Yes, it's obvious. That's why it was surprising when I couldn't find a single study on schizophrenia where all children were separated from the parents immediately after birth. Feel free to enlighten me.

It is my understanding that due to ethical concerns, the scientific field of psychology does not have a data collection methodology capable of distinguishing between effects caused by the parents' genes and effects caused by the parents' actions, and as such, no possible statistical approach will give a correct answer on the heritability of traits caused by the latter, like schizophrenia a.k.a. religion or intelligence. In order to clear up my "misunderstandings and ignorance", you will need to demonstrate an approach that can, at the very least, successfully disprove genetic contribution in circumcision.

How does this reject the genetic factors causing circumcision in Jews?

Psychology produces useful information at the same rate as Christianity. If you want practical results, learn hypnosis.

I gave directions to Hogwarts. I gave the simplest, easiest and most fun testable claim I could think of. It is part of the claim that the process of testing it is guaranteed to improve your life. No study will change any of that. Go observe reality.

Your impression of what psychologists believe is outdated. Today's psychologists already know that Freudian psychoanalysis doesn't work. It's been years since it was part of the standard understanding of psychology.

That's nice, but what about the axiom of medicine, when was that examined? How did they prove the idea that statistics is an effective research method for neural networks of 10^14 synapses trained on unique input exhibiting mostly unique symptoms?

And the placebo effect is already accounted for in every serious randomized trial.

Yes, I applaud their very effective ways to completely ignore it. Where's the research on producing better and permanent placebo? Where are the results? Don't you think that's in scope for a field called psychology? If not, who should be researching it? In what way is "placebo" not a thought-stopper for psychology?

Your implication that depression is not a real thing needs to be explained in more detail, especially with such a kilometer-tall red flag as your use of square quotes for evidence-based medicine.

Depression is a real thing, it's just not a hardware problem. They should be doing tech support, not medicine. Half of NLP is basically trying to find out what they see on the screen, and they still get better results. Psychology needs to qualify their methods as "evidence-based" to distinguish it from "result-based".

If you think medicine is a better fit for the human brain than a computing metaphor, feel free to demonstrate the existence of a mental immune system.

So, what's your evidence that stage hypnosis is a viable therapy?

I mention stage hypnotists a lot because they need to make it blatantly obvious that something is happening. They optimize for entertainment, not therapy. You can observe their results on Youtube.

For therapy, my evidence is Mark Cunningham's work. When he does an erotic hypnosis demo on a subject with anorgasmia, you can tell she was telling the truth because the session lasts about 20 minutes longer than usual. The results are also blatantly obvious. Look for Adina in his Renegade Hypnotist Project. It's up on TPB, along with a bunch of his other stuff. Some of his other demos are also up on Youtube.

Here is Richard Bandler dealing with a schizophrenic. He's also using hypnosis everywhere he goes, also up on TPB.

You will not find one person who has done erotic hypnosis on either side of the chair who believes it possible to hang on to anything diagnosed as depression after ten orgasms in half an hour. One.

When physicists have two experiments proving two mutually exclusive theories, they come up with a theory that explains both, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, and then redesign their methodology to test the new predictions. Newtonian physics is still accurate enough to explain a soccer game, reality hasn't changed when GR explained the quirks.

Under the current "understanding" of psychology, people want to fuck their parents at age 3 and depression is an "illness" even though 150 years of research hasn't demonstrated the cause or a cure. Their "treatments" look to me like trying to close a Chrome tab by radiating the box while I can produce permanent results just by telling people to basically calm down and stop being stupid after they have already given up on "evidence-based therapy". What does it mean when "PTSD" is frequently "misdiagnosed" as "ADHD" and neither has a cure? What does it mean when we literally have self-driving cars before a professor of psychology comes up with a way to scare people into not texting on the road to save their lives?

Until psychology adopts a research methodology strong enough to conclude the Oedipus complex has always been bullshit or at least develop the idea that their theories are supposed to explain placebo as part of observed reality, it is not a field of science. They're just priests of the Church of the Published Article.

Be a skeptic, just don't think that means you're supposed to stick your fingers in your ear and chant "pseudoscience" until men stop going into labour on stage just because someone told them to. If nothing else, at least give me the courtesy of assuming for five seconds that I might have some sane reason to come to a den of rationalists and profess my crackpot beliefs.

I've linked a stage hypnotist training class and made testable predictions you find obviously false. It's meaningless to discuss smartphone design until you've shown the willingness to press the power button and see what happens.

Let me get this straight. When faced with a theory saying the human brain is intelligent, you have trouble considering it possible. You don't expect a theory that explains something you can't explain, to say things that sound ridiculous to you, in a universe that runs on quantum mechanics. Your response to a theory that explains something you can't explain, is to ignore the evidence and sneer at it. You are upvoted.

Could you please point me at some learning material so I can fit in better around here?

That sounds like a wildly overreaching claim. We can do that now / in the near future? I don't think so.

Getting people drunk/high is one of the classics of stage hypnosis. What steps have you taken to observe reality before reaching that conclusion?

/blinks. What do you expect installing a Death Star power core in the root chakra to do?

Establish and maintain a higher baseline of subjective well-being. People already have concepts like "chi" or "mental energy"; a generator produces more energy; and the "root chakra" is "where energy enters the body". I know that last one because I decided it sounds good.

These concepts are "real" in the same sense as a programming language. There is no inheritance in the transistors, but you can pretend as long as the compiler does the right thing with your code. Apparently the human brain is intelligent enough that we can simply make shit up.