing.
What makes people flock to this or that restaurant, buy a certain product, or fall in love with a specific person? What influences our unconscious decision making. There are many schools of thought, and in the following article, due to the brevity of the paper, a limited number of them will be presented.
Advocates of the NLP method claim that they are able to communicate with the subconscious of others, plant ideas there, and even influence the free choice of others. The method has never been scientifically proven, but those who use it claim that it works.
According to studies, when we meet with a close friend, our body language and his become similar or "synchronized". We make the same movements, sit in the same positions and use the same phrases or words. On a deeper level, the breathing rate also gradually becomes the same, and in such a situation the feeling is that you are "broadcasting on the same wave".
NLP people take these motifs and try to imitate them in order to artificially create such closeness, which allows, as they say, "synchronization" with the person standing in front of you. When someone is in sync with you, it is easy for them to listen and understand you, and eventually agree.
Many salespeople use similar techniques, so pay attention, the next time you go to buy something, if the seller slowly begins to imitate your movements, and use the same words that you use. The change should not be sudden and distinguishable, but the subconscious perceives it without us feeling it, according to the advocates of the method.
By the way, not everyone who does this is necessarily trying to "sell" you something, the human brain has what are called "mirror" neurons. When we see others perform some action, instinctively, the mirror neurons activate the same area in our mind that is responsible for the action. For example, when we see someone move their hands, the area of the brain that is responsible for the hand movement will immediately be activated, just as if we ourselves were performing it. That's why yawns
They are so contagious - when we see someone yawn, the mirror neurons go into action and it is immediately difficult for us to control the strong need to "imitate" them and yawn ourselves.
Decision making - a predetermined game?
Another method which is taken from the world of psychology, connects the concepts of heat and cold with decision making. In an interesting experiment conducted in the USA, each volunteer in turn is asked to answer a questionnaire, and while the experimenter asks him the questions and writes down his answers, he asks him if he can hold the drink for him in the meantime. The volunteer probably agrees to hold the glass, while the experimenter asks the questions.
At the end of the questioning, the volunteer returns the glass to the experimenter. and then goes to meet and chat with another new person. At the end of the conversation, the volunteer was asked "If you were a business owner, would you hire this person or not?"
The experiment was split into 2 groups. In one group the cup given to the volunteers is hot (a cup of coffee or tea), in the other group the cup is cold (cold cola with ice). All other details in the experiment remained the same between the two groups.
Minor detail, right? Why would the heat or cold that the volunteers absorbed from the cup in their hand for 4 minutes affect the decision to hire or not to hire the simulated "employee"? And yet, the results in the experiment were unequivocal. The volunteers who held the hot cup testified at the end of the experiment that the person they spoke to was wonderful, and seemed competent and reliable, and they would certainly have hired him. Whereas the unlucky volunteers who held the cold glass tended to believe that that person looked a bit dubious, and neglected and they certainly wouldn't want to hire him.
The compulsive gambler in us
Another experiment that shows how easy it is to influence our decision-making with just words, is the gambler experiment, and it is a bit more famous. The experiment splits into 2 groups. In the first group, everyone is given 20 shekels in their hand, and they are allowed to choose whether they want to gamble in a roulette game. If he wins, he will receive an additional 30 shekels (and he will have 50 shekels in his hands), and if he loses, then the 20 shekels will be taken from him. Most of the people in the group chose not to gamble.
In the second group, each is given 50 shekels in his hand, and told that he will have to pay back 30 shekels if he chooses not to bet on roulette. If he does gamble, there is a chance that he will be able to keep the 50 shekels with him, and there is a chance that he will leave empty handed. What do you think people in this group will choose? Of course, most of them preferred to bet on the possibility of keeping the 50 shekels with them, and this despite the fact that the 2 groups were apparently offered the exact same offer - the option of leaving with 20 shekels or betting and maybe getting 50.
What is the difference anyway? Most people hate to lose something they already have. The members of the second group already saw the 50 in their hand, and did not want to lose 30 shekels, the emphasis in the case of this group was on the loss of 30 shekels if they did not gamble.
Whereas in the case of the first group, the emphasis was on a loss of NIS 20 if they gambled. Most of humanity is programmed so that we try to avoid losses as much as possible, which is why this small verbal manipulation caused such a big effect.
Words, words, words
In general, words have tremendous power. If someone says to you, “Oh, are you okay? You look a little pale, maybe you should check if you have a fever", chances are that later that day you will actually start to develop some symptoms of illness. And on the contrary, if someone remarks to you, "Wow, today you are radiant", it is possible that this statement will lead to a great day.
Marketing artists recognize the power of words, and use it extensively in advertisements. The Apple company uses images such as: touch, sense, feel. Orange promises that it "connects people". Vasem chose to use the pleasant feelings that a home (cottage) and a family (the baby) evoke in us.
You too can use words to create a fruitful, pleasant and better atmosphere around you. Many warm and positive words will instill pleasant feelings in the minds of those around you, and suddenly, without you noticing, the general atmosphere will get an upgrade.
And a final anecdote, the Japanese are also aware of the power of words. In negotiation processes, many businessmen from the East will never use the explicit word "no". Always during a transaction, when a certain clause offered to them is not to their liking, they will politely present it like this, "Yes, we would be happy if this clause were included in the transaction, provided that...". The condition that comes after that will be something obviously illogical that can range from "on the condition that you give us all the other products for free", to "on the condition that you give me your eldest son as a gift" - this is the so-called "non-Japanese".
73 תגובות
jubilee,
It seems to me that the epithet Trolit cannot be a slur, because in such a language a person uses clean language to say something negative, whereas here it actually seems that the language as well as Yael's intention were negative and this is consistent with her reactions to (I assume this is the same Yael) elsewhere , where I tried to confront her with the problematic nature of her words, but she retreated into a defensive, childish position, and as far as I know, she still hasn't tried to answer the questions I asked her, questions she is welcome to answer at any time and for my part, of course, I would be happy to respond.
Avshalom Drori peace be upon you,
Things you see from there you don't see from here 🙂
Perhaps comprehensive legislation is not the right solution, but either way supervision is needed.
Michael,
Thanks for the reference to Dan Arieli's lecture. Fascinating indeed. Soon I will also refer to his other lecture that I found nearby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUdsTizSxSI&feature=relmfu
I, for Tomi, believe that in giving the nickname "troll" to the last Camilla, the intention was in the Sagi-Nhor language. Yael! Please your response.
From the content of SAFKAN's words, it is clear that this is one of the more creative commenters here. If I had access, I would have checked his IP address.
I wonder what the ambient temperature was at the time of the experiment with the cup.
I tend to believe that it was cold, and it is possible that if the interview had been held at a high temperature, the volunteer would have actually preferred the cold cup server.
Those who found interest in the article will probably also find interest in the following lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X68dm92HVI&eurl=http://elibaskin.com/node/55&feature=player_embedded
Regarding the comments:
The subconscious is not necessarily connected to ancient parts of the brain.
Sometimes solving complicated mathematical problems occurs in an unconscious process and only when the subconscious comes to the conclusion that there is a chance that it has a solution does it "awaken" consciousness.
Ramachandran's book "Illusions of the Brain" also tells about other discoveries of the subconscious.
For example - people suffering from damage to the right hemisphere of the brain in many cases are not aware of their inability to move their left hand.
This is expressed in the fact that when they are asked to pick up a wide tray, they will send their working hand (right hand) to the right side of the tray and invent all kinds of excuses for why the left hand did not reach the left side (while if they were aware of their limitation they would send their hand to the middle of the tray).
The information about the damage to their function is sometimes quite surprisingly restored when cold water is poured over their ear (this is not a joke!).
Then they suddenly know that their left hand is not functioning and if you ask them why they thought it was working before, they will deny the claim that they ever thought that way.
When the effect of the water wears off - the lack of awareness returns.
Most of us also most tangibly experience the existence of the subconscious at this time of year.
I hope you'll forgive me for being honest in my description and don't fall for nonsense, but when someone (who is no longer a small child) feels the need to pee while he's sleeping - his mind invents all kinds of stories why he can't pee right now.
Somewhere in the sleeper's mind was imprinted the desire to avoid bedwetting.
On the other hand - the need to urinate reaches the "sleep consciousness" of the sleeper.
A certain mechanism that is apparently designed to allow us to continue sleeping - invents all kinds of stories for us such as there are no toilets where we are or that all the toilets that are available are horribly dirty.
Regarding the legitimacy of mysticism - my opinion differs from Yael's - I do not see anything legitimate about it
Giba He is the well-known troll Avi G and Yuval Tzedek in identification.
This troll has been blocked due to disgraceful insults spared from you.
His attempt to impersonate another name only highlights his trollishness and love of Uncle Elio emphasizes this even more because David is motivated by an anti-scientific and anti-scientific motivation as evidenced (also) by his response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/power-of-words-271211/#comment-320469
Of course, the spirit of his other responses is no different and his starting point is that scientists do not have enough openness, even though the openness of most of them is immeasurably greater than his.
At a certain point he writes "My argument is against fundamentalist commenters like you"
This is of course a typical deception attempt because his response that I pointed to earlier does not refer to the responses of the other commenters but to scientists.
In fact, it was this response that drew the ire of the sane commenters, but reversing cause and effect is a common thing among anti-scientists.
Yael Petar:
You did well to choose to identify yourself in a way that differentiates you from the other Yael.
Let me also bring to the public's attention the fact that the nickname "troll" was given to the other Camila Ha'el - the one who tends to team up with the anti-scientists, accuse real scientists of trolling and hope that others will not blame her for it.
I think it's important for people to know this.
Well - I see that we have an addition now SAFKAN one.
Whatever.
If his next response will only come in another 20 months, then it will still be possible to tolerate him.
There are a lot of Yael here, so from now on my nickname will be Yael Peter.
Thanks to all the responders.
Does anyone remember me?
Everything is made by me to be sorry. The snowball started rolling following a case where a girl who was present at my concert went into suggestion for many hours and I couldn't get her out of it. In retrospect it turned out that she was epileptic, and the seizure she had had no direct connection with the show.
I agree that a law is needed to protect individual individuals in the population, and that hypnosis for entertainment purposes only has merit. However, the phenomenon itself is interesting and intriguing, and a free country should allow the general public to be exposed to it.
In my opinion, the law should be changed and controlled public performances for scientific purposes should be allowed.
Shut thr f up everyone. nowwwwww. you are relaxed.
safkan,
Just because you mentioned my name (roughly. You also castrated Sabradmish's name), I answer.
There are several parameters that are taken into account in the conduct of the responses here, and some of them you mentioned.
The science site does not need to protect science nor the truth. In general, the concept of "defense" is not relevant to the truth. It is an absolute concept and no attack on it can make it false. The protection we are trying to provide here is for the completeness of the image of the world in the minds of the readers and the credibility of the website. Can someone quote a false comment and say that he found it on the "Hidan" website, and there have already been things from before.
Another parameter is the degree of interest. The system could have blocked responses indicating a lack of understanding of the commenter and contented himself with a private response to the email, in a uniform wording or in detail as needed. She did not choose to do so. It certainly causes a lot of noise, not to mention the great trouble the "good guys" invest, but it also creates interest.
Right. Recently I have been deteriorating. Happens. I am also human and my patience runs out sometimes.
Mr. Skeptic,
I pretty much agree with everything you said.
I meant nuclear fusion and in light of the fact that they have been working on the issue for 60 years and without success so far, your skepticism is legitimate. There are now some huge and interesting projects on the subject, especially NIF and ITER.
One thing I vehemently disagree with is that his name is Sabdarmish and not Sabranish.
pleasant evening
To David and Yael (Yael of the XNUMXth grade).
I strengthen your hands regarding the inappropriate behavior (rudeness) of surfers towards other surfers. I commented on these forums about 20 months ago and I immediately realized that the inappropriate behavior prevents substantive discussion, after two or three of my comments I came to the conclusion that comments on the forum on my part are a waste of time.
Reasons for this inappropriate behavior are "protection of science from enemies". Oh well, in my opinion these are not real reasons but just excuses, mainly excuses to justify rude behavior.
Science does not need protection, especially science does not need protection by mowing and slandering those who are wrong or misleading, science is strong enough without these dirts. Those who make puzzling claims in forums dealing with science or technology are sometimes responded to at first, if he continues with puzzling claims he is simply ignored (only if he floods the forum is he eliminated). Under no circumstances is it acceptable to have thought police in forums as such.
In respectable forums on matters of science and technology, it is customary to think that the person who trashes another user in the forum is not considered worthy of discussion, it doesn't matter what his knowledge is, if he exaggerates the inappropriate behavior he is blocked. For reasons of self-censorship, I do not add to my words, lest I censor or block them, everyone who understands will understand.
Liel (as above).
I don't share your optimism that there is someone here to discuss with, the situation is much more difficult (Kam-y-la is not _exceptional_ in behavior but represents the general). I don't want to go into more details.
I have followed the forum a lot in the last month. I did not respond for the aforementioned reasons. One of the parties that interested me in the follow-up was: the dynamics of the improper management (that I mentioned). Except for a few of the regular surfers (which included Yehuda Savarnish and Israel Shapira and Yuval Hinkin) I have not seen anyone who shows respect to other surfers, it is possible that Yuval Hinkin has also deteriorated in this respect. Israel Shapira prophesied that if Yehuda Sabernish retires from the forums they will dry up, this is also my assessment, since Yehuda Sabernish retired it remains to be seen if this assessment will be fulfilled (by the way, Israel Shapira has disappeared from the forums in the last few days, I don't know if it is a permanent absence or he is on vacation).
The following are my comments regarding your comment (elsewhere) regarding the importance of the space station and regarding the development of fusion energy. (Proposal to cancel investments in the space station because it is a waste of money.)
The space station has long-term scientific importance, under no circumstances should it be neglected until a better space station is established. In addition, the space station functions as a rescue terminal for spacecraft that cannot land on Earth due to malfunctions.
Regarding fusion you mentioned, maybe you meant nuclear fission (not fusion). There is currently no way to harness nuclear fusion for energy production purposes, as there is no engineering facility that can withstand the enormous heat associated with fusion energy. About 20 years ago (an order of magnitude) someone claimed to have a method for cold fusion, this method was proven wrong. There is currently someone in Russia who claims to have a method for producing energy through some physical process, but the details are unknown (there are rumors that his method includes nuclear fusion, but this is probably just gossip). The mysterious method is confidential for commercial reasons.
Everyone, I suggest we calm down and tone it down. The level of this debate is suitable for talkbacks on YNET and not for a scientific website. Not every claim, even if it is incorrect, should immediately be shouted "liar" and not everyone who opposes your opinion is automatically a troll.
As a matter of fact, David,
Your claim that scientists are fixed, do not think outside the box or are captive to concepts is indeed outrageous, irritating and wrong (at least in my humble opinion).
There is not a single sector in the world, certainly not the spiritual and religious people, that is not open to changes like the scientists. For example, the phrase "returning a crown to its former glory" is a phrase that comes from tradition and is the opposite of everything that science represents - progress in understanding and applying things.
On the other hand, since it is so easy to get carried away on the waves of imagination and based on wrong interpretations of things, as seen for example in the New Age, science puts very clear and mathematical restrictions on what is reasonable and what is not.
I don't know how familiar you are with the regulations of the American FDA, but in order to put a drug on the market you must go through 7 sections of hell until it is approved (from the word approval). So in science there are two components, the component of openness, curiosity and non-fixed thinking and on the other hand, when the ideas are applied to technology, they are tested tirelessly according to clear laws.
To this day, unfortunately, no technology, no acceptable procedure, no effective method based on "spirituality" has been developed.
Indeed hypnosis is a beautiful example of something like this that does work and is clearly true and therefore no scientist, even if they don't understand how, would doubt the existence of hypnosis.
In contrast, mind reading, linking, seeing the future, telepathy, etc. failed objective statistical tests.
This does not mean that they are not true, only that they are improbable. Prove that they work, by scientific standards and not based on gut feelings and everyone will accept it and even investigate the matter.
I think this discussion will not go far since both sides are already locked in proving their opinion, and from where I look it doesn't seem as if anything is seriously proving something the other writes..
Don't forget that we are supposed to talk here about hypnosis and how to influence others.. (which ironically does not happen in this discussion)
But I think your discussion is indeed important for a lot of people who don't find the dividing line between faith and science,
And under other circumstances, they might also have managed to learn something from him..
It seems to me that this is the most inventive time to publish an article about what it takes to turn a myth into science.. what are the differences, the initial requirements for a scientific experiment, technological limitations and basically where do myths end and science begins..
And in such an article to give space and answer to questions of this kind.
I want to emphasize, I am neither a scientist nor a chewing gum. I'm curious.
If anyone finds my words unnecessary or incorrect please forgive me, I just felt I had to say it..
Sincerely,
Gil 🙂
Are you really David? I hope not!
But I wouldn't bet on it.
: )
Yael,
Thanks!
You know you're going to catch fire now, right?
Dear uncle,
You are right, there are some trolls like Camila. But not everyone is like her here. As in any area of life, ignore and treat people who suit you and do you good.
Yael (not Yael Petar)
Uncle,
You're amazing, and it's good that all the comments are here and accessible to all readers so they can check who said what and when.
Your claims, which were well understood by several different commenters, claims that include disdain for science and scientists, you brought here even before my and others' reactions to you, and the "fundamentalists" you continue to discredit simply responded to your disdain. There is a simple cause and effect relationship here but you insist on turning the creator when the facts say otherwise, who are you trying to work on?
Are you asking for a real discussion? Are you asking for mutual respect and tolerance? liar! Those who ask for a discussion based on mutual respect and tolerance do not start with a condescending and condescending tone as you did and certainly do not continue this after admitting that they were wrong as you wrote yourself in this response
https://www.hayadan.org.il/power-of-words-271211/#comment-320522
In light of the responses that followed, it seems that your "taking responsibility" was only a tactical move and not a real recognition of the problematic nature of what you wrote earlier.
A discussion can be carried out with those who accept a small number of the basic principles of scientific thinking, i.e. - an attempt to stick to the facts, valid logical arguments and an attempt to refrain from telling lies. If it is a field in which I am knowledgeable, then I can teach others facts related to the field (and can also learn by myself if they do present facts that I did not know), if the person in front of me does not pay attention to logically coherent arguments, I can teach him where the errors he makes (and can also learn about errors which I do if there are any and not only will I get angry at the one who warns me but even thank him as has happened in the past even if not very often). You were the one who asked for private communication for an unclear reason, and since I am not interested in dealing with things that science cannot say anything about (or that science has already said about them that seem to have nothing to do with them), so the communication that could have been if it existed was only in the form that I would explain to you, as that I suggested, why the scientific interest in dealing with those non-scientific things is little to non-existent. In this respect I would teach you and not the other way around.
You are wrong, I have no special desire to neither lecture you nor educate you and I certainly don't want your blood. I do react against slander and disdain and telling lies. I have no pretensions to change anything with you, although any positive change would be welcomed.
You wrote: "(And the best for you - "I'll show you what it is!, I'll crush you in front of everyone here so they can see and be seen" - that's what you want, isn't it?)"
Again you are trying to steal ideas. After all, I never wrote the sentence you presented as if it were a quote of my words, it is your interpretation of the things that does not correspond to my words or my intentions, but you have no problem creating a false representation in this as well.
Your poor attempt to try to conflict will not succeed, everyone here has an independent thought about how to react and it has nothing to do with academic knowledge/experience. Yael chose to respond in her own way and I in my own way, certainly this does not add or enhance anything regarding my or her scientific skills, it simply means that in my (and in the eyes of others) your words were inappropriate to such an extent that they warranted a response.
To remind you, this site is a place where anyone who wants (who really wants) can discuss, learn and even teach things related to science, science! Not in personal fantasies and not in beliefs in vain things. One can also discuss topics that science does not tend to deal with regarding the reasons for the reluctance to deal with those issues. I don't think this is the place to spread religious beliefs nor other "spiritual" beliefs, really there are enough other places for that.
Kamila, Itzik, Yuval the "honorable",
My argument is towards fundamentalist commenters like you.
I'm asking for a real discussion and you, Camilla, want to give me a private lesson, you want to lecture and educate me (and the best for you - "I'll show you what it is!, I'll crush you in front of everyone here so they can see and see" - that's what you want, isn't it? ).
I ask for mutual respect and tolerance and your kind only want blood. You and your ilk don't really want to try to understand me and my claims, you prove it by humiliating, insulting and laughing at anyone who doesn't align with you and goes into a state of silence.
You are just pathetic little fascists. Really great heroes under the cloak of anonymity behind the keyboard.
Do you really expect me or anyone else to enter into any discussion with you and answer your questions when this is the contempt I receive from you and your ilk?
Is that how you think you'll ever be able to impose your opinion on others? educate?
If so, maybe you understand science (?) but you really don't understand people and human relations (ah, wait, maybe this too can't be proven empirically and therefore it's of course not interesting at all?!)
I'm only interested in how Yael, the author of the article, managed not to be so offended by my first comments, explained to me in Noam's way and came to an understanding and agreement with me within 2, 3 responses.
Is Yael less of a scientist than you? Or does it teach about you and a handful of screwed-up fanatics like you?
In any case, I wasted a whole day on you and the misery of your soul, which I hate so much, and that's one day too many, and that's all I'm sorry for.
Uncle,
In light of your questions, I asked you some questions, you ignored them.
You are interested in really understanding why the things you propose (such as accepting ideas that have no factual support or that there is no way to test them or that already have other, much simpler explanations) are not relevant to the world of science, I am ready to explain it to you here, where others who do not understand can also learn something. I haven't been giving private lessons for a long time (even though it's great money). The ball is with you, it was always with you even when you chose to open comments here with an inappropriate style (in response to which you received responses like mine and not like you continue to try to present in denial). Thinking differently or thinking outside the box are attractive expressions, certainly for "spiritual" people, you continue to discredit the scientists as if they are fixed and lack creativity when reality shows otherwise every day. Who do you think is behind the scientific and technological progress that has occurred in the last centuries and especially in the last hundred years, the same technology that you use everywhere you turn? The people of the religious establishment? What sensational revelations did the New Age priests discover? And what technology to demonstrate the reliability of these discoveries has developed as a result of their work? What gives you the moral right to disparage and assert the false claims you made up about science and scientists, which some of the commenters here, like me for example, belong to, or at least have receipts that they really know and understand the principles of the scientific method even if they don't deal with it day to day?
If you can say something that is based on facts or at least on rational thinking and sound logic, you are welcome to say them here at any time, the ball is always in your hands on this issue and the questions I asked in the previous comments are still waiting for your answer, but don't expect sympathetic responses when you are the one who starts the bad behavior It is worthy and magnified to do when you continue it even after your attention has been drawn to the matter. It is no longer about science but about your personality.
Gil
You are welcome to look for my comments on this site and see that when a person asks a question in a logical way, he always receives a matter-of-fact and patient response. When people ask questions that involve disparagement and slander then they still usually receive matter-of-fact responses on the side of a mirror image that reflects their true face in case they are not aware of it. Do you have an explanation as to how it can be that sometimes I answer at length and in detail without any attack to certain respondents even when it is clear that they do not have a scientific background or that their question is not formulated scientifically correctly?
What kind of commenters would you like on this site, those who post nice comments but their words are empty of content or do not reflect scientific knowledge and the principles of science or rather comments that provide you with the relevant answers? Do you think it's wrong to respond in an unsympathetic way to someone who defames you and belittles you?
What other thinking should be encouraged?
"Maybe one day they will prove that there are other things that David feels deep in his heart that are true but that there is no way to prove them" is not thinking, it's just different.
And you are not so special and think outside the box, on the contrary - you represent the thought standard from a few hundred years ago. Since time immemorial people have believed in nonsense, and that is why methods were developed to filter out psychological effects. In scientific experiments, it was discovered that people who believe they have telepathic powers - have nothing of the sort.
This is a site that stops at science, not a site that comes to talk about your belief that God is speaking to you. What is your problem with going to mystic sites and talking there about what everyone there believes in just like you? Do you want to feel smart and special and couldn't think of another way?
age,
There are all kinds of great scientists here who appointed themselves to be the guardians of science, and did not notice that if we replace the word science with the word - city, we get in Aramaic - Neturi Karta (guardians of the city) - there is no great difference between their fundamentalism and those in Mea Shearim or the clowns in Beit Shemesh.
There it is the exclusion of women, here it is the exclusion of anyone who does not stand still to hear their national anthem.
encourage different thinking? Out of the box?
You made them laugh.
Gil,
Justice is with you. I sinned by being too careful. I didn't mean to keep away from here good commenters asking about the matter.
Wow, how hostile!
I thought we were encouraging people to ask.. even if sometimes it sounds unnecessary / impossible to us..
Without asking questions and challenging each other we would not have gotten here today!
Almost all science was at some point a myth.
So it's true.. we don't have answers to everything..
But there will be.. and then another myth will be eliminated and it will also be due to "unnecessary" questions.
Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
age
🙂 Beautiful
sparrow,
The prohibition of mass hypnosis is a very important law, as can be seen from the following example. Unfortunately I was not able to translate, but it is still worth the effort and read to the end:
The town fathers were looking for a way to increase attendance and participation at their regular meetings. One member suggested bringing in a hypnotist. The officials agreed, a famous hypnotist was hired, publicity distributed, and everyone was pleased.
A few weeks later the meeting hall was packed, and the town's people sat fascinated as the hypnotist withdrew a pocket watch. The hypnotist began chanting... "Watch the watch, watch the watch, watch the watch..."
The crowd became mesmerized as the watch swayed back and forth, light gleaming off its polished surface. Hundreds of pairs of eyes followed the swaying watch, until suddenly the hypnotist's fingers slipped and the watch fell to the floor...
"Shit" said the hypnotist.
It took three weeks to clean up the town hall.
jubilee,
Just like I thought. A pathetic person like you.
As for your cleverly coded request to Camila, well, we'll probably have to find out over time whether she stands up to your boycott flag or not, right?
Anyway, Camila, I'm not competing for your attention. You ordered, I agreed, the ball is with you.
The ban on hypnosis is one of the stupidest laws in Israel. After all, in every advertisement you are hypnotized and in fact you can be hypnotized better in a normal conversation than to call it hypnosis and shake a watch in front of your eyes. It has been proven in experiments done at Harvard University that the hypnotist without input to the terrace works better. The purpose of the law was to maintain the income of the psychiatrists who underwent specialization in hypnosis and that's it. The law has no meaning beyond the fact that hypnosis should now be called guided imagery or an NLP exercise instead of hypnosis.
Uncle,
This is indeed an interesting question. On occasion we will have to check and see each other.
And seriously: my previous response was indeed addressed to you, but in fact it included a request to other potential responders - and I hope that those who need it got the hint.
And here is the puzzle I launched earlier, with a slight change:
Palindrome son of Palindrome (3).
jubilee,
I always wondered if a nice and pleasant person like you would also allow himself to express himself the way you allow yourself, if it was face to face?
Hmmm really interesting, if you were such a great hero then too?
And I'm really not threatening, God forbid, you really aren't worth it. It's really just a thought exercise as you've already realized I like.
Uncle,
A donkey, if you turn it over, a lance comes out. A fool turns out to be a fool, a fool turns out to be a fool and a shame to a bah. But David remains David.
I always read with eagerness and pleasure the words of the last Camilla. Also the criticism towards me - and there is no shortage of such. They are interesting, intelligent and profound. Da Aka (and in a special translation for you - "the problem is") that an answer to your nonsense, even if it comes from the mouth of the smartest person in the world, must come down to the level of your understanding - just like my answer to you now; And I'm afraid that this time I won't enjoy reading Camilla's last answer to you.
Uncle,
Don't let anyone tell you that what you experienced is not true (eg the examples you gave).
The reality is much more complex and strange than what "scientists" on their own behalf like to assume. There are many testimonies, some of them proper research on extraordinary human abilities, and even on the influence of consciousness on reality (read the book "The Holographic Universe: and the book "The Field" by McCatgreen) these are studies with clear and undisputed evidence.
Truth is not an elusive thing, truth is a personal experience. If you have experienced or done something, you know what you experienced and what you did and no one will be able to convince you that it is impossible. It is impossible for another person but not for you, because you did it.
I cured myself of a chronic illness in three weeks to the great surprise of my doctor, since then I have used the same methods to cure myself of various discomforts and even brought abundance into my life.
No one can tell me that it can't be because "science" (at least the mainstream, because on the fringes there are actually open minds who work feverishly and find very interesting findings) did not find an explanation for it.
You will be encouraged by finding your own way and it will probably be much more interesting than those closed in the box of the expected.
And finally - as you wrote, this website has a lot of interesting information and even commenters with mental flexibility that you can argue with. There are also those who think black and white, if you are not with us you are against us. Too bad but that's how it is. As long as the site is open to everyone, one has to put up with various forms of wording, patience and tolerance even in the face of frowning is required here. And that's from experience..
withering,
I am willing to enter into this discussion with you, despite the personal insults you hurled at me in the first place.
It is possible that I worded it incorrectly in my first response, if so, I regret it.
However, I will not do it here, but only on a private channel, you and I.
I don't want to reveal more about myself here, it doesn't interest brazen people like Itzik.
If you want, we will contact my father, the site manager, and through him we will exchange emails, and start a discussion, and only out of mutual respect, tolerance and the way of the land. I'm not ready for bragging and a low personal level.
http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/0547247990/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312374433&sr=8-1
Uncle,
Since you chose the field...
How many times have you thought about your wife and she didn't call? Can you name that number honestly? It's actually something measurable, you can list all these cases. So, for your information, we have a tendency to remember very well "successes" or strange coincidences but not to remember at all all the cases in which such events did not occur. Don't you think that the fact that you and your wife are in sync in your day-to-day life might not affect the times you might do similar or related things? There are a number of other factors that may lead to the (real but subjective) feeling that information is passing between you and you still choose to believe in one possible explanation, namely telepathy, the existence of which they have never been able to see in a controlled manner despite many attempts to do so. So I'll try to go with you, let's say that telepathy does exist, how does it help someone if we don't know how to summon it, we don't know how to control it, we don't know what the relevant variables are to curb this phenomenon, we can't learn anything about the mechanism behind it, a mechanism that is not only not recognized but necessarily requires a fundamental change of the foundations of modern physics. What do you actually propose to do after accepting this working premise that there is telepathy?
Uncle,
You wrote: Has this thought ever crossed the minds of scientists?
Or, of course, science is already perfect and there is nothing more to discover in the world because everything is already known and visible (hmmm.... Where do I remember this in history???)"
This is an insult to both scientists and science.
Also in your response
https://www.hayadan.org.il/power-of-words-271211/#comment-320479
You brazenly express disdain for scientists on several occasions and further suggest that we follow the rules of the game you invented when it is obvious that you do not understand the rules of the game of science.
For your information, women are also allowed to get angry and even speak out when someone defames an entire public (although I'm sure in certain populations in Beit Shemesh and in the rest of the country, women are ostracized even for such a basic thing). The psychological analysis on your dime is not even worth the dime. Your words would have been relevant if I had reacted like that without the provocation on your part, your attempt to shut up and present things otherwise will not succeed because anyone can go back and read the comments and see for themselves the disdain you showed. Reactions from others indicate that they also recognized your obvious disdain, and your and Avig's camaraderie removed any doubt about what you really think about science and scientists, despite your lies, and what you believe even before you explicitly stated it.
The "knives" are drawn when slanderous and disparaging commenters like you come who seem to be trying to learn something new but actually come to teach the scientists how to do science without those commenters understanding what the scientific rules of the game are and without having the decency to first find out what these rules are. After several times encountering such commenters, who impair the possibility of having a substantive discussion, you come to the conclusion that it is not always correct to turn the other cheek. After all, you could ask your questions politely and in pleasant words (as you know how to offer it to others) and give up the defamation and disdain. How did you write to Yuval before (which is unfair, it must be said) - the falsifier in Momo is falsified, and indeed you demonstrated this in your comments.
Your/mine challenge stands, do you want to understand why scientists can't afford openness and flexibility to your heart's content? Please suggest a field that science has not adopted and we will examine what the contribution of such a field could be without us being able to examine it with critical tools. Unlike you, I never close the possibility of discussion, even with commenters like you, provided that the discussion is rational. I don't care if the discussion is heated, I don't care if the discussion contains extreme statements, what is important is that there is an agreement to oppose logical fallacies, telling lies and ignoring scientific facts. Is free love what's important to you? There are plenty of other places on the net that will give you that, or at least claim that's what they do.
David, why should anyone care what you believe? Do you know how many ridiculous beliefs there are in the world? Do you know how many billions of people believe things you believe are not true (hint: other religions)?
Your beliefs are your own business only.
You say "it cannot be scientifically proven today". I mean, it has no place on a site that deals with science. What cannot be proven is not science.
I really don't understand: why do you come and talk about your "feelings" and "beliefs" on a site whose purpose is to discuss science? Broadcast your feelings directly to your wife's mind and she will broadcast back to you "You are smarter than all the scientists".
Jonathan,
The first method I presented in the article, the NLP was accompanied by a note saying that the method has never been scientifically proven.
The experiments that I presented later in the article are not related to NLP, but are taken from the world of psychology and took place in universities.
In addition, there is also the whole fascinating subject of mentalism, search the net for Nimrod Harel and the like.
Jonathan,
I don't know NLP other than skimming all kinds of their advertisements.
But the topic you are talking about, as well as the article, is nicely expanded on in three films of about an hour each, by National Geographic (excellent!!!) – http://natgeotv.com/asia/test-your-brain
It is highly recommended to get them and watch!
DESCRIPTION
Our brains are hardwired to make sense of what we see, hear, smell, touch and taste, and fill in missing pieces with whatever our expectations suggest should be there. This helps us understand sentences even when the letters are out of place. But while brains are amazing at processing the world around us, how much should you actually trust your own brain? Enough to multitask by chatting on your cell phone while taking a drive? Think spotting a dancing, life-size penguin sounds easy? Or how about riding a bike with your eyes closed, or picking the right person out of a line-up after witnessing a crime?
Premiering on National Geographic Channel, Test Your Brain sizes up the human brain with an intricate series of interactive experiments to see how easily the brain can be fooled. Using some 12 watts of power, the brain is responsible for every fleeting thought, split-second decision and complex judgment. And it has a few tricks of its own – and some ways to cut corners – when piecing together how we see the world. This three-part special will leave viewers rethinking how much faith they are willing to put in everything from memory to multi-tasking.
EPISODE GUIDE
Test your Brain: Pay Attention!
The episode on 'attention' will be shot in Las Vegas and find out how magicians use this knowledge of the brain to perform their tricks.
Test your Brain: You Won't Believe Your Eyes
The episode on 'sensory perception' will be shot in Hollywood where filmmakers use images and sound to create compelling illusions of reality.
Test your Brain: Memory
The final episode about 'memory' will be shot in New York where a veteran NYPD detective challenges the viewers to test their memories.
To Yael and the website system or to anyone who understands.
The NLP method promises all kinds of great things, but smells a bit like wild science to me. It is clear that there are studies of one kind or another that support that it is possible to influence with words, but you need to sort out the bar from the hay of the entire system and see what is serious there and what is another belief in unfounded powers.
Are there any academic articles on the subject (for example, sales agents who have taken an NLP course versus those who have not, etc.) beyond the anecdotes and stories you brought?
The method is very satisfying to me, but I prefer to know that it is serious before I invest time in it.
(And if it really is parascience, then its place should be together with the other complementary/alternative medicine articles, which the site likes)
Thanks
Avi,
What exactly do you want from my name?
Why should I change the name or What ever?
I'm not hiding here from anyone and I'm not afraid to say what I have!
And if you, as the administrator/owner of the site, function according to the standard of the thought police, then I am sorry for this whole site.
🙂 From the logic puzzles: Palindrome the father of Palindrome (3)
Regarding the example of the phone with my wife, it's really not a one-time thing and not only on this subject!
Itzik,
Again, I'm really not criticizing science, I'm just saying that there should be a little more flexibility of thought sometimes and not narrow-mindedness.
Yael and you explained to me that the situation is not like that and that's the end of the matter for me.
There are issues that cannot really be proven scientifically today.
There are experiences like in meditation or really telepathy that I have only with my wife and not with anyone else (go prove to someone that after a few hours at work in another city, a thought crossed your mind that you want to talk to your wife, and after a few seconds, your wife calls, and when you find out why Did you call? So the answer is I just want to talk to you!!! - Go prove something like this, it is something that cannot be ordered in advance, and cannot be held with just anyone, but on the other hand it is something that my wife and I know for sure exists in the most real way possible)
There are subtle things like for example - I, as a person of faith (not religious!), sometimes talk to God and ask personal questions, and then I get answers in all kinds of unexpected places, such as a conversation between two female soldiers sitting next to me on the bus (after about a week), and then suddenly During the conversation, one of the soldiers says a sentence that is exactly the answer to my question. So it's true that you can always say that there is nothing spiritual here and that the things gained validity and listening to me because I was alert to this and all kinds of other logical explanations, and they will all be very true, but at the same time I feel inside me the enlightenment that I received at that moment from above and this is something that I cannot prove To no one because it is completely subjective. And you can certainly claim that I'm hallucinating and talking nonsense and I won't be able to claim anything against it, and that's exactly the problem with this issue and this endless debate.
Until you feel it from within, you will never understand or believe what I tell you, no matter how convincing I am.
From the system check, Giva and Avi C are the same person. And besides, the name David can also be reversed, except that it is a polynomial.
In general, anyone who criticizes "science" is invited to be a scientist himself. So study, then try to scientifically prove all your side ideas. If you are unable, maybe that also says something about the ideas you support?
withering,
The testosterone oozing from you reaches this far, so either you're not a woman or you're a really frustrated, bitter and terribly insecure ladylike woman (which leads you to such a wild and unbridled attack).
You are completely wrong about relations with science and scientists! I am full of admiration and humility towards them!
It doesn't mean ask me to express an opinion. It is a fact that in the end after a short and pleasant discussion things were clarified and Yael and I came to an understanding and agreement, there is nothing wrong with that!
And certainly not something that justifies the use of low language like the sewage pouring out of your mouth without any barrier (stupid questions, stupid opinion...), language that indicates only you above all else.
I would be happy for such brainstorming exercises but only out of mutual respect and tolerance, not a bickering argument with the knives drawn and each side just waiting for the opportunity to belittle and sneer at the other, this does not really lead to a fruitful and effective exercise. This only leads to gratuitous hatred, which he/she is likely to suffer from in great abundance (unfortunately).
With you, for these reasons (and not as you mistakenly assume) we probably won't get to any exercise on any subject.
Anyway, I personally do believe in science but I also believe in God and spirituality. Unfortunately there are many who make cynical use of true faith and spirituality for personal gain and destroy every good part, this is unfortunately the time we live in, it characterizes many areas of my day to day life today.
And if you don't agree with me, then that's fine! People are also allowed to disagree and still be best friends.
Why the hell on this site are the knives pulled out all the time? Why all this aggression?
Why can't people here agree even on their disagreement?
Uncle,
Let's do a thought exercise,
Let's assume (just for the sake of the exercise) that the base assumption X is correct, and see where that will lead us...
So please, as an exercise, suggest your favorite X and let's examine it, if only theoretically. Are you ready?
Uncle,
Do you really expect to get serious answers to stupid questions?
Is it possible to conclude from your disdain for science and scientists that you do not enjoy the fruits of science or that you are one of those ungrateful people who spit at the well from which they drink every day?
The scientists do not claim that if they do not have the ability to observe something or measure something then it necessarily does not exist, but only that there is no point in engaging in the same matter because there is no other way that gives you understanding on a scientific level. Certainly there is no point in engaging in areas that have not even been able to critically show that they work. The question you should have asked is not why scientists don't deal with what they understand they have no ability to get answers to, but why people lie to themselves and continue to believe in fields that have failed to present the results that the "experts" in those fields claim should be obtained in the experiments they were partners in designing. The question you should have asked yourself is why people hold the completely stupid and wrong opinion which holds that if science says it cannot test a certain subject (for example, what color is the Spaghetti Monster's hair) then this is proof that the claims made by the believers on the subject are true even without having any evidence reasonable
Anyway, I think I can guess what the reason is that prevents you from asking these questions.
David, for your response this:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/power-of-words-271211/#comment-320468
I did not refer to Giba's words. I turned to someone else, Avig, who did not respond to the current article at all. It was copy-pasted from somewhere else.
You, on the other hand, because you chose a name for yourself that cannot be changed, managed to avoid the hot words with which I condemned your friend. Please see those things addressed to you as well.
Thanks I'm glad to hear 🙂
Yael,
If that's the case, then I'm satisfied and there's no argument between us.
Apart from that, I wanted to tell you that I have already read several articles as well as your comments, and I have always enjoyed your manner of conduct, which is all pleasant and down-to-earth! Good luck!
with gratitude,
Uncle
Itzik,
I agree with you too! 🙂
Regarding your second post, there are many scientists who study such things. I have already heard in the past about theses whose title was: "What would a universe with 21 dimensions look like", or "What would happen if the weak nuclear force was a little stronger, and the strong force was a little weaker". There are even scientific theses that deal with the subject of "how quantum leaps affect human consciousness and our perception of reality". But all these things have some touch, even if it is a tip of a thread related to science.
As a scientist, you must filter and deal with things that are somehow related to science, and not things that have nothing to do with it at all, otherwise the definition of your thesis will not be under "science" but something else. This is not necessarily something bad, no one is being underestimated, but simply this is the definition of science, the definition is very specific and has legality.
David, discussing all the explosions is not a matter for scientists. They are not in a debating competition.
Scientists need to prove things with reproducible experiments. Even thought exercises all aim to eventually reach an experiment.
You present the "metaphysical things" as if they were not tested and ignored, when that is absolutely not the case. Conducted enough experiments that gave no reason to continue to engage in the matter. The only ones pushing it are crooks who make a living from defrauding the innocent.
David, you are just repeating my words, I said that a distinction must be made between things that science does not know today, but can be proven (even if not with the means that exist today, but in a futuristic world with better devices), and things that cannot be proven even theoretically.
Indeed you can call something mysticism, but as soon as science manages to explain it, it ceases to be mysticism and changes its definition to a scientific theory.
David, you certainly sound passionate about the whole subject. I suggest that you study and delve deeper into the subjects of physical theories, and the mathematical language of science, and realize it - research subjects that you define as "metaphysics", or unsolved questions, and try to explain and prove them with the tools of science.
Yael,
All in all, what I'm trying to say is that scientists should have a little more openness and flexibility of thought (of course without becoming idiots who have given up their criticality).
Not to say there is no point in discussing it and that's it! It doesn't exist and for me the world will turn upside down!
You are such smart people with sharp and sharpened minds like a sharp knife, it will not be taken away from you if you occasionally say - ok, I am ready to do a thought exercise here => Let's assume (just for the sake of the exercise) that the basic assumption is correct, let's see where it will lead me …
Maybe, just maybe you will discover something here that was not under the light of the flashlight. it's not worth it?
Will it so crush your so rigid (or rather fragile) world view?
Yael,
You said: "A distinction must be made between the things that are out there and we have not yet developed instruments or theories good enough to explain them, and things that we will never be able to absorb or explain (not even theoretically)."
And also - "Also lightning and thunder, and natural disasters were considered something mystical in the distant past, simply because man did not know how to explain how they occur, and what they stem from. This is the importance of scientific research - to take unsolved questions and find a solution to them."
Is there no contradiction between the two?
After all, if today it is considered metaphysical, just because it is not in the field of empirical scientific sensing ability, and there is no significant knowledge or an explanation/theory that assumes the mind, this still does not mean that tomorrow someone cannot come who will discover the explanation that explains the phenomenon and provide the theory that will lead to the development of the sensing means the corresponding empirical
And then everything will already be in terms of lightning and thunder... (from your example).
Giba, the fact that you reversed the letters of your name to bypass a block is a teasing of fate, you should have remained silent and contented yourself with the question you asked Yael but you chose to make a statement again against science and in favor of mysticism, dear soul.
Go do it on mysticism sites, where you can curse science all you want. This time you are blocked forever without any right of appeal. Bypassing will cause your internet provider to block you.
giba,
well said!
Uncle
This website brings a very wide collection of articles from the world of science and its connections.
I personally really enjoy reading the information distributed here, there is no doubt that it brings another layer to our lives.
There is a huge gap between the content of the articles and a group of people here who are trying to tattoo either in Lilog or with supposedly scientific statements that are taken from parts of studies, people with attitudes or opinions that science has not yet found a rational empirical proof or maybe science does not have the option.
Do not take this group seriously, they are close to perfection and ideal and who are we to stop them
(Don't stop a bull in its tracks).
Uncle,
First, it is important to emphasize that science is not perfect. If he was perfect, we would have nothing to explore.
Second, a distinction must be made between the things that are out there and we have not yet developed instruments or theories good enough to explain them, and things that we will never be able to absorb or explain (not even theoretically). The second type is pointless to discuss in the scientific context because we can never prove or disprove them. But the first type certainly constitutes a lot of research material.
If there is something "mystical" and then science comes along and manages to find an explanation for it, this thing stops being mystical and becomes a scientific theory. For example, they once found that there are fish that coordinate their movement, hundreds of fish that move in the water like one big body, or that there is a non-verbal communication between different species of animals. You could call it telepathy. But then science researched and discovered that these are pheromones, DNA molecules that pass between animal to animal and are picked up by the nose - which contain a lot of information and are used for animal communication.
Even lightning and thunder, and natural disasters were considered something mystical in the distant past, simply because man did not know how to explain how they occur, and what they stem from. This is the importance of scientific research - to take unsolved questions and find a solution for them.
The definition of science deals with theories, and empirical experiments, there is no point in coming and discussing with science about something that is not within the spectrum of its definition. The meaning of this is like coming to a chef and telling him to cook you a car. The place of a car is in the garage, and the place of food is in the kitchen.
Yael,
And what if science has not yet discovered the empirical means sensitive enough to detect more subtle things that are now considered metaphysics simply because the empirical tools that exist today are unable to detect them?
What if the science is still lacking?
Has this thought ever crossed the minds of scientists?
Or of course science is already perfect and there is nothing more to discover in the world because everything is already known and visible (hmmm.... where do I remember this from in history???).
jubilee,
Have you heard the saying - "the one who makes a mistake makes a mistake"?
Impolite and wayward like you!
Treat what Giba said matter-of-factly, if you think he is wrong and not in such a disgusting manner as you chose to treat.
giba,
If it is not something detectable by empirical means, then there is no point in discussing it in the scientific context. As the well-known saying goes: It may be yes and it may not be, what is certain is "maybe".
If I understood your words correctly, you are talking about mystical intuitions. So I have a piece of advice - don't expect science to engage in mysticism, and don't expect mystics to engage in science either. These are two different issues, and each is legitimate in its own way - this is a free country.
Yael
Thank you, you really sharpened the point I'm debating about the same concept "intuition" is it something that can be identified empirically with tools that can measure the levels of intuition in physical/chemical/electrical concepts
Friends,
Everyone is welcome to present their opinion here in the forum, whether it is against the norm or goes with the norm.
giba,
Indeed we perceive information through the 5 senses, and there are a number of other senses that give us an idea of our position in space (the sense of the body in space, the sense of movement and the sense of balance - you can find more information about them on Wikipedia).
According to the theories, the meaning of the subconscious mind is an earlier system that exists in us that does things automatically. For example, breathing and maintaining the activity of the internal organs - these are actions that are carried out without us thinking about them.
This system is considered more ancient than the rational brain because it developed at an earlier stage in the evolution of humans, among other things it is also related to emotions, sensations and intuition. It seems to me that the common distinction is between the cortex and the neo-cortex, which developed later and is responsible for rational analytical thinking.
Yuval Chaikin,
The definition is quite elusive, many use these methods without even knowing that what they are doing is trying to convince.
Yael
I would be happy if you could explain scientifically how the subconscious works
Abig! You exaggerate. You're rambling, as usual.
Why do you have to, time after time, demonstrate your low level of intelligence? Haven't you ever been taught that if you don't have something smart to say then you better shut up?
If your whole goal was to get attention, then you got it.
Yael excellent article.
Just explain to me how the brain works in order to scientifically understand whether only the 5 senses influence a person's decision or are there other factors hidden in plain sight not from the 5 senses.
With all due respect to the excellent article, since when does the science website allow itself to be taken seriously by methods that have not been scientifically proven?
The "NLP" method is not only scientifically unproven, its terminology is wrong (what does it have to do with neuro?!), and it is considered by many to be a modern example of pseudo-science.
Despite all this, it is used in treatments and workshops around the world, and misleads people that it can help them improve their lives.
Amnon Yitzchak laughs and repents. The language of the law does not define this as hypnosis. But there is probably some kind of family relationship. Isn't it time to expand the application of the law? After all, the results of the pan's work are no less destructive, as we saw only recently.
Hypnosis by anyone not certified by the regulator is prohibited. And in general hypnosis for entertainment purposes is also prohibited regardless of who is qualified.
Since when is hypnosis prohibited by law in Israel??? In Israel, doctors who believe in this are allowed to practice in this field and those who have been certified.