"The hotel launched its Sleep Concierge service in early 2021, assisting guests with all things slumber through a range of services and amenities..."

"... from hypnotherapy to calming tea.... The hotel is one of many to invest more heavily in sleep-themed services, with offerings across numerous properties aimed at helping guests get the most out of their shut-eye.... The Cadogan partnered with hypnotherapist Malminder Gill to create a meditation audio recording, and it also offers a pillow menu, a weighted blanket, a lavender pillow mist and more, all included in the room price. Guests also can book a private in-room session with Gill in advance for around $375."

From "The hottest new service at hotels? Sleep. Sometimes the ultimate luxury is a good night’s rest" (WaPo).

If only hotels could ensure that you'd be able to sleep. How much would that cost? 

Imagine paying $375 to get Malminder Gill to come to your room and make you go to sleep. Would that help? Or would that make it harder to sleep? I don't know. Maybe he has a way to drive the thought what the hell am I paying $375 for out of your head.

"'What happens to us while we are making other plans,' per Allen Saunders" — what?!

So... that's from today's mini crossword in the NYT, and I and — I guess — a million mini-puzzlers are saying who the hell is Allen Saunders and how have I gone so long attributing this witticism to John Lennon?

 

Wikipedia says: 

Allen Saunders (April 24, 1899 – January 28, 1986)[2] was an American writer, journalist and cartoonist who wrote the comic strips Steve Roper and Mike Nomad, Mary Worth and Kerry Drake. 

He is credited with being the originator of the saying, "Life is what happens to us while we are making other plans" [published in Reader's Digest] in 1957. The saying was later slightly modified and popularised by John Lennon in the song "Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy)".

Mary Worth! Is there anything less John-Lennon-like than Mary Worth?

"If we erase the line, will he attack me?"

Please feel free to use this as a metaphor:

I heard about this on a Skeptoid episode long long ago, but just couldn't visualize it. Well, now! @skeptoid @BrianDunning https://t.co/ON95tpp31W

— melanie haber 🧢 (@melsorbit) March 10, 2020

"Doing something once may engender an inflated sense that one has now seen 'it,' leaving people naïve to the missed nuances remaining to enjoy."

Said Ed O’Brien, professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, quoted in "The Unexpected Joy of Repeat Experiences/Novelty is overrated" by Leah Fessler (NYT).

I was interested to see this because just a few days ago — inspired by something I read about repetition as mesmerism — I wrote:

I love repetition. Sometimes I puzzle over why I'm so happy to live another day composed of the same elements, so I'm interested in the suggestion that repetition itself is mesmerizing. I've had some success introducing new elements — notably breaking up the morning writing with a venture outdoors at sunrise.

O'Brien did a study that tested the conventional belief that we experience a diminishment of pleasure when we repeat the same thing. Actually, it's not really the same thing, because of what you miss the first time around:

"I keep to this routine every day without variation. The repetition itself becomes the important thing; it’s a form of mesmerism."

"I mesmerize myself to reach a deeper state of mind. But to hold to such repetition for so long — six months to a year — requires a good amount of mental and physical strength. In that sense, writing a long novel is like survival training. Physical strength is as necessary as artistic sensitivity."

Said the novelist Haruki Murakami, quoted in "How To Wake Up at 5 A.M. Every Day/An unconventional and compassionate guide to becoming an early bird" (in Medium). The author of the essay, Brian Ye, likes this idea of repetition as mesmerism and describes using it to become an early riser.

I liked this piece because I love repetition. Sometimes I puzzle over why I'm so happy to live another  day composed of the same elements, so I'm interested in the suggestion that repetition itself is mesmerizing. I've had some success introducing new elements — notably breaking up the morning writing with a venture outdoors at sunrise.

Advertising ineptitude.

A screenshot of something displayed in my Facebook timeline this morning. Glance, then look away, and tell me what you saw:



I saw, "DON'T VOTE."

I had to look a lot more closely to see what that other word was. (Admittedly, I'm going blind.) It felt like, "DON'T VOTE, BRO."

And the bro is looking at me hypnotically. Don't vote.

"Trump said something sarcastic about Kaepernick finding a country that he likes better."

"Persuasion-wise, the stronger play was to support Kaepernick’s right to free speech and invite him to be part of the solution, as I just did."

Says Scott Adams... who managed, without actually saying it, to create the idea in my mind — I know he's a hypnotist — that "The Star-Spangled Banner" will soon be widely regarded as racist and no longer acceptable as the national anthem. And that's before I read the CNN article he linked to: "Slavery and the national anthem: The surprising history behind Colin Kaepernick's protest."

And even though I personally reject the argument that Kaepernick needs to love America because it's better than the alternatives — it goes against my aphorism "Better than nothing is a high standard"* — I think Kaepernick's forefronting of the general abstraction of patriotism helps Trump.

I can imagine a psychological study that divides undecided American voters into 3 groups. Group 1 watches some well-crafted propaganda designed to inspire love for America. Group 2 watches a serious exploration of the pros and cons of whether Americans should love America. And Group 3 watches something — no more or less entertaining — that has nothing to do with patriotism. I'm guessing Group 2 would lean more toward Trump than Group 3.
___________________________

* Yes, you have to live somewhere, but you don't have to love it. Back in the 60s, those who didn't like the various anti-war and other protests had a slogan "America — love it or leave it." It was kind of like the old parental demand — on presentation of some unappetizing food — "You'll eat it and you'll like it." Why must I also like it? And how can I be ordered to like it? More sensible parents — like mine — would just say: "That's what's for dinner." They didn't prod me to go see if I could go get dinner at someone else's house and taunt me with predictions that I wouldn't even like it. This is dinner. This is what we're having. You need to eat. But you can have your own thoughts about it and dislike it even as you use it to fulfill your needs.

IN THE COMMENTS: Balfegor said something I meant to make you think:

I wouldn't be surprised if Group 2 actually leaned more towards Trump than Group 1 too . . . sort of like what we saw with Obama, Obama benefited when race was made salient in voters' minds (e.g. by the media and his other proxies), but less so when voters were beaten about the head about racism (cf. his late fade against Clinton II back in the 2008 primary). However well-crafted, propaganda that articulates a clear point of view can provoke a counter-reaction. That said, I suppose that means it just wasn't well-crafted enough.

"So now we have a situation in which Team Clinton has scared citizens into thinking the threat to their lives is mostly domestic, coming from Trump, Trump supporters, and anyone who looks like them."

"People who are scared will act. And we see those actions now in terms of violence against police, violence against Trump supporters, and death threats to bloggers such as me. And we already have one attempted Trump assassination."

Writes Scott Adams.

ADDED, after reading a few of the comments: How should a smart person read Adams? You shouldn't take the statements at face value. He's talking about the art of persuasion, so he's performing the art even as he talks about it. You need to get to the next level and see what he's trying to persuade you to think. It might be something as simple as: He's the master of persuasion. If you want to train yourself, look at this cute video of Adams supposedly hypnotizing his dog Snickers. Think one more step forward and you'll see that Adams is also persuading you of his power to hypnotize the dog. Overtly, Adams is saying that the dog believes the food coming from his hand is better than the same food when it's sitting in the dish, because the dog could just eat all the food it wants right out of the dish, but nevertheless waits for him to pick up the food and feed it from the hand. If you believed that, you were tricked, however. Adams told you what you should believe, but if you believed it, you were failing to develop alternate theories of why the dog waited for the food, such as the dog's enjoyment of hand-feeding. Maybe the dog was the master persuader, intent on causing his man to pick up food and hand it to him and pleased to see it happen one more time. I'm not eating out of that bowl. You pick it up and hand it to me.

And now, you commenters, have caused me to hand feed you again.

"School District to Pay $600,000 Over Death of Teens Who Were Hypnotized by Principal."

As the lawyer for the 3 students who died put it: "you had someone who decided to perform medical services on kids without a license. He altered the underdeveloped brains of teenagers, and they all ended up dead because of it.”

The principal seems to have been trying to help students (and staff member) deal with various psychological problems through hypnosis and delivered his services to "at least 75 people at the school." The students died through suicide (in 2 cases, both by hanging) and a car accident (in which the young man reportedly had "a strange look on his face" before going off the interstate).

I can't figure out what the cause and effect was, but the school district chose to pay rather than to fight over it.

Why interviews with Obama are done standing up.

"But what was interesting--a side note--is the reason why we're standing, I was told by one of his staffers, is because he likes to get comfortable when he's sitting and he tends to get very chatty. And so this was another way to keep him — and us — at the four minutes that they were suggesting that we not go over."

Isn't it nice of the reporters to take suggestion?

Did you know that the oldest meaning for the English word "suggestion" — according to the (unlinkable) OED — is "Prompting or incitement to evil; an instance of this, a temptation of the evil one"? ("Deedly synne hath first suggestion of the feend." Chaucer, Parson's Tale 1386)

That meaning is obsolete now, but nevertheless interesting. I went looking up the word because I thought of "taking suggestion" in terms of hypnosis. The hypnosis meaning — which goes back to the late 19th century — is "The insinuation of a belief or impulse into the mind of a subject by words, gestures, or the like; the impulse or idea thus suggested." I think that's about right for the effect of Obama's people on the reporters.

What can be done to wake these people from their hypnotic state?

1. Tell them they are becoming more and more awake at each count and begin slowly counting from one to a predetermined number.

2. Tell them to "get up" or "wake up". If they don't, repeat step 1.

3. If there are still problems, remember that the participant may either be actually asleep, or simply is being stubborn about getting up out of the trance.

What's happening with these reporters?
	They are actually asleep.
	They are being stubborn about getting up out of the trance.
	They are awake and consciously choosing to help Obama according to instructions.
pollcode.com free polls

"The enormity of their flat brain, the enormity of their stupidity, is just overwhelming."

"You have to do yourself a favor when you’re out in the countryside and you see a chicken: Try to look a chicken in the eye with great intensity, and the intensity of stupidity that is looking back at you is just amazing. By the way, it’s very easy to hypnotize a chicken; they are very prone to hypnosis, and in one or two films I have actually shown that."

Says Werner Herzog. One of the films, Strozek, is the first Werner Herzog film I ever saw. It was a double feature with Aguirre, Wrath of God, which was (obviously) the second Werner Herzog film I saw. I raved about these films to my (then) husband and I saw the double feature again, with him, the next day. For many years I called Aguirre, Wrath of God my favorite movie, but I love Strozek too, and not only does it have a chicken in it; it takes place mostly in Wisconsin. Here's the chicken:

"Mrs. Helen Althouse, the well-known mysterious Attica sleeper..."

"... had a narrow escaped from death from poisoning this week."

Two men visited Mrs. Althouse Thursday evening, and it is said one of them, while in the sick room, was seen to handle a cup of coffee and milk from which the patient drank occasionally.... The men were unknown to the family, but Mrs. Althouse seemed to know who they were, although she declined to talk about them. Vague talk about money and Mrs. Althouse's husband adds to the mystery. The men are said to be from Syracuse...."

An article published in the NYT on June 24, 1888. If it was mysterious at the time, it's even more mysterious now. How does one become "well-known" for being a "mysterious... sleeper"? Presumably — given that the men were said to be from Syracuse — Attica is Attica, New York... which you probably associate with the prison, the one with the riot and the Al Pacino... but the prison was not built until 1930.

ADDED: Several commenters are piecing together the story. Apparently, the woman's first name was not Helen but Emma. Edutcher found this old newspaper article, which includes some efforts at understanding the woman's condition (falling asleep for 25 days or more). One doctor said: "It is simply a condition of hysteria. The subjects are almost invariably women and of a particular temperament. There must be this temperament. I don to wish to be  understood as ascribing it to outside hypnotic influences." (The doctor was interested in hypnosis as a treatment for hysteria.)

Quaestor suggests Kleine-Levin syndrome — AKA "Sleeping Beauty Syndrome" — which has a Wikipedia page here. There doesn't seem to be much understanding of the cause or the treatment even today. But it's not true that the subjects are mostly women. They are 3 males to 1 female.

It's such an odd thing that we fall asleep and then wake up. We assume that will just happen. We've all had trouble sleeping, I assume, and when that happens we may observe the mystery of sleep. We seem to know how to do it but not how to do it. We don't so much worry that we won't know how to wake up. Outside of the unique problem of dying in one's sleep, we take it for granted that we will wake up. We have the knack. Who knows why?

Hypnotist...

... thieves.