In the following snippet Paul McKenna admits to
"widening the choices" of an ex-girlfriend via
a form of suggestion/"manipulation."
When he is called on the manipulation, he says
he is used to the "paranoia" reaction. Interesting
way to turn things around.
He obviously had no issue with what he did, and
says nothing about how his ex responded, other
than to say that she now enjoys curry (the thing
he was manipulating).
I recall another hypnotist referring to hypnosis
as a "tool" and called upon those he was trying
to sell to to use it responsibly. Interestingly,
in the way he worded his pitch, it sounded like
he didn't want those who wouldn't use it responsibly
to buy it, but the underlying message was to BUY.
So...while it sounded to someone who didn't know
how to listen the way that I do like he cared and
was being responsible himself, he was really only
being responsible to himself.
As I have said previously, an argument can be
made for pretty much anything, which means that
what Paul did is totally defensible within a
certain argument/conversation.
Is manipulating someone for their "own good,"
OK? How does one know what another's "own good"
is? How can one make that judgment for another?
Interestingly, with or without hypnosis and
with or without permission we are often
manipulated by another's version of what is
good for us.
Some would say hypnosis undoes what the
"natural" hypnosis of our lives creates.
Paul even makes reference to that in what
he says, as he says his ex had been hypnotized
to believe she didn't like curry.
Whether or not what he did was ultimately a
good thing doesn't seem to be as much of an
issue as the fact that he did it without
her knowledge prior to making the change.
Btw, in the interview Paul explains how
he did it, so I am pretty much giving you
the keys to the car. What are you planning
to do with them (if anything)?
In general, I am uncertain about sharing
certain types of things because what can
be used for "good" can also be used for
"bad." However, if you are aware of how
things work, perhaps you will realize when
someone is manipulating you.
Curious about what you think. How would
you feel if someone manipulated you for
"your own good" - without your knowledge
and/or permission. Would you do what he
did to someone? How would you feel if
you found out someone had done it to you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well....I'm not so sure that this fits the case of true hypnosis, because as Mr. McKenna admits about 1:45 into it, "if she really didn't like curry, she wouldn't have had it". So he didn't really make her like it, he simply opened her up to giving it a try, right?
ReplyDeletePerhaps some would believe that I'm splitting hairs, but I think there's a big difference between suggestive word association and actual hypnosis. In this particular case, yes, he was a bit manipulative in the manner in which he achieved his goal, but I think we have all seen examples of much more overtly manipulative behavior. I see it all the time in corporate America, and in some cases, the person doing it is so subtle that most people never realize that they've just been played like a piano, but that doesn't mean that they've been hypnotized, right? In fact, I wouldn't always say that manipulation is unethical - in some cases, you've just been out-maneuvered.
I'm dating myself a bit here (LOL) but there was a James Bond movie from the 70's, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" - the only one staring George Lazenby as 007, and in it, Telly Savalas plays the bad guy who does happen to hypnotize a bunch of women who all detest or are allergic to some form of food. By the time he's finished with them, they all love the food that they formally hated. If McKenna had done that, I would've been more inclined to agree with the interviewer's reaction. :)
Dating yourself? Like Carbon Dating? Hard to date those molecules, don't you think?
ReplyDeleteUm. Nevermind. LOL.
Thanks for your comment.
A few comments about your comments.
I think one of the biggest issues some of the hypnotist's comments I saw was somewhat "defensive" in nature, as in defending those who were hypnotists.
They were concerned that there might be some who would take away fear and concern and worry for themselves around a hypnotist because one admitted to what he did. Interestingly, that does not mean that hypnotists who know how to affect another don't do it, they just don't necessarily make it public - especially not in such a broad way.
Hypnosis IS a type of manipulation. So is NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming) which is more of what Paul did here. However in many ways the two are often connected, and many good hypnotists will use NLP when phrasing what they say.
I have written previously in this blog about times that I have felt manipulated by those who have used those types of things when speaking with me.
I think one of the keys is definitely more about the outcome than the intent - even though the perception of the outcome can certainly be as manipulated as the outcome itself. If nothing else, a person likely can and will justify their choices because no one wants to feel badly about their decisions.
As far as unethical vs out-maneuvered goes, it is - to me - relative as to whether or not those two things are different, or not. One may feel that someone in a position to out-maneuver would be unethical to do so.
For instance, I may know something as a hypnotist that I could use to out-maneuver you, but would it necessarily be ethical to do so?
In the end, as often is the case, I'd say the conversation was one to be had. People do what people do, and other people will be watching and judging. It seems to be inevitable with the way most people operate.
As the same time, the more that one is aware of, the more that one may have a better chance at manipulating his own environment, instead of being manipulated by another.
Thanks for stopping by!
You'd be surprised at how easy it is to date myself. Maybe I'll give you a lesson some day. lol
ReplyDeleteAll good points. I was even considering commenting your comments to my comments :D, but I'm wiped out tonight - details in your NF email.
Well, On Her Majesty's Secret Service was '69 (not quite the 70s but close). Telly Savalis, pre-Kojak.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that if the hypnotist did anything that wasn't agreed to beforehand, he crossed a line. I know there are ways to maneuver someone into changing their mind about something but in this case there wasn't a conversation about the subject; the hypnotist just decided to make a change. Not kosher in my book.
"Widening her choices" is his justification for his actions. It seems to me that despite the fact that he admits to manipulating her, he's still trying to convince himself that he didn't do anything wrong.
cdbtoo
Been there. I was manipulated for someone's enjoyment, and at my expense. How did I feel when I found out? Explosive. However, I learned quite a lot from studying the manipulation and backtracing the events. There really was no point to the manipulation - it showed incredible cowardice on their part.
ReplyDelete