Askme comment callout

December 27, 2003 12:23 PM

BlueStone, what an unfriendly (to put it mildly) response! So tell me, do you ever go to the doctor or take prescription drugs? Seems like you ought to be the captain of your own ship and just let your body strengthen its own defenses instead of using such a crutch.
posted by billsaysthis to etiquette/policy at 12:23 PM (48 comments total)

Altho (and this scares me) I agree with bluestone regarding hypnosis, I don't know if it's really appropriate to make that sort of post in an AskMeta thread. At the very least it could have been worded differently-and more kindly.

I guess it's just one more think for Matt to rule on once his thoughts on AskMefi gel.
posted by konolia at 12:36 PM on December 27, 2003

I don't think it was so bad--it wasn't personally attacking anyone, or nasty, just negative on the whole hypnosis thing. I think andrew cooke covered it in the next comment down pretty well.
posted by amberglow at 12:56 PM on December 27, 2003

i think there's a difference between taking drugs and hypnosis - any effect attained through hypnosis should also be possible via your own control of your mind, as far as i can see. more accurately, it should be possible, or attainable, if you're someone like blue stone. for others the correct route to such control is through hypnosis - they are simply working at a higher level, choosing to go to a hypnotist instead of working more directly on their minds themselves.

in other words i think blue stone is right in thinking hypnosis is not right for him (and that the comparison with refusing drugs is invalid), but wrong in thinking it is not right for everyone (which is pretty much what i said in the thread).

something i also mentioned there, but kept short because it seemed inappropriate for the thread, is that i think it's wrong to criticise what people are asking. if you don't agree with the whole question, then don't answer.

i'd love (for example), to wade in on the thread about engagement rings with a "waste of money / cultural lemmmings" rant. i haven't (and won't), because my understanding of askmefi is that it's not for discussions like that. and i appreciate that - i think avoiding such issues is what's made ask mefi a success so far.

in fact, i'd go further - askmefi will slowly slide downhill as people start to have more discussions like this. eventually it will become as bogged down as mefi itself was. but perhaps by then the simpler, leaner mefi classic that we're seeing at the moment might have taken hold...
posted by andrew cooke at 12:57 PM on December 27, 2003

billshouldn'tvesaidthis
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:39 PM on December 27, 2003

Andrew, I'd hardly take issue with BlueStone's personal choice or even mentioning that hypnosis doesn't work for him or in his opinion. Perhaps he could've even related a personal experience to back up the stance. But to go to where he did, calling others weak for using a tool that has at least anecdotal evidence as effective, IMO needs to be kept out of Ask. If this had been a blue or grey posting, I doubt I'd have posted this thread but now is the time to be vigilant and establish boundaries for the green.
posted by billsaysthis at 2:41 PM on December 27, 2003

"If you don't have anything positive to add to the growing compendium of useful information, then say nothing."

I took my shot at snarkiness in AskMe, but it didn't fit right and I quit. Like Andrew said, that engagement ring thread was just begging to get blasted, but since that would have felt like pissing all over someone's prayer request for a dying relative, I resisted.

AskMe is certainly shaping up to be its own sum of our collective perspectives.
posted by mischief at 3:06 PM on December 27, 2003

but now is the time to be vigilant and establish boundaries for the green.

jesus christ.
posted by quonsar at 3:12 PM on December 27, 2003

yes , my son ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:14 PM on December 27, 2003

Quonsar, you prayed?

*faints*
posted by konolia at 3:15 PM on December 27, 2003

billsaysthis, the whole point of AskMe is to get personal answers from people, relating their experiences and feelings with the subject of the question. Blue Stone gave us his/her personal opinion to the question. I didn't find it phrased badly, or in an attacking manner. It wasn't aggressive, either. Simply put, it was an answer.

Why didn't you address this within the thread itself or ask blue stone to email you? The discussion engendered would certainly have been beneficial to the thread, IMO, since I'm sure that there are other people who share blue stone's opinion in regard to using drugs/hypnosis/psychotherapy/etc as tools for quitting/fixing/healing/etc.
posted by ashbury at 3:44 PM on December 27, 2003

Actually, ashbury, we are supposed to bring this sort of stuff to Meta to hash out in order not to muck up the thread in AskMeta. It's okay. Really.
posted by konolia at 4:14 PM on December 27, 2003

I don't understand the point of this Meta callout. Is it because billsaythis disagreed with BlueStone's point-of-view? I don't think that's the purpose of MetaTalk. Whether you agree with him or not, BlueStone was clearly answering the question that was asked, so what's the problem? There are other perspectives posted, so the questioner can pick and choose those he prefers. Which, surely, is how it's meant to work.

I also don't understand the prejudicial use of the term "unfriendly."
posted by rushmc at 4:23 PM on December 27, 2003

I thought it was a generally useless answer akin to someone asking, "I have this terrible headache, should I take Ibuprofen?" and getting "My advice is to pray." as an answer.

Perhaps as a Buddhist I take the concept of karma a little more reverently than is intended by common usage, but based on the rest of what BlueStone said, it seemed to me that that was the perspective being offered.

I'm pretty sure that everybody's religion (or personal, secular code) has some useful advice for everyday living, but I'm not sure that the advocation of prayer, karma, meditation, etc., constitutes a *solution* to this question or most others on AskMe.
posted by headspace at 4:38 PM on December 27, 2003

Rushmc, the problem was the way BlueStone essentially called anyone who chose to use hypnosis as a tool a big wuss and less than a man. Nothing wrong, I suppose, in stating one's opinion except that AskMe is not intended to be about opinion and I'd like it to stay that way.
posted by billsaysthis at 5:16 PM on December 27, 2003

Ok, after trying to slow my heart-rate after seeing my name in a MetaTalk FPP [Oh Christ, what have I said now?] I suppose I should just say to you, billsaysthis, the following:

I honestly have quite weighty concerns about hypnosis, and since AskMe is about chiming in if you think you have something of value to say about the topic at hand, I expressed my heart-felt views, which I stand by.

If you could point out the unfriendliness in my post, I'd be grateful, because I've looked and still can't see it. The obvious assumption I could make [which may be entirely wrong] is that you've undergone hypnotherapy and take umbrage at my criticism. If that's the case, I'm sure this can be resolved in a friendly and painless manner!

If that's not the issue, please enlighten me.

You can either e-mail me at blue 108 uk at aol dot com (no spaces) or we can continue here. Whatever's good.


[on preview; headspace, crikey, the misrepresentations of what I was saying are flying tonight! I take issue with your interpretation of what I was saying.

I wasn't suggesting the equivalent of prayer, but rather taking matters into one's own hands. Quite the opposite, I think you'll have to agree.

Having issues with weight-gain, based on a behavioural factor, isn't synonymous with a medical condition as you suggest. Otherwise a doctor rather than a hypnotherapist would have been the focus of twine42's question, and I wouldn't have said anything.

As far as behaviour is concerned, though, I think I have a right to voice my opinion that some behaviour isn't wise. If that trasgresses your code that says that ethical, or issues of psychological/spiritual safety (?) shouldn't be expressed here, then I can only say that we'll have to agree to disagree. Since I live within an ethical-spiritual-philosophical sphere, I would have to cease saying anything.

I'm not sure how you can advocate "karma" as a solution to anything. In fact I think you'll find I didn't offer a solution to twine42's question, merely expressing my view that hypnosis isn't necessarily a great thing, and to some extent, why that is.

I'm of the opinion, that the questioner can take or leave that advice after taking a judgement on it.

Good luck in trying to silence any philosophical or ethical opinion on AskMe though, headspace. I wonder what you feel is wrong with it, when it's expressed as a take-it-or-leave-it opinion?]
posted by Blue Stone at 5:38 PM on December 27, 2003

If you could point out the unfriendliness in my post, I'd be grateful, because I've looked and still can't see it.

Nor can I.
posted by Tarrama at 5:54 PM on December 27, 2003

billsaysthis, what I said, and how you took it are not necessarily the same thing.

I was saying that I thought hypnosis an unwise undertaking; that I don't feel that it's a good idea, psychologically: that the compromise you're making in making yourself susceptible to hypnosis; to the influence of someone else in this manner; as a basic template for interpersonal interaction, is not something I think is a good idea and instead, looking at yourself and your behaviour (not necessarily without the help of others, I might add!) and conciously resolving to change it, is a sounder and wiser course of action, psychologically speaking.

Informed (or thinking one is informed, if you like) opinion, is verboten to AskMe? I guess "What's a good location/event/undertaking/electronic item/etc.?" questions are going to fall on stoney ground then. Or is it just opinions/advice you don't like, billsaysthis?

E-mail me, tell me what you think billsaysthis, or talk to me directly.
posted by Blue Stone at 5:57 PM on December 27, 2003

Quonsar, you prayed?

yes. and i suggest you take note that it was sarge, not god, who answered. just sayin' :)

for what it's worth, i detected not a whiff of 'unfreindliness' in Blue Stone's comment.
posted by quonsar at 6:15 PM on December 27, 2003

Rushmc, the problem was the way BlueStone essentially called anyone who chose to use hypnosis as a tool a big wuss and less than a man.

I dispute your interpretation of his words.
posted by rushmc at 8:00 PM on December 27, 2003

Well, I'd have felt slapped down if I had been the recipient of bluestone's post-and remember, I AGREE with him.
posted by konolia at 8:10 PM on December 27, 2003

I'm not sure how you can advocate "karma" as a solution to anything. In fact I think you'll find I didn't offer a solution to twine42's question, merely expressing my view that hypnosis isn't necessarily a great thing, and to some extent, why that is.

Because you said, and I quote:

I have this feeling that the karmic consequences of hypnosis are pretty bad.

Which would be the equivalent of saying that doing so would put his mortal soul in danger, or whatever the Christian analogue might be precisely.

Good luck in trying to silence any philosophical or ethical opinion on AskMe though, headspace.

And kindly don't put words in my mouth. I said the response was essentially useless, and I said why I thought so. I realize you're in an uncomfortable position being called out, but never once did I suggest that any and all philosophical or ethical opinions on AskMe be squelched, only that they were probably *not* going to be useful *solutions* to physical conundrums.
posted by headspace at 8:42 PM on December 27, 2003

yeah, like "how do i unbend my wookie?"
posted by quonsar at 9:15 PM on December 27, 2003

I just think letting someone influence you like that, rather than strengthening your own will, is a bad habit in itself; the whole idea of using someone elses' will rather than one's own in order to achieve something, I find a bad idea, and a behavioural pattern to be avoided.

This is what I specifically objected to and it was the opening paragraph of your comment specifically addressed to mdn.
posted by billsaysthis at 9:34 PM on December 27, 2003

Dear quonsar,

Are you sure your wookie is bent? Perhaps your bent just has a little wookie in it?

Ohm.
posted by headspace at 2:40 AM on December 28, 2003

If you could point out the unfriendliness in my post, I'd be grateful, because I've looked and still can't see it.

To me, it seemed like an honest opinion, forcefully (rather than aggressively) expressed. Which is certainly something which has its place.

This issue could have been thrashed out in the thread itself for the benefit of all.
posted by plep at 4:13 AM on December 28, 2003

Hypnosis - could it be SATAN?......or just cowardice?
posted by troutfishing at 4:22 AM on December 28, 2003

Ohm.

"Om" is spelled O-M. We're not in physics class here.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:43 AM on December 28, 2003

>>"I just think letting someone influence you like that, rather than strengthening your own will, is a bad habit in itself; the whole idea of using someone elses' will rather than one's own in order to achieve something, I find a bad idea, and a behavioural pattern to be avoided."

>This is what I specifically objected to and it was the opening paragraph of your comment specifically addressed to mdn.

billsaysthis, you're objecting to my dissent to the view that hypnosis (and hypnotherapy) is a wise undertaking? Is that the case?
posted by Blue Stone at 10:00 AM on December 28, 2003

headspace, I'm still not sure how "karma" can be a solution to anything. Meditiation, vigorous exercise, a glass of red-wine-a-day, sure, but I'm not sure that someone can "karma" their problems away.

I was however, speaking as someone who believes in karma, in a number of it's aspects. And I speak from that perspective.

What I was saying (which may require clarification) was that as far as interpersonal relationships are concerned, practicing hypnosis on someone without pure and noble intentions, is probably a spiritually unwise course of action; (karma being the sowing of what one reaps, then) acting in such a highly intimate manner, in a less-than-noble way isn't going to bring about much good.

If twine42, doesn't buy into that argument, then he'she doesn't have to take it. If someone wants to think, there goes Blue Stone with his crazy karma-talk then... so what?

You think it's worthless to mention such things, well, perhaps the questioner should be the one to determine that for themselves, which is after all what AskMe, it seems to me, is all about.

Finally, the conundrum twine42 posed, wasn't a "physical conumdrum" as you state in your last post.

Twine42 said s/he was interested in hypnosis, in learning about it, undergoing hypnotherapy, and using it on others. These are primarily psychological/ethical matters. I offered my view, which can be taken or left, embraced or discarded, or bundled in with all the others.

headspace, I don't think you should be telling me what I can and can't say.
posted by Blue Stone at 10:28 AM on December 28, 2003

Blue Stone - It's my sense that this may be a misunderstanding of how hypnotherapy works - I hardly think that it involves somehow borrowing or being subjected to the will of another. This view of hypnosis - which comes mainly from film and television depictions of enslaved hypnotics subjects and depicts hypnosis as a form of enslavement. From the Cabinet of Dr. Calgari onwards, the hypnotized zombie-slave is a constant motif.

But - correct me if I am wrong, please - I don't believe that it is actually possible to force or command hypnotized subjects to perform acts against their will, though hypnosis can certainly implant suggestions. But I doubt that common hypnotherapy could be put to seriously nefarious ends.

As it is commonly practiced, certainly, hypnotherapy is actually about strengthening the subject's will by enabling the subconscious elements of the subject's mind, or being, to act more in concern with - and to support - consciously stated intentions - such as quitting smoking, whatever.

I've been hypnotized and I can report that it did not - for me anyway - involve any surrender of my will, nor any loss of consciousness. It was an external reinforcement towards behavior changes that I already wanted to make.

Bear this in mind - any external stimulus which escapes our conscious notice will still be noticed by our subconscious minds. Thus, television, advertising, the speeches of presidents and politicians, and indeed any sensory stimulus whatsoever - but especially human sensory stimulus - has hypnotic elements, that which we see, feel, hear, smell (all sensation, or sensory input) but do not consciously notice will by definition exert "hypnotic" effects.

But the fields of advertising and propaganda are based explicitly on methods which amount to mass hypnosis. Hypnotherapists are usually working for the benefit of their patients (at least overtly) - but advertising and propaganda serves to advance agendas which the victims of these black arts would not necessarily choose. It is not for nothing that professionals working in PR, advertising, and propaganda have been dubbed "Captains of Consciousness".
posted by troutfishing at 10:31 AM on December 28, 2003

Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos.
posted by homunculus at 10:52 AM on December 28, 2003

BlueStone, your view that hypnosis is not a wise undertaking doesn't answer the poster's question and AskMe is, per the posted rules, not a place for discussion of opinions but for giving straightforward answers. Mainly, I object to your characterizing this type of therapy as showing weakness rather than an honest attempt to deal with problems. Some people may be quite capable of quitting smoking or losing weight all by themselves--I did--but others get help from it, as they do from other forms of therapy, and you didn't cite personal experience or scientific evidence so why did you bother?
posted by billsaysthis at 10:58 AM on December 28, 2003

"BlueStone, your view that hypnosis is not a wise undertaking doesn't answer the poster's question..."

Twine42 asked, "I'm kind of interested in hypnosis, both as a thing in it's own right and as a method of losing weight. Probem is, I'm skeptical as hell. Has anyone had experience of non-stage hypnosis? And has anyone found a decent web resource that will tell you how and why hypnosis works, and how to turn your friends into mindless slaves hypnotise others?" [emphasis mine]

The issue Twine42 was raising was that he/she was looking into hypnosis generally as something to do, and regarding hypnotherapy for himself. I felt I had something to say on the issue as a whole.

Your complaint, in one part, billsaysthis, seems to be that I didn't just shut my mouth unless I had something to say about the specific questions asked.

>"AskMe is, per the posted rules, not a place for discussion of opinions but for giving straightforward answers."

I think you'll find the scope for answers was a lot broader than you'd like to limit them to [at least on this matter] and indeed Matt's guidelines for the posting of questions says: "...try to keep the questions from being too specific..."

AskMe is " a discussion area for sharing knowledge among members of MetaFilter"

Your main objection then: "Mainly, I object to your characterizing this type of therapy as showing weakness rather than an honest attempt to deal with problems."

I entirely refute your accusation that I ever said, or implied or otherwise suggested, that undertaking to undergo hypnotherapy was not an honest attempt to deal with problems.

I said no such thing.

That you can say these things, suggests to me that you have issues about this whole matter that have nothing to do with myself or what I've said.

If you undertake hypnotherapy, IMHO, you are not weak. You are, however, not strengthening your ability to deal with the underlying issues which you are seeking to use hypnosis to counteract, by undergoing hypnotherapy.

I'm saying, if you're seeking a form of therapy, hypnotherapy has certain issues with it, I feel. [Other views exist; this is mine.]

"...but others get help from [hypnotherapy] as they do from other forms of therapy..."

And I'm saying that I think hypnotherapy unwise, because of some the broader issues involved. I'm taking this particular view of this particular form of therapy.


If you've undergone hypnotherapy for over-eating [at least] I don't think you're a weak person for choosing that form of therapy, I do, however, think that there are certain wider-reaching issues involved with hypnotherapy [and hypnosis] that make other forms of therapy a much better choice, and this one to be avoided.

"and you didn't cite personal experience or scientific evidence so why did you bother?"

I've spent too much of my time on this matter. You've heard my opinion, I think it's clear what I meant. Say what you think about hypnosis and hypnotherapy, bill, instead of whining about what I've said, and complaining that I shouldn't be allowed to say it.
posted by Blue Stone at 12:41 PM on December 28, 2003

"I don't think it was so bad"

OK, sorry everyone, I don't get it. Opinions aside what the hell was even slightly "unfriendly" about Blue Stone's comment? I'm bemused. If this is unfriendliness can we have more of it, please?

billsaysthis, which words or phrase was it than bothered you? I would say the phrasing in this MeTa post is infinitely more unfriendly than anything Blue Stone has said. Clearly you disagree with Blue Stone's opinions but this pointless, off-base side-tracking achieves nothing.
posted by nthdegx at 1:22 PM on December 28, 2003

BlueStone's comment was fine, I thought.
posted by lucien at 1:30 PM on December 28, 2003

It was an external reinforcement towards behavior changes that I already wanted to make.

So you wanted to tear off your clothes and run around the stage clucking like a chicken?
*looks askance at troutfishing*
posted by languagehat at 3:22 PM on December 28, 2003

*bawk! bawk!*
posted by quonsar at 6:35 PM on December 28, 2003

headspace, I don't think you should be telling me what I can and can't say.

Which is why I didn't, either time- I said it wasn't useful speech. Get off the cross. Now how's that for some application of religious imagery?

-

And ohm mani padme hum/ om mane padmeh ham/ om mani padme um- I would go into the homily about the Zen master and the mispronunciation, but I can't see how that would be useful when you've gotten so much pleasure out of "correcting" my spelling BlueTrain.

BlueStone, BlueTrain, apparently I have a hue problem going on here.
posted by headspace at 7:04 PM on December 28, 2003

For what it's worth, I wasn't bothered by the comment, perhaps due to the fact that I have nothing personal at stake in the conversation. I've never tried hypnosis and have no particular intention to, and generally speaking, do not feel susceptible to criticisms re: inadequate strength of will. My main concern was just to clarify what exactly hypnotherapy is, because it seemed to me that blue stone was concerned about mind control rays, and not attending to the actual practice as it works in the world as opposed to the way it works in old movies.
posted by mdn at 7:52 PM on December 28, 2003

so much pleasure out of "correcting" my spelling BlueTrain.

Hardly pleasure, just profound respect. I feel the same way about spelling Gandhi "Ghandi". I've always felt that Hinduism was one of the most overlooked religions in the world. Guess the greeting card industry couldn't commercialize elephants and cows as easily as buddhas.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:33 PM on December 28, 2003

"....So you wanted to tear off your clothes and run around the stage clucking like a chicken?" - languagehat, are you telling me that you've never wanted to do that? It sounds fun to me. What are you, hung up or something? And what's up with your chickens? NEVER, never underestimate fowl or poultry.
posted by troutfishing at 9:27 PM on December 28, 2003

I think it's horrible that BlueStone has an AOL account.

Intarweb karma is far, far worse.
posted by Dagobert at 3:21 AM on December 29, 2003

{{Lol, Dagobert, AOL UK, is probably one of the better dial-up ISPs here; bloated pile of sofware you're forced to use, sure, but otherwise good: no 2-hour cut-off as with every other UK ISP, for instance.

I'm hoping to get Plusnet ADSL very soon, though. *cough*}}

[Disclaimer - I know I said I was through on this, but I had some time to think and clarify:]


In response to some of the points raised by troutfishing, earlier, and some of the things mdn has said in the AskMe thread, [it's probably better said here] I suppose I can say this: what's the difference between employing a personal trainer and going to a hypnotherapist?

There is a difference.

With a personal trainer, you're employing someone to "put you through your paces" to set tasks for you, a schedule for you, they're hands-on.
Would I say that someone permanently employing a personal trainer is being weak-willed [which is billsaysthis's charge essentially] compared to someone who gets good advice and instruction on fitness training, from time to time, and undertakes a fitness regime on their own, or with others?

Yes.

Clearly; it's called self-discipline or the lack of it. I'm not sure that's a matter of much dispute, to be honest. Training with others is a good idea: it does strengthen your resolve, makes you more likely to succeed, but you'll still have to push yourself (usually) and discipline yourself. A personal trainer would be sooo much easier. Someone who undertakes a fitness regime on their own, or with others, has more self-discipline than someone who employs a personal trainer. (Contentious statement?)

Someone who's undertaking hypnotherapy, is looking for a solution to their problem. I think hypnotherapy is the wrong solution. It's a step in the wrong direction. Instead of setting up a regime, as with a personal trainer, say, you're absolving responsibility for your own descision-making, and handing this on to another. This is different to employing a trainer; it's a much more profound difference.

Essentially, I'm saying you're compromising your autonomous independent thought.

It's not even like using a mantra to bolster your will to do something ("I will be patient in dealing with billsaysthis, up to a point. I will be patient in...") because it's all about whose voice it is; yours or someone elses. That's a key point. And my point has been and is, that this isn't really an issue of weakness or strength, but an issue of autonomy and compromising that autonomy; independence of thought, and compromising that independence of thought.

To be hypnotised is, after all, a matter of "susceptibility to suggestion." I don't know that I've ever considered being "susceptible to suggestion" as something I would want to be. I don't know how everyone else feels about that.

There's a great trick Derren Brown, for instance, performs at a dog track. He takes a losing ticket up to the pay-out booth, and says to the person therein, "This is the winning ticket."
It isn't, and yet she pays out the money.

I never want to be that person in the booth. How about you?
posted by Blue Stone at 7:04 AM on December 29, 2003

headspace, it appears to me as though you're taking this way too personally.
posted by ashbury at 7:08 AM on December 29, 2003

BlueStone, are you saying that (as an adult) you've never made a decision based on suggestions from another person or advertising? Because that's what your person in the booth thing sounds like to me. I wonder if you've ever actually experienced hypnotherapy or another form of psychotherapy because I have and (IMO) they are nothing like what you're suggesting. Just another tool to use in life.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:09 AM on December 29, 2003

Would I say that someone employing a personal trainer is being weak-willed ..? Yes

well, olympic athletes disagree with you :). It can be helpful to brace your intentions with external commitments.

Essentially, I'm saying you're compromising your autonomous independent thought.

I still think you're overestimating individual wills - we all have an effect on each other; advice from & commitments to friends, family, teachers, coaches, teammates, co-workers, clients, and bosses all affect how we go about things. Hiring therapists, hypnotherapists, teachers, coaches, etc, are just ways to strengthen your own goals. Hiring someone to help train your subconscious to align more closely with what your conscious mind wants seems like a reasonable thing to me.

I never want to be that person in the booth. How about you?

so don't be. I'd bet that person is scammed more by the ease and comfort of the liar than by hypnotizing. People tend to be generally trusting and can misread numbers if they believe what they're told. I'd think that someone at a booth at a dog track would be more careful about checking details, but I doubt this trick works every time. Charismatic liars can get away with a lot because most people get nervous and fidgety when they lie. People like that "catch me if you can" guy can do pretty well just taking advantage of these expectations & their unusual ability to lie with ease.

Anyway, that has very little to do with using hypnotherapy to retrain yourself to less interested in harmful habits.
posted by mdn at 12:10 PM on December 29, 2003

I accept your point about olympic athletes, mdn. I maintain that there's a huge difference between a coach and a hypnotherapist; between conciously determining to follow a coach's training regime and being under hypnosis.
posted by Blue Stone at 1:13 PM on December 29, 2003

::: gives Blue Stone the rushmc Grace Under Pressure Award :::
posted by rushmc at 8:19 AM on December 30, 2003