I think if we define hypnotism as something that we do that affects the belief system of others, then most of what we do when we're interacting with people on a regular basis is designed to do that.
Then there would obviously be different degrees of it. There would be the kind that is totally unconscious on our part, because we weren't consciously intending to produce any such result in the other person. Then there would be the type where we really are intending to produce some kind of result, but without using scientific methods that we had studied and learned and practiced - we're just simply engaged towards a goal with the person. And then there would be people who have actually studied hypnotism and consciously use it to produce intended results in others.
Yes, I think those two are connected. That people all have the predators mind, and that's what makes them, on the one hand, hypnotists, and on the other hand, susceptible to hypnosis. It's a combination of the selfishness and the belief-centred modes of being.
It's a really strange thing to experience. By that I mean, it's strange if you are analysing it in the moment, rather than getting lost in it. If you are detached enough to think to yourself, "Wow, this is so interesting. I look at this person and it's like the clouds have parted and a ray of light is beaming down onto them and they cause me to feel happiness when I look at them or even just think of them."
One idea is that you've seen something in that person that mirrors back some ideal image you have of yourself. When it happens to me, I usually remember the part in The Wave where Laura is talking about how something like a 'red hat' can have been associated with a pleasant mood during childhood development: So maybe it's the shape of the person's face or the colour of their hair, or just the item of clothing they're wearing.
Jordan Peterson's explanation for it is that when you see someone like that, in that way, that you're "Seeing them as the person they might ideally become." Well, I've never really bought into that idea, personally. Seems way too egocentric to me.
But what you describe above seems to be more about what goes on in yourself, and then because you probably start to change your demeanour towards the person you're viewing in that way, that starts to affect them, either making them uncomfortable or making them curious about why you're acting that way towards them.
I suppose that's certainly a way to engage them in a hypnotic dance, but it says more to me about our ability to hypnotise ourselves, so to speak. That G.'s declared aim in his work was to "Find a way to mercilessly destroy the aspect of people that causes them to easily fall under the influence of mass hypnosis." When we find ourselves in such a state when interacting with someone, we need to understand that we are allowing that to happen within ourselves. And if you experiment with it, you will find that it's like a switch that you can turn on and off. Because when it comes to hypnosis or wishful thinking, there has to be some level of consent in us; we allow ourselves to be hypnotised.
And that ties in with the whole idea about negative thought loops and 'criminally-minded' thinking patterns. For starters, at the very least, we allow ourselves to believe that the thoughts are actually ours, just because they're habitual and we've never questioned them. Then, we allow ourselves to believe the thoughts or believe the justifications that they're constructing - because said thoughts are usually getting us to believe that we'll derive some sort of benefit by acting on them.
I don't think G.'s problem was the methods and techniques he decided to use. I think his problem was the lack of a network for him to check himself against.
Don't be too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fact is, we live in a 'civilised' society. That means there are established rules and customs in place that determine how we should conduct ourselves in the presence of others: of strangers, work colleagues, friends and family.
To attempt to just 'stop' this kind of thing is a knee-jerk reaction, driven by fear or disgust. If you try to act it out, the result ends up being along the lines of, "Sincerity with everyone is weakness." It becomes a selfish thing: "I'm not going to be manipulative with people anymore, so I'm not going to engage with people in any way that might influence them subconsciously..." So then all you're bothered about is what you want, and what you want from people. And you won't go out of your way to just simply be 'fake' for the sake of being civil. You're not going to be attentive to what other people might want or need from you if you're just focusing on and fearing what you might want or need from them.
The answer is to continue going about your day as you always have (as long as you're not a jerk) but be consciously aware of what you're doing and how you're being and how you're interacting with others, knowing that you have the capacity to unconsciously affect others, but also accepting that "If you play in the dirt, you're going to get dirty", and there's much merit to 'playing the game' or 'playing a role', as long as your intentions are as good as you can possibly make them. Otherwise, you cause problems for yourself and others, you start to stand out as 'weird' or 'unconventional', and that flags you up on other people's radars as an 'other', as 'different' - not one of the tribe, not one to be trusted, like a horse stood in a herd of zebras.
