3 students die after principal hypnotizes them

[Delvo]

The second part of your argument...

It wasn't an argument, at least not to argue directly by itself that hypnosis is real. It was an example of my answer to the question of whether believing that a particular state of mind exists can affect one's ability to enter that state: "it can, and here's an example in which it does". By itself, this still leaves out other possible arguments for and against the idea of hypnosis, but it does answer the specific one it was meant to answer: it counters the specific reasoning that an altered state of mind can't be real just because of the correlation between ability to enter it and belief that it exists, by illustrating that there's nothing inherently wrong with such a correlation.

...sounds almost like lucid dreaming, or a mild form of sleep paralysis. Both of which are not hypnotisim.

It actually doesn't involve either dreaming or any form of paralysis, but, more importantly, the difference between it and hypnosis is only relevant if there's some reason why the two states of mind should have different answers to the question I was answering. In other words, some had said that a correlation between "belief that a particular altered state of mind exists" and "ability to enter that state of mind" works as an argument against the existence of that state of mind... but, given that that argument does not work in one case (the one I described), which means it can't be presumed to work in general (for all other kinds of state of mind) why should it work in another case (hypnosis)?

The first part of your argument is the same as those no touch "qi masters" who wave their hands around at their students while the flip around and fall over. Some of those also claim that belief in their qi is essential to it working.

That detail is not what falsifies their presentation of qi. There are other ways to falsify their presentation of qi in general, but that one particular statement isn't among them; considered by itself, a statement like "it works only/best on those who think it can" could be true or it could be false. It can be counted as either true or false in specific cases only in light of other evidence or reasoning related to those specific cases, not from anything inherently internallly self-evident or self-refuting about itself. I'm sure you have such evidence/reasoning against it in the case of qi, but you have given none here in the case of hypnotism.

Also, the facts that statement X is made by someone who also made statement Y, and that Y was false, do not make X false (argumentum ad hominem). And even if X were false, that wouldn't mean that some other statement made by some other person on some other subject must also be false just because of some vague superficial alleged resemblance between the two statements. So you're combining ad hominem (at the qi-guy) with guilt by imaginary association (from the qi-guy to me), building one type of invalid attack on top of another on top of another.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "physical" or why you figure it's necessary, but, skipping around that word, yes, believing that a particular altered mental state can really exist and can be entered voluntarily under certain circumstances does, in fact, increase one's odds of being able to do so... It's pretty obvious, really: of course you couldn't alter your own mental state if you didn't think you could. The concept of putting your mind in a state you don't believe exists doesn't even make any sense. It would be essentially trying to tell yourself to agree with an idea you don't agree with.

all I get out of this is you have a third undefined state which has nothing to do with hypnosis.

The issue had been raised, of whether belief that an altered mental state was a real thing could affect someone's ability to enter that state. I answered that it could and illustrated with an example. Your response was to pretend to be completely unfamiliar with either the idea of answering questions with examples, or the use of analogies... while trying to insult me into submission... instead of addressing the actual subject. This is a very common type of behavior for people who have realized that they have no case they can make in support of a position they've taken.

 

[Checkmite]

It wasn't an argument, at least not to argue directly by itself that hypnosis is real. It was an example of my answer to the question of whether believing that a particular state of mind exists can affect one's ability to enter that state: "it can, and here's an example in which it does". By itself, this still leaves out other possible arguments for and against the idea of hypnosis, but it does answer the specific one it was meant to answer: it counters the specific reasoning that an altered state of mind can't be real just because of the correlation between ability to enter it and belief that it exists, by illustrating that there's nothing inherently wrong with such a correlation.

Actually, it doesn't. Or, it does so very poorly. You've stated that coming to believe this state you reference exists, allowed you to "study" it to an extent, and practice exercising some will over when and how you enter it. But by your own admission, the first time you noticed yourself having entered this state, was prior to you actually coming to recognize it as a "state". You call it an "accident" and imply that it happened at least a few times before you were confident you knew what was going on. In other words, you did not have to believe in this state in order to experience it; it's something that is quite capable of happening without any conscious input from you, although armed with knowledge you can now experiment with more control.

Sleep proper is very similar to this. Young children do not "believe in" sleep; it simply happens to them, whenever and wherever it will. As they grow, children are inculcated with an understanding of its point and purpose, and are conditioned to expect sleep at certain times of day and in certain places - in other words, much like you, as they learn more they are able to experiment with more control. But even if they don't learn or don't care enough to experiment, the sleep still happens.

Unlike sleep, hypnosis allegedly must be induced; and unlike sleep, the person must have not only an a priori belief that hypnosis is or might be a real thing - they must be actively willing to participate in the "induction" process. Otherwise, all the "you're getting very sleeeeepy" droning has no effect whatsoever. Continuing the comparison - a person can use chemical or physical interventions to prevent sleep to a point (and suffer for it), but sheer force of will isn't enough on its own to prevent sleep from eventually overtaking you. Contrarily, if you don't believe in hypnosis, it simply doesn't exist for you. It doesn't even take an active "force of will" to resist an induction - it just does not work.

 

[stanfr]

Actually, it doesn't. Or, it does so very poorly. You've stated that coming to believe this state you reference exists, allowed you to "study" it to an extent, and practice exercising some will over when and how you enter it. But by your own admission, the first time you noticed yourself having entered this state, was prior to you actually coming to recognize it as a "state". You call it an "accident" and imply that it happened at least a few times before you were confident you knew what was going on. In other words, you did not have to believe in this state in order to experience it; it's something that is quite capable of happening without any conscious input from you, although armed with knowledge you can now experiment with more control.

Sleep proper is very similar to this. Young children do not "believe in" sleep; it simply happens to them, whenever and wherever it will. As they grow, children are inculcated with an understanding of its point and purpose, and are conditioned to expect sleep at certain times of day and in certain places - in other words, much like you, as they learn more they are able to experiment with more control. But even if they don't learn or don't care enough to experiment, the sleep still happens.

Unlike sleep, hypnosis allegedly must be induced; and unlike sleep, the person must have not only an a priori belief that hypnosis is or might be a real thing - they must be actively willing to participate in the "induction" process. Otherwise, all the "you're getting very sleeeeepy" droning has no effect whatsoever. Continuing the comparison - a person can use chemical or physical interventions to prevent sleep to a point (and suffer for it), but sheer force of will isn't enough on its own to prevent sleep from eventually overtaking you. Contrarily, if you don't believe in hypnosis, it simply doesn't exist for you. It doesn't even take an active "force of will" to resist an induction - it just does not work.

Interestingly, like some of the others here, thus far no one has successfully hypnotized me, but I used to dabble in self-hypnosis and I certainly am convinced it is a 'real' state. From what I have observed there definitely is a wide range of susceptibility to being hypnotized. From my perspective, I suspect my inability to be hypnotized by someone else (thus far) comes from the fact that I do not like relinquishing control to anyone else, and so I will be reluctant to follow the instructions of another--but when I do it myself, don't have that problem. And I would distinguish it from a meditative state, although there probably are some similarities. Have you ever witnessed a good stage hypnotist in action? Just curious...

 

[Jules Galen]

My next door neighbor hypnotized my late brother - convinced him he was a dog. Every day when my little brother would get home from school, he'd open a can of Dog food and chow down - he wouldn't eat anything else although there were several brands of dog food he liked. Eventually, this believing he was a dog killed him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where is the current research that suggests being hypnotized leads to suicide?

Why are you asking me, I'm not on that side of this argument. I'm only saying hypnosis is a real phenomena. And for that, I've posted a half dozen citations that looked at objective evidence of the hypnotic state.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptic Ginger, have you ever used the powerful tool of hypnosis to make you a better person and if your answer is no why not?

Again, you are not looking at what I've said.

First, it was my brother that hypnotized people, not me.

Second I only said the research now supported the conclusion the hypnotic state is a real phenomena. Hypnotized people are not faking it.

Third, the fact hypnosis is real is a separate question from whether there is any therapeutic uses for hypnosis.

There is promising research in areas of pain control. I'm not familiar with the current research in using hypnosis in the psychiatric field. But mostly the research into the therapeutic benefits of hypnosis are only in their early stages.

And it's been refuted that one can recover lost memories with hypnosis. If such memories can be recalled they are too muddled with false memories to be of any use.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am working my way through those links you provided; so far, they are not terribly impressive, but we'll see.

Nevertheless, the argument wasn't whether or not hypnotism is real (though I do doubt it) -- the argument was over your characterization of your observation as "evidence."

Well that's your problem, not mine. You're on the wrong side of the argument.

First, if you dismiss all anecdotal evidence because you've learned that knee-jerk misconception, you're starting off with a handicap. Anecdotes are no more than observations and lots of, if not most, research involves observations.

The problem comes when anecdotes are the only evidence, especially when there is contradictory evidence and other more valid explanations for the conclusion one is drawing from the anecdote.

In this case, 'faking it' is not a better explanation. And there is other evidence that the hypnotic state is real.

As for, "not terribly impressive", that's your confirmation bias. You really should check that. Again, because you are on the wrong side of the argument.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You observed behaviors X, Y and Z. You are concluding that these behaviors indicate that hypnosis is real.

I once saw someone overcome with the spirit of the lord in an Appalachian church. So I guess we now have evidence that god is real and spends his time possessing random idiots?

Your analogy fails. We have better explanations for people acting out religious trances. I'm not aware there is any valid empirical evidence for a religious trance.

And just as hypnosis being real doesn't mean all the claims about what hypnosis can do are real, a religious trance is not evidence that gods exist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The degree of realness of hypnosis is one thing. "I know hypnosis is real because why would my teenage brother misrepresent something" is a very very nother. ... "I think hypnosis is real because I saw this thing my teenage brother did and he didn't fake it; why would he fake it" on the other hand has got to be very nearly the most ridiculous thing one can say on a skeptic discussion board.

The fact you have to build a straw man instead of addressing what I posted suggests your arguments are flawed.

 

[marplots]

My next door neighbor hypnotized my late brother - convinced him he was a dog. Every day when my little brother would get home from school, he'd open a can of Dog food and chow down - he wouldn't eat anything else although there were several brands of dog food he liked. Eventually, this believing he was a dog killed him.

Something similar happened to my dog. Developed a taste for pizza and chocolate. Damn hypnosis. The Devil's tool.

 

[Jules Galen]

Something similar happened to my dog. Developed a taste for pizza and chocolate. Damn hypnosis. The Devil's tool.

Wow! Did he die? If so, what exactly killed him?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

^This.

Straw men of course, make great subjects to argue against.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh yeah, well you find yourself on the side of Skeptic Ginger and Yeggster then. Good luck with that.

But he was exactly right in regards to what I was saying. (I still don't know what Yeggster is talking about.)

Hypnosis and the therapeutic benefits of hypnosis are two different things.
And the religious analogy had a huge fail since no one is saying the fact hypnosis is real means gods exist, anymore than it would be evidence of gods if religious trances turned out to be akin to hypnotic trances.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hypnotism isn't magic. It's self-induced receptiveness to suggestions. There's no way the hypnotism caused these deaths.

Again, why are you quoting my post? I'm not arguing the suicides had anything to do with the sessions with the teacher.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

i.e. Being willing to follow instructions. Amazingly, I can do this without needing an altered mental state.

Such a basic logical fallacy, I'm surprised you would make such a mistake.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Amazing Kreskin has come out with a statement...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/amazing-kreskin-fla-trance-scandal-hypnosis-bs-article-1.2391780

Oh that's surely proof, Kreskin's opinion.

Why not look for some empirical evidence that wasn't found?

I tried, 'evidence of hypnotic state not found' and the first page of Google hits were links to studies that found empirical evidence.

 

[marplots]

Wow! Did he die? If so, what exactly killed him?

General systems failure. After a few weeks of incontinence that gradually developed into partial hindquarter paralysis, we had him put down. We suddenly realized that once he lost his mobility we weren't going to be able to care for a dog that size (Great Dane).

 

[Jules Galen]

General systems failure. After a few weeks of incontinence that gradually developed into partial hindquarter paralysis, we had him put down. We suddenly realized that once he lost his mobility we weren't going to be able to care for a dog that size (Great Dane).

Wow! Sorry to hear that. My cousin has a Great Dane (the size of a freakin' pony!) that he adores. I can't imagine how sad he'd be if he were to pass.

 

[marplots]

Oh that's surely proof, Kreskin's opinion.

Why not look for some empirical evidence that wasn't found?

I tried, 'evidence of hypnotic state not found' and the first page of Google hits were links to studies that found empirical evidence.

When I click you link, I don't get "links to studies," I get links to articles about the same study. Singular. And Wiki. And an article from 1992 in Psychology Today that mentions this gem before going on to suggest hypnosis doesn't "really" exist:

" Hypnosis is used in an effort to dislodge deeply buried memories relating to past events. Therapists employ "hypnotic regression"--mentally taking a subject back in time to reexperience the past. The thinking is that hypnosis affords direct access to unconscious memories without resistance or distortion, making it an exceptionally reliable tool for exploring long-forgotten details of early childhood and a powerful investigative tool for drawing out critical details of crimes." (https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/the-trouble-hypnosis)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unlike Randi's MDC, I find Kreskin's claim BS. Has he spelled out what he would accept as evidence?

The legendary soothsayer, who has about 60 years of experience under his belt, reiterated his longstanding $100,000 offer to anyone who can scientifically prove that hypnotic trances exist.

Kreskin was sued in New Jersey court in 1986 by a hypnotist who unsuccessfully sought to demonstrate hypnosis.

"My $100,000 offer which has never been taken on since that 1986 trial, has never been taken on by either a stage hypnotist, a psychiatrist, a scientist, or ruthless lawyer, says something about my position," he said.

Here's what the supposed failed to prove hypnosis case was decided on:
Hypnosis Challenge Wasn't In Effect, Judge Rules

But the judge ruled that the challenge that Waylock had accepted from Kreskin no longer was in effect at the time she had accepted it. In August, the mentalist revoked his longstanding challenge and, in a new challenge, offered $100,000 to anyone who provided scientific proof that there is a hypnotic state.

Because Waylock could not prove she had ever accepted the $100,000 challenge, Judge J. Gilbert Van Sciver Jr. ruled in favor of Kreskin.

So who is the fraud here?

Fish (his lawyer) said. In addition, anyone accepting the challenge must also pay the mentalist's legal and court fees if the criteria are not met, Fish added.

The criteria include that the proof be made in front of scientists and that the person be given skin and brain-wave testing to show whether the subject's responses differ under hypnosis.

Since that has indeed been done, it looks to me like Kreskin's attention getting stunt is a scam. This is fascinating since I have no doubt the JREF MDC is a valid offer. If Kreskin's offer was valid, how is it his lawyer argued on a technicality in court?

More caveats to the challenge:
'Amazing Kreskin' challenges Supreme Court hypnosis ruling

Kreskin has a standing offer of $100,000 to anyone who can prove to his satisfaction that he is wrong and hypnotism is not a sham.