aNorthernSoul
Professional Breather
One thought I had while listening... I don't understand how one minute it can be discussed that hypnosis makes one more suggestible then a few minutes later the same individual claims that it is no different than regular questioning other than the fact that the subject is in a relaxed state as both can be lead via the line questioning. The fact that the subject is more "suggestible" would indicate that they are also far easier to lead.
While some good points were raised, I am unsure how far you can go in a round table discussing the validity of a psychiatric practice without having a licensed psychotherapist or psychologist in the discussion. I don't mean that to be snide, it just seems rather illogical to me. Also, I think in order to take Jacobs seriously within the discussion, he should have been questioned regarding the audio recordings of his discussions with "Emma." Giving him the benefit of the doubt, if they were sliced or taken out of context, fine... let him present evidence of such. In my opinion, I think the recording of the things he said and his behavior throughout those recordings are important and disturbing enough that more direct questioning was in order as he is being presented here as a respected authority on the topic which seems directly in conflict with his behavior within those recordings. I'm not saying his guilty, but even after reading his rebuttal on his site, I don't think this issue was properly addressed if he IS indeed innocent of any improper behavior. It is stated in the recordings that they are both recording many of their discussions so can he not just present contradictory evidence? He keeps saying there is another side to the story but he doesn't really offer it up besides claiming she is crazy and providing scenarios that suggest that. I just don't find that response adequate to still be presented as an authority on this topic... and that is without bringing in his lack of qualifications to be addressing the inner workings of and possible manipulation of the human mind. I understand the question was asked, but there was no examples offered of material presented that raises the concerns. It seems like the only real evidence being offered up is by the accuser... shouldn't that have been addressed?
While some good points were raised, I am unsure how far you can go in a round table discussing the validity of a psychiatric practice without having a licensed psychotherapist or psychologist in the discussion. I don't mean that to be snide, it just seems rather illogical to me. Also, I think in order to take Jacobs seriously within the discussion, he should have been questioned regarding the audio recordings of his discussions with "Emma." Giving him the benefit of the doubt, if they were sliced or taken out of context, fine... let him present evidence of such. In my opinion, I think the recording of the things he said and his behavior throughout those recordings are important and disturbing enough that more direct questioning was in order as he is being presented here as a respected authority on the topic which seems directly in conflict with his behavior within those recordings. I'm not saying his guilty, but even after reading his rebuttal on his site, I don't think this issue was properly addressed if he IS indeed innocent of any improper behavior. It is stated in the recordings that they are both recording many of their discussions so can he not just present contradictory evidence? He keeps saying there is another side to the story but he doesn't really offer it up besides claiming she is crazy and providing scenarios that suggest that. I just don't find that response adequate to still be presented as an authority on this topic... and that is without bringing in his lack of qualifications to be addressing the inner workings of and possible manipulation of the human mind. I understand the question was asked, but there was no examples offered of material presented that raises the concerns. It seems like the only real evidence being offered up is by the accuser... shouldn't that have been addressed?