Psychonetics sounds a lot like something that rationalists would be into or at least know about
To me it sounds like one of those made-up words, like “psychotronics” or “quantum mind”. The fact that someone invented a word is not a sufficient reason to take it seriously.
You are apparently interested in it, and yet you have no idea what it is about. I have skimmed the page you linked, and I also have no idea. Unless someone says otherwise, for me this is sufficient evidence that we should probably ignore it.
I actually initially wrote off psychonetics because of its woo sounding name. However upon skimming the thing which I linked, I noticed two things that made me suspect that psychonetics might be worth taking seriously:
First, the safety rules and in particular, discouraging religious or spiritual interpretation and encouraging you to stop doing it if you start feeling “an otherworldly presence” or feeling as though you have magical powers and seek out a psychiatrist. Second, the purported benefits are limited in scope. It does not claim to solve all of your physical or mental problems, but only to efficiently process lots of information.
After reading the linked website in more detail, I continue to think it’s worth taking seriously.
Psychonetics still sounds somewhat woo-ish but not in a way optimized for book sales or anything else I can think of, besides being true. At worst, I think I would be unable to tell between a world where psychonetics worked and a world where it didn’t, just because it doesn’t activate a lot of the woo red flags, and there’s no experiments I can find confirming whether psychonetics works one way or another. This is what I’d think a $100 dollar on the sidewalk that no one has picked up would look like.
To me it sounds like one of those made-up words, like “psychotronics” or “quantum mind”. The fact that someone invented a word is not a sufficient reason to take it seriously.
You are apparently interested in it, and yet you have no idea what it is about. I have skimmed the page you linked, and I also have no idea. Unless someone says otherwise, for me this is sufficient evidence that we should probably ignore it.
I actually initially wrote off psychonetics because of its woo sounding name. However upon skimming the thing which I linked, I noticed two things that made me suspect that psychonetics might be worth taking seriously:
First, the safety rules and in particular, discouraging religious or spiritual interpretation and encouraging you to stop doing it if you start feeling “an otherworldly presence” or feeling as though you have magical powers and seek out a psychiatrist. Second, the purported benefits are limited in scope. It does not claim to solve all of your physical or mental problems, but only to efficiently process lots of information.
After reading the linked website in more detail, I continue to think it’s worth taking seriously.
Psychonetics still sounds somewhat woo-ish but not in a way optimized for book sales or anything else I can think of, besides being true. At worst, I think I would be unable to tell between a world where psychonetics worked and a world where it didn’t, just because it doesn’t activate a lot of the woo red flags, and there’s no experiments I can find confirming whether psychonetics works one way or another. This is what I’d think a $100 dollar on the sidewalk that no one has picked up would look like.