3 ms·

Surely there's a way to believe something important and true with the right emotional valence. Consider the story I laid out in a nearby comment: "A competent,

Surely there's a way to believe something important and true with the right emotional valence. Consider the story I laid out in a nearby comment: "A competent, trusted person loves you and is laying hands on you in a kindly way to heal you. When this happened to our ancestors, they were in a safe position and their bodies needed healing; under these circumstances, there was no risk of further injury and no need to worry about other needs (because they will be attended to), which means the body should turn down its immune response and focus on healing. Evolution carried this lesson down into your body. I will be the competent, trusted person who loves you, and I will lay kindly hands on you, and your body will respond instinctively and heal." It doesn't need to be any more (or less) magical than what happens in theatre. The actors do their best to live their roles, to do the things and feel the emotions their characters would feel, and they let the audience see it—perhaps playing it up a little, because the audience is tens of feet away. I believe there are at least some in the service industry that have a related "I'm playing a role, of one who is delighted to help my great customer, to the best of my ability" ethos.

gnramires 7y ago
I guess it could be analogous to watching say a circus (say Cirque du Soleil) presentation with a story and a presentation without a story -- one with just actors doing impressive stunts, the other with a narrative, clothings, a coherent aesthetic, but still centered on doing impressive stunts, movements, etc. The story-free might be interesting, some would feel there is something missing (I would), the stunts themselves not as remarkable as they could be. There is always a story and an aesthetic -- if you chose to tell no story, you'll simply be clinging to the aesthetic of modern hospitals (with innocuous minimalist environments), hospital or casual clothing, etc. It just may not be sufficiently captivating, at least not for everyone. At least it's worth research and experimentation instead of dismissal as "unscientific" or "woo woo". To give other examples, imagine hospital clowns (hired for kids) without clown clothes or being identified as 'clowns', but rather 'entertainment therapists'. Possibly lame, just not the same.

gnramires 7y ago

I guess it could be analogous to watching say a circus (say Cirque du Soleil) presentation with a story and a presentation without a story -- one with just actors doing impressive stunts, the other with a narrative, clothings, a coherent aesthetic, but still centered on doing impressive stunts, movements, etc. The story-free might be interesting, some would feel there is something missing (I would), the stunts themselves not as remarkable as they could be. There is always a story and an aesthetic -- if you chose to tell no story, you'll simply be clinging to the aesthetic of modern hospitals (with innocuous minimalist environments), hospital or casual clothing, etc. It just may not be sufficiently captivating, at least not for everyone. At least it's worth research and experimentation instead of dismissal as "unscientific" or "woo woo". To give other examples, imagine hospital clowns (hired for kids) without clown clothes or being identified as 'clowns', but rather 'entertainment therapists'. Possibly lame, just not the same.