#22 - Advertisement: Hypnosis videos work to alter behavior

[tessajw]

But the passage says "they are extremely effective" meaning it knew the requirement but did the experiment and it was still effective. So how does that mean it's a flawed argument? If something is required to be true, and then it's tested and it actually turns out not to be required and is effective anyway, how is that flawed argumentation?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Tessa,

Malila's explanation on the first page of this thread should help address the question you ask.

This is also a case where the stimulus uses multiple ideas and can be tricky if you don't read closely. In your case, what they said was "Directions to the subconscious must, however, be repeated many times in order to be effective" (italics added for emphasis). That doesn't automatically mean the new method of saying it once but then directing the mind to experience is as 1000 times is effective. That is indeed what hasn't been proven, and the difference between actually repeating something 1000 times and telling the mind to act like it had been is where the vulnerability lies.

The easiest way to see that (A) describing the issue is to ask: "Were the directions to the subconscious in fact repeated many times?" The answer to that is no, which violates this sentence which outlines the requirement: "Directions to the subconscious must, however, be repeated many times in order to be effective."

Thanks!