[p-e-w]

What's on social media is memes vaguely referencing that stuff, and cranks congratulating each other for doing it, usually in a "New Age" type context.

That's a far cry from the scientific, serious, mainstream approach that was common for those topics 120 years ago.

[DogOnTheWeb]

This feels like romanticizing the past. There are plenty of people today writing articles that claim to be taking a “scientific, serious approach” to, say, astral projection and people who will casually discuss such topics over coffee.

[borroka]

I may be romanticizing the past, but I have been interested in hypnosis and trance phenomena for 20 years, studied with teachers, got certified, practiced for some time with clients, and have, I may say, a good deal of experience in the field.

The practitioners (i.e., not academics) back then (Milton Erickson, Dave Elman, Henry Munro, and many others) were much more knowledgeable and interested in studying the phenomena they were investigating and applying than are today's practitioners, who seem instead much more interested in fooling people and making easy money than in advancing the discipline and making new breakthroughs.

I just pulled out of my library the book "Suggestive Therapeutics" by Munro, and it is, however naive in parts, a serious and passionate investigation of hypnotic phenomena. It is evident, even just by reading the text, that these were serious people who thought they could make a huge difference in the lives of others.

Can we say the same about today's practitioners?

[bfuller]

Julia Mossbridge

[herculity275]

> What's on social media is memes vaguely referencing that stuff, and cranks congratulating each other for doing it, usually in a "New Age" type context.

This just sound like you need to follow better social media circles. There's a bourgeoning scene around people such as Gwern, Nick Cammarata, Aella with a lot of high-quality discourse on the topics you mention.

[kfrzcode]

Where was medicine, 120 years ago?