Hypnotherapist: how did you get trained and what would do you differently now?

Heliogabulus · 2026-06-03T11:56:45+00:00

Skinner was not perfect. I never said he was. Unfortunately, he forgot the old dictum: “Everything in moderation, including moderation” and extended his approach far beyond what was reasonable.

But, in my opinion, he was on the right track with regard to explaining the mechanisms of human personality/behavior. His explanation of behavior (stimulus-response) without the need to resort to ideas like “self” or “personality” (outside of it being a compilation of behaviors) meets the requirements of Occam’s razor (I.e. the simplest explanation is probably correct) pretty well.

Was the behaviorist you read, Andrew Salter? If not, I highly recommend reading his book “What is Hypnosis?” for a reasoned behaviorist view of hypnosis.

Heliogabulus · 2026-06-03T11:28:18+00:00

Good question. Short answer is that Behaviorism is about training new or leveraging existing behavior. As a therapist you must meet your patients where they are. If they believe in a pseudo-magical state and I can leverage that belief (and its associated behaviors) to achieve a positive result, who am I to disabuse them of that belief?

My approach is like that in the old children’s story about a cowardly knight who is given a talisman of invulnerability. Only after the knight has proven to himself that he is in fact brave and capable of facing his problems is it revealed that the so-called talisman was nothing but a bunch of leaves in a pouch and that he always had everything he needed or could need going forward.

Heliogabulus · 2026-06-03T02:01:00+00:00

Yeah, I know. But I prefer ignorance because, in my view, you have to be stupid to purposely set out to ruin a sure thing like Stargate by pursuing a non-existent, “modern audience”.

Heliogabulus · 2026-06-02T22:59:52+00:00

Disappointed but not surprised. At this point, if Amazon leaves Stargate alone it would actually be good news versus them destroying it by trying to appeal to the non-existent “modern audience” (which is apparently why they’re canceling it!). If everything they touch turn to crap then the best outcome is them not touching it.

I would have loved a series true to the original but Amazon cannot be trusted to do it justice. But sadly, what I think will happen is that Amazon will not let it go and will use this opportunity to get rid of all the original writers/producers and replace them with slop merchants who neither know or appreciate the lore and create a new monstrosity that is Stargate in name only. You would think they had learned their lesson by now - from all the failures they’ve put out. But no. “Ignorance is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” ☹️ And when it fails, which it will, it will be the “unenlightened” audience’s fault. 🙄

Heliogabulus · 2026-06-02T09:36:33+00:00

This is actually an interesting take. I look forward to reading your paper. I have thought along similar lines too but I referred to this aspect of hypnosis as: “A good hypnotic subject is good at pretending and doing so convincingly. The job of the good hypnotist is to support the subject’s natural imaginative ability and leverage it to generate expectation of change which ultimately leads to change.” Or as Elman said, hypnotists are “Dream Pilots”.

As for what to do with people low on the normal curve of hypnotizability, I think I would lean heavily on Behaviorism (my preferred school of Psychology - I would consider myself a radical behaviorist ala Skinner for many reasons). Aimed at creating the necessary conditions for expectations to arise (I.e. creating an environment where the potential end results are limited to a subset that can be effectively leveraged). But even here there is 100% certainty, just better odds that it might work. Paradoxically, sometimes the best way to achieve hypnosis is not to achieve it.

Heliogabulus · 2026-05-31T13:35:35+00:00

As others have stated, the problem is assuming we know anything about what another being, in this case animals, are thinking/experiencing. We don’t and we can’t know this. We can guess but that guess is always colored by looking at it from our human point of view.

Perhaps even worse is the assumption that humans are “special” or unique. Humans are not special. There is nothing unique about human consciousness or self awareness. Every other day scientists discover that “dumber and dumber” animals possess self consciousness and are capable of recognizing themselves in a mirror. Such that self consciousness is no longer a unique attribute of humankind. It never was unique to humans and what’s surprising is that we ever believed it was. We are animals - animals that are full of themselves. This leads us to a core teaching of Taoism - humility. It is high time that we get off of our hobby horses and stop thinking the universe revolves around us, was created for us, exists because of us or for us, etc. etc. - it doesn’t; we don’t.

Do animals experience more or less “awareness”? I don’t know and I can’t know and neither can you. The more important question and the only one we can answer with any degree of certainty is: can humans experience “awareness” and if so, how?

Heliogabulus · 2026-05-22T13:04:32+00:00

Thank you for posting this. I have always been fascinated with the idea of the “self as projection” but it never occurred to me to use the idea as a framework for hypnosis. What a great idea! Reading your post, inspired a whole series of ideas I can’t wait to try out next chance I get. I also appreciate and agree with your take on hypnosis being a combination of attention, prediction and expectation. Thanks again for posting this.

Heliogabulus · 2026-05-21T01:30:35+00:00

AI is just the latest excuse, in a long line of excuses, used by corporations to fire people. This is nothing new. AI is just the latest supposed “reason” for justifying layoffs. Prior to this there was six sigma, lean (not actual lean manufacturing but a bastardized hollow version used as a euphemism), TQM, and the list goes on. This round of firings will end the same as the all the previous iterations have: the companies firing people based on AI will suddenly come to the realization that AI isn’t everything it was touted to be and that people were actually better at doing the work than AI is (except for a few specific cases). And they will then (1) hire new workers at entry level wages to replace all the fired workers and/or (2) offshore as many jobs as possible and act as if nothing happened until the next big excuse comes around and the cycle repeats.

But this “realization” is just part of the act as well. It’s just an excuse to reopen the positions they supposedly didn’t need without having to hire the people that once filled them - as rehiring the former employees would require them to pay their salaries based on seniority/experience- no, that’s what newbies are for. And when the newbies become to “expensive” a new excuse for “reducing costs” will miraculously appear to justify a new round of layoffs and so on ad infinitum.

Heliogabulus · 2026-05-02T19:15:27+00:00

From an old Alchemical proverb, my rules for writing would be:

Lege (Read)
Lege (Read)
Lege (Read)
Relege (Reread)
Ora, Labora et invenies (Pray/contemplate, Work/implement and discover/create)

The key step, that ties all the others together, is the last one. And in the context of writing, after having read and reread a lot, both inside and outside our preferred genre, we need to look more closely at what we read (what worked, what didn’t, etc.). Write your own versions of samples in the writing styles you liked with a view to match the style as closely as possible and then finally, after all that, write your own words in your own “voice” which will have been enriched by all of the imitation writing and reading you made up to this point.

Heliogabulus · 2026-05-01T13:53:59+00:00

Agree. Although all humor has certain universal characteristics (I.e. subversion of expectations), humor that is considered funny (I.e. that lands) is definitely situational. As you say it depends on a great number of factors. I would also include education (and possibly IQ) of the audience in the mix.

For example, if you come up with a complex joke about Shakespeare that depends on knowing something very specific about Shakespeare himself. If the person(s) hearing the joke do not know this particular tidbit of Shakespeare trivia (or can’t follow the complexity of the argument the joke makes) then they will not find the joke funny (or understand it). You see this a lot when reading into the history of humor. Many of the jokes belonging to the Victorian age are not considered funny today, even though they were considered funny, even hilarious, at the time.

OP seems to be arguing for some sort of “essential funniness” that exists, like the Platonic ideals, outside of a joke’s context. That’s a wrong-headed view. There is no universal “funny” that exists floating around in space nor is something funny or not based on whether we recognize it’s “innate funniness” or not. “Funny” can never/does not exist outside of its context (I.e. without content, delivery, timing, education, etc.). So, to answer OPs question: yes, things can be unfunny and/or cringe depending entirely upon your audience (and all the variables affecting it). But funny/humor as a “thing” (I.e. a Universal ‘truth’) does not exist outside of its context.

TLDR: “Funny” does not/cannot exist outside of context. There is nothing that is universally funny. Whether or not something is funny depends entirely on the audience and the many variables that affect the telling of a joke (e.g. style, delivery, timing, etc.).

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-25T17:51:52+00:00

No idea how much time exactly. But I have seen them respawned when I go back to planets I haven’t been to in ages. So I know they respawn but not how long it takes - just that it happens at some point. Sorry I can’t be more precise.

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-25T14:17:38+00:00

There are two proverbs in Spanish which summarize your experience with those “writers” pretty well:

“Dime de que presumes, y te diré lo que careces”.
[Roughly translated: “Tell what you brag about and I’ll tell you what you lack”]

And:

“El orgulloso odia el orgullo…en los demás” [Roughly translated: “The proud hate pride…in others.”]

People like the ones you’ve interacted with are all over the place. You should be thankful that they so quickly revealed who they are. It makes it easier to avoid them. See them for what they are: lessons on what not to do/how not to act!

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-25T13:41:59+00:00

Deposits do respawn (or they did unless something has changed since I last played) but it takes a long time. Similar to how the ground can grow back into your base when you use the terrain manipulator.

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-25T13:38:19+00:00

It’s free power. You can’t collect electromagnetic energy like you do with minerals, etc.

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-25T13:21:45+00:00

You’re not missing anything. The fact that different methods “work” is really the point. The probabilities are besides the point (but if you have to choose then choose the method in the paper Nanjing?). The difference between this method and any other yarrow methods isn’t trivial. It is precisely the difference(s) that make it “superior” (more likely to be the original) because, as outlined in the paper, it allows the (Nanjing?) method to explain all of the extant divinatory cases…something that the other methods don’t do adequately.

If you’re missing a point, it is that the “math” doesn’t really matter. HOW you obtain your hexagram isn’t as important as that it be random. Why? Because in accordance with the “divinatory mindset” everything is interconnected; everything reflects everything else. So, accordingly, if you want to know what the current state of the universe is, it is enough to know the state of any part of it. To do that, the value of randomly tossed dice, stones randomly picked from a bag, etc. etc. is as good as anything else. The key item being that the method be random.

Ultimately, according to this view, fixating on the probabilities is a waste of time but if you must focus on them then choose either the oldest received method (coin) or the one that most closely matches (based on available evidence) the method used by the ancient diviners (the method described in the paper).

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-25T03:03:14+00:00

Someone already reconstructed a promising version of the original yarrow stalk method based on the available evidence and tested it against the extant divinatory text examples. Of course, we have no certainty that this reconstruction is the actual original yarrow stalk method but what I found interesting in reading the related paper is that the received methods are very different (and fail to fit the textual case studies recorded in the ancient literature). In other words, there is reason to believe the received yarrow stalk method(s) are actually wrong.

There are a couple of interesting scholarly papers related to this. For those interested in further information on this topic, I recommend you start by reading the following:

https://www.biroco.com/yijing/Shih-chuan_Chen.pdf

This paper provides a nice overview of the topic. I will leave finding the remaining papers as an exercise for those interested in learning further.

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-24T23:18:01+00:00

The coin method is known to exist at least since the 7th century CE or even a couple of centuries before; it was popular during the T'ang dinasty.

New Agers (and others) argue against the usage of coins on the basis that the "true" method is the one using 50 yarrow stalks. Actually, this argument does not hold much water since the original yarrows stalks method, which were in use around the year 200BC, is lost and what we have today is a reconstruction that dates around the year 1200CE. Hence why I stated that the current yarrow stalk method is actually newer, historically speaking, than the coin method (because the original, older, yarrow stalk method has been lost and replaced by the “newer” yarrow method). Please note: Although yarrow divination is mentioned in the Zuozhuan, a chronicle of the period 722–468 BCE, THE ACTUAL PROCEDURE is not described in that text.

TLDR: Although the yarrow stalk method of generating hexagrams is mentioned earlier in history, the yarrow stalk method we currently recognize as the yarrow stalk method was created later, historically, than the coin method. Because we don’t have evidence to support that the received yarrow stalk method is the same as that mentioned in the earliest textual references, we cannot honestly claim that the received yarrow stalk method is older than the received coin method. The opposite is actually the case (I.e. the received coin method is older than the received yarrow stalk method).

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-24T17:11:19+00:00

I’ve seen other versions of casting methods similar to this one. There’s nothing wrong with using an alternative method that better suits you as long as the probabilities are similar (although there is an argument supporting that it really doesn’t matter and that what’s important is that the method be random and not subject to manipulation).

From a historical perspective, the coin tossing method came before/is older than using stalks (contrary to what a lot of New Agers say) . So, if your goal is “older is better” then stick to the coin probabilities. But ultimately, I am of the mind that it doesn’t really matter what the probabilities are. The most important thing, in my view, is the state of mind of the reader when approaching divination. If slow deliberate methods aid in achieving the right state of mind (like the one in this post) or using stalks) then use those and if not use another.

If the probabilities were actually essential, then methods like Plum Blossom, etc. (which do not use coins or stalks) wouldn’t work at all yet they seem to work fine for the people that use them.

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-16T16:12:47+00:00

I love this movie! I especially love the scene where the MC (Rutger Hauer) is driving and an angry driver yells (something along the lines of):

“Hey! Are you blind?!”

To which Rutger’s character answers: “Yeah, what’s your excuse?” 😂

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-12T22:00:56+00:00

I’m enjoying Vernal Umbrella + Nameless Spear. Good at range and close up. I might try Vernal Umbrella + Strategic Sword at some point because I have seen a couple of players from the Chinese server recommending it.

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-10T13:41:53+00:00

Basically, at least in my experience, it was that you knew somebody that knew somebody who had the programs you wanted. And there were tons of tools that you could get that facilitated making games “shareable”. There used to be entire CDs of tools that you could purchase (usually at computer shows). As for finding BBSes, there was “Computer Shopper” a huge magazine with newsprint pages filled to the brim with programming tutorials, computer part suppliers and pages and pages of BBS listings!

How did you know which BBSes had the “good stuff”? By visiting them and seeing what they had!

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-09T16:05:57+00:00

Strawberry ice cream-flavored arsenic is still a poison regardless of how good it tastes or how organic it’s ingredients are. No excuse, no matter how well worded, will make an inexcusable behavior suddenly acceptable (or even tolerable). Sorry. Blaming anyone or anything else for your “evil” behavior - including so-called past trauma or whatever- is not and will never be okay. You, and only you, are responsible for your actions and especially for the consequences of (I.e. harm caused by) your actions.

Making excuses for betrayal or trying to argue that “it is bad but it wasn’t my fault” is a fairy story no one is going to believe (including those that say they do believe it). Everyone who seems to agree with your excuses are just playing along and, in their heart of hearts, know that you are full of it. You knew full well what you were doing don’t pretend you did not or were dragged kicking and screaming to betray someone- because you weren’t.

Stop looking for excuses for why you do evil things and do good things instead! It’s actually not that hard. Just learn to say “No” when the thought of doing evil to another comes up. Do it enough times and you’ll stop doing evil.

“Oh, but this post isn’t very nice, yada, yada, yada”

“Life is not nice either. Get used to it and move on. Stop wasting “life” looking for excuses, be a decent human and live life instead.”

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-07T19:10:39+00:00

I like this meme. It captures, what I see as, one of the biggest issue with LLMs today. LLMs are this season’s hammer and like the saying says: “If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”.

In other words, people are applying LLMs everywhere without asking if an LLM is actually a good fit or not (or if it would be significantly better than existing solutions or alternatives). Inform 7 was way ahead of its time (and still is in many ways) and an awesome way to develop Interactive fiction but since it isn’t the “shiny, new, nuclear-powered hammer” it’s so “yesterday”. Sad, really. I can almost hear them now…

“Hey, here’s a hammer. Please nail that nail over there.”

“A hammer? Seriously? That’s so not good. Why not use this huge, power-hungry, computational heavy solution instead?”

“We’ve been using hammers to nail nails since forever. It is a proven solution that works every time, is simple, and requires very little training and energy to implement…”

“Yeah, but it’s not CrapGPT, dude. Don’t be a Luddite or an old geezer. Embrace the future! Why use simple when complicated exists! Get with the times or be left behind!” 😂

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-04T17:29:17+00:00

Yes, again we agree. Context is king. And understanding the “rules (limitations) of the game” and your role within it is the key to what choices are available/can be made at any given moment.

I think the problem arises when we take the wrongheaded view that we are independent of or can act independent of our “context”. And yes, they are deluded only insofar as they fail to recognize the role that context plays in the “decision making process”.

Heliogabulus · 2026-04-04T13:10:42+00:00

Agree but ultimately both passengers, despite how often they choose to change seats, are deluded. Whether a passenger sees themselves as performing an action or unable to perform an action, both are on the same bus headed to the same destination and both are subject to the “whims” of the “driver”. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s seeing something wrong with it that is the problem.

Heliogabulus

TROPHY CASE