3 students die after principal hypnotizes them

[Olowkow]

You have to be a licensed “Practitioner of the healing arts” in Florida to be allowed to practice hypnotism.

“Practitioner of the healing arts” shall mean a person licensed under the laws of the state to practice medicine, surgery, psychiatry, dentistry, osteopathic medicine, chiropractic medicine, naturopathy, podiatric medicine, chiropody, psychology, clinical social work, marriage and family therapy , mental health counseling, or optometry within the scope of his or her professional training and competence and within the purview of the statutes applicable to his or her respective profession, and who may refer a patient for treatment by a qualified person, who shall employ hypnotic techniques under the supervision, direction, prescription, and responsibility of such referring practitioner.

http://www.hypnotherapistsunion.org/statelaws

The majority of the United States exert little or no direct regulation over the practice of Hypnosis or Hypnotherapy, although other laws generally affecting the operation of any business will usually apply (e.g. truth in advertising, unfair business practices, etc.).

Colorado, Connecticut, and Washington are states that require mandatory licensure or registration.
California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Texas and Utah do not have mandatory registration, but do lay out specific regulations for the practice of hypnotism and guidelines for licensure exemption.

 

[Delvo]

Do all the test subjects believe in hypnosis?

Does whether they did or didn't affect your conclusions? The result seems the same to me: that some subjects showed certain changes in brain activity after conventional techniques to "hypnotize" them were applied. That means those changes in brain activity are "hypnosis" (although it leaves open the question of precisely what that does and doesn't entail). The point that they might have already thought it was real doesn't seem to do anything but slightly refine the definition of "some subjects". It doesn't make the observed effect any bigger or smaller than it was.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Why not?" - again, the creed often evoked by woos. Is it possible that there's a completely coincidental correlation between skepticism of hypnotism and an inability to be hypnotized? Yes. I consider it an extraordinary proposition though. It brings up other questions - for instance, if I were to be convinced that hypnotism is genuine, would that shift in belief physically change my brain in the ways necessary to allow me to be hypnotized?

Logic fail:
Because woos make stupid claims about individual differences between people that ignore research with matched controls
All claims of individual differences between brains (or bodies) must be woo.

Of all the things being argued here, being unable to believe there could be individual differences between brains is one of the most astonishing.

 

[Checkmite]

Logic fail:
Because woos make stupid claims about individual differences between people that ignore research with matched controls
All claims of individual differences between brains (or bodies) must be woo.

Of all the things being argued here, being unable to believe there could be individual differences between brains is one of the most astonishing.

You're deliberately misrepresenting my position - which isn't skeptical of the general idea of individual differences between brains, but rather is skeptical about this specific alleged difference - due muchly to the convenient coincidence that people who don't believe in hypnosis happen to have it. It would be interesting if evidence could be found that one's position on an individual question of fact could be correlated with a certain, physical brain attribute like this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Could be that it's more of a consent issue like you suggest. I should look up the law on hypnosis in Florida.

It turns out that there are several trivially simple techniques for determining the depth of a trance, and it is quite easy to tell if someone is "faking it". I posted quite extensively on my experience with hypnosis several years ago on a JREF thread, and I was astonished at how many people were so upset and who really wanted to believe that hypnosis was not real.

It's an interesting phenomena but also explicable the same way our brains are designed to see causality when all there is is correlation or association.

There is a lot of evidence that demonstrates confirmation bias is quite ubiquitous in our everyday thinking. In order to guard against it you have to be looking for it. And an older conclusion (hypnotism is bunk) is always harder to undo than were one to first learn about hypnotism today.

I was amazed when doctors took so long to recognize H-pylori, and not excessive acid production, was the cause of gastric ulcers. And the first trials of topical acyclovir failed so when it was shown that oral acyclovir was effective, there was resistance to accepting the evidence.

That's all that's going on here. But it's still interesting to watch when an awful lot of very good clinical research is ignored in favor of confirmation bias that because there wasn't good evidence a decade ago there must not be any today.

I have tried to be hypnotized many times, and I cannot do it for some reason. Part of the reason is that I am paying too much attention to the technique being used by the operator.

For me, I can't reach a relaxed state. And I'm too untrusting to let someone else influence my thinking like that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're deliberately misrepresenting my position - which isn't skeptical of the general idea of individual differences between brains, but rather is skeptical about this specific alleged difference - due muchly to the convenient coincidence that people who don't believe in hypnosis happen to have it. It would be interesting if evidence could be found that one's position on an individual question of fact could be correlated with a certain, physical brain attribute like this.

You're deliberately refusing to consider the evidence.

There is evidence, I look for it again. When I was posting citations one that I didn't post found some particular eye movements that correlated with how susceptible people were to hypnosis.

 

[Olowkow]

Do all the test subjects believe in hypnosis?

Being a good subject for hypnosis has nothing to do with whether a person "believes in" hypnosis, in my experience. Lots of people bragged or joked that "you'll never hypnotize me." I got to the point where I was fairly good at evaluating whether I could hypnotize someone easily. It had more to do with a kind of rapport that I felt with the person, like I had their attention, and I felt that outgoing personalities were much better subjects than introverted types.

 

[p0lka]

Really? You're going to hand wave neurological evidence away rather than consider you might be operating on outdated knowledge?

I don't care about any sort of evidence if it comes from a biased sample.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I found it but unfortunately it was from 1969 and it doesn't look like it panned out because the more current work on hypnotic susceptibility are personality inventories.

HYPNOTIZABILITY, LATERALITY OF EYE-MOVEMENTS AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN ASYMMETRY
It's copy protected or it's a scan and not text. You'll have to read it from the link.

There are two major tools for measuring hypnotic susceptibility, it looks like they are personality inventories. From Wiki

Hypnotic susceptibility measures how easily a person can be hypnotized. Several types of scales are used; however, the most common are the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales.

Bottom line, there is no reason to conclude because there is a variability in hypnosis susceptibility that is evidence hypnosis isn't real.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't care about any sort of evidence if it comes from a biased sample.

Is this supposed to mean you looked at the links I posted and confirmed there were flaws in methodology of each and every one?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Being a good subject for hypnosis has nothing to do with whether a person "believes in" hypnosis, in my experience. Lots of people bragged or joked that "you'll never hypnotize me." I got to the point where I was fairly good at evaluating whether I could hypnotize someone easily. It had more to do with a kind of rapport that I felt with the person, like I had their attention, and I felt that outgoing personalities were much better subjects than introverted types.

This is along the same lines as the Stanford and Harvard tools.

Here's the Stanford procedure for testing a person's susceptibility to hypnosis and it mirrors what you said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a LiveScience discussion of the eye movement in a hypnotic state used to document hypnotized persons are indeed in a trance. I linked to the abstract upstream.

It's clear people can be hypnotized, but it's not clear how this happens. New research offers a clue.

By recording the eye movements of a hypnotized woman, and comparing them with those of nonhypnotized people, researchers say they have found evidence that hypnosis involves a special mental state, fundamentally different from normal consciousness.

 

[Checkmite]

You're deliberately refusing to consider the evidence.

There is evidence, I look for it again. When I was posting citations one that I didn't post found some particular eye movements that correlated with how susceptible people were to hypnosis.

I have already explained my problem with the disparate evidence you have mentioned:

1. No standardized clinical definition of "hypnosis" or "hypnotic state" shared by all researchers in all experiments.
2. No standardized procedure for inducing this state.
3. No standardized procedure for ascertaining whether a patient is or is not in this state.

To this I will now add:

4. No blindness on the part of researchers or participating patients.

 

[Olowkow]

This is along the same lines as the Stanford and Harvard tools.

Here's the Stanford procedure for testing a person's susceptibility to hypnosis and it mirrors what you said.

Pretty standard stuff. Everyone has his own technique based on these ideas.

They mention the suggested arm rigidity and inability to bend it as a test, but of course that could be easily faked by the subject. What I would do was to suggest the outstretched arm was rigid, try the bending test, and then just lightly press down on the back of the hand and release. When released, the arm angle should stay very close to the same position, if the subject is in a hypnotic state. For someone just trying to comply, or faking it, the arm will jump up, a result of consciously counteracting the downward force, when pressure is released on the back of the hand.

If you take a person's arm and extend it, most people in a waking state will generally leave it outstretched when you release it. A deeply hypnotized individual will just let the arm slump to his side unless otherwise told what to do with it. Of course, having this knowledge would enable a person to "fake it" though. My pain test was to press on the cuticle of the middle finger with my thumbnail. If the hand was anesthetized hypnotically, there would be no pain. If not, the subject would react with instant pain. It hurts, but leaves no marks and no risk of infection as with the needle through the flesh between the thumb and index finger.

 

[Hungry81]

Being a good subject for hypnosis has nothing to do with whether a person "believes in" hypnosis, in my experience. Lots of people bragged or joked that "you'll never hypnotize me." I got to the point where I was fairly good at evaluating whether I could hypnotize someone easily. It had more to do with a kind of rapport that I felt with the person, like I had their attention, and I felt that outgoing personalities were much better subjects than introverted types.

If hypnosis actually works it shouldn't matter if someone is introverted or extraverted. Infact if true it just confirms that extraverts are more willing to do things for entertainment that result in more public attention. Big suprise there.

I also find it interesting that the two advocates for hypnotisim both say that they aren't susceptable to and cant be or haven't been hypnotised.

Face it if hypnotisim worked the way Skeptic Ginger says it does it would be alot more prominant in society.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have already explained my problem with the disparate evidence you have mentioned:

1. No standardized clinical definition of "hypnosis" or "hypnotic state" shared by all researchers in all experiments.
2. No standardized procedure for inducing this state.
3. No standardized procedure for ascertaining whether a patient is or is not in this state.

To this I will now add:

4. No blindness on the part of researchers or participating patients.

#s 1,2, & 3: you are wrong and it shows you didn't look at the citations I posted.

re 4: And you know this how? Did you just suppose it was true? Did you look at the brain scan research? The eye movement research? Did you inquire as to the methodology used?

Here's what I think. Those are old critiques about older research and you've not bothered to see if anything's changed because: confirmation bias is so much easier.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If hypnosis actually works it shouldn't matter if someone is introverted or extraverted. Infact if true it just confirms that extraverts are more willing to do things for entertainment that result in more public attention. Big suprise there.

I also find it interesting that the two advocates for hypnotisim both say that they aren't susceptable to and cant be or haven't been hypnotised.

Face it if hypnotisim worked the way Skeptic Ginger says it does it would be alot more prominant in society.

You're making the same fallacious argument Checkmite was using: 'Since I can't figure out how it works on some people but not on others, it must not work.'

As for prominence? Good grief it's commonly used. And it's uses are being researched in both psychiatric and pain control fields.

 

[mgidm86]

He was found guilty. The article mentions it ever-so-briefly, but he was apparently earlier found guilty of "practicing hypnosis without a license", which evidently is against the law in this place, and was sentenced to a year's probation or thereabouts.

Sorry, I should have said he wasn't found to be responsible for the death of these students. In other words, a court of law did not rule that hypnotism caused (or can cause) these acts. If they had, I wonder what kind of precedent that would have set.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Wow. You know this is nonsense.

What is a "valid observer"? If it is easier, you can tell me what an "invalid observer" is.

And you can't just shift the burden of proof. You are the one that made the extraordinary claim; Scrut challenged your claim. You know how this works...

How dare you question the evidence? She saw it with her own eyes and there is no way anyone could have faked being hypnotized.

Seriously, what has happened to skepticism when we can't just accept the version of an unknown "eyewitness"?

 

[Cain]

Tried reading this thread, but I'm getting sleepy...