3 students die after principal hypnotizes them

[Checkmite]

Indiana children attacked by demons

DCS family case manager Valerie Washington also interviewed the family while they were at the hospital and said the youngest boy began growling and his eyes rolled back in his head.

Washington added in her DCS report - which was corroborated by a nurse - that the nine-year-old boy displayed a 'weird grin' and then walked backward up a wall to the ceiling.

He then flipped over his grandmother and landed on his feet, while never letting go of his grandmother's hand.

'There's no way he could've done that,' the nurse told the Star.

Washington said in a police report that she believed an 'evil influence' could be affecting the family.

And when asked if the boy had walked up the ceiling in an acrobatic maneuver, she said it was in fact a slow glide that could not have been performed naturally.

(snip)


Of the bizarre activity at her former home, Ammons said: 'When you hear something like this, don't assume it's not real because I've lived it. I know it's real.'

 

[stanfr]

Does the DSM recognize hypnosis as an altered state of consciousness? I know you believe your brother put your friend in an altered state of consciousness after seeing the stage hypnotist but doesn't it seem more likely your friend accepted a suggestion from your brother and was playing the part of someone on the ceiling? Expectation plays a large part in hypnosis as well and I suspect your friend had a strong expectation that hypnotists could put their volunteers in uncomfortable situations.

The American government did some completely unethical testing of hypnosis in the 50's called MKUltra. Hypnosis turned out to be a useless tool for nefarious purposes. If it was an altered state of consciousness the government would use it.

Are your studies reproduced and peer-reviewed and ready to settle the issue once and for all. I haven't noticed much in the news but the lawsuit over the principal's use.

I would certainly agree with the idea that SG's anecdotes aren't very probative, neither are mine, which is why SG just used it as a prelude to providing studies on the subject. But I think you're playing loose with Occam's razor here. I've seen similar episodes to what SG described, and these folks are not actors, they couldn't play that role no matter how much you paid them. And they're not even being paid in these cases! Checkmite's confabulation idea might hold merit in some cases, but not the ones that unfold in real time with numerous outside witnesses. This is not Bigfoot being sighted in NJ--you can go see someone being hypnotized tomorrow if you are really that interested.

 

[stanfr]

"That psychic knew everything about my dead sister. There's no way they could have faked that."

Poor analogy, we are talking about the dead sister here, not the psychic. We know she's dead, the carcass is available for inspection. But nice try.

 

[stanfr]

What was the question? Oh yeah, what is hypnosis if it isn't an altered state of consciousness. It is being in a heightened condition to accept suggestion. If you believe in hypnosis and someone you believe has the power to hypnotize you (even Skeptic Ginger's teenage brother)you can be hypnotized. You are playing a role in your mind -- it isn't faking, it is like marplots said it is like acupuncture. If you believe those little pins are going to help you with your health then they may indeed help you as any good placebo would. Hypnosis is the ultimate placebo, it's just suggestion without any other tools.

Excellent! Thanks for your response. I really take no issue with it. As I said, I haven't read up that thoroughly on the recent science, so I haven't formed an opinion on the exact nature of hypnosis. I might disagree with you on how to characterize it, or on degrees, but honestly the way you have described it sounds suspiciously like accepting it is an "altered state". Just as taking a placebo would put you in an "altered state" Now, I would take it a step farther and suggest that that "altered state" can affect real results--such as reducing stress which in turn could reverse or eliminate the condition the placebo was meant for--but that's an argument for another day. I just don't see the distinction in phraseology that you are trying to make out. Carry on!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Poor analogy, we are talking about the dead sister here, not the psychic. We know she's dead, the carcass is available for inspection. But nice try.

DOH!!!

 

[Senex]

I would certainly agree with the idea that SG's anecdotes aren't very probative, neither are mine, which is why SG just used it as a prelude to providing studies on the subject. But I think you're playing loose with Occam's razor here. I've seen similar episodes to what SG described, and these folks are not actors, they couldn't play that role no matter how much you paid them.

Really.

And they're not even being paid in these cases! This is not Bigfoot being sighted in NJ--you can go see someone being hypnotized tomorrow if you are really that interested.

I have performed stage hypnosis in college and have used suggestion often in mentalism routines. I have seen a number of stage hypnotists and have Ormand McGill stage hypnosis books as well as hypnotherapy books. (It was a hobby of mine at one point in my life). I know what I'm talking about.

Excellent! Thanks for your response. I really take no issue with it.

I'm glad

As I said, I haven't read up that thoroughly on the recent science,

Cutting edge hypnosis research is being done as we write no doubt.

so I haven't formed an opinion on the exact nature of hypnosis. I might disagree with you on how to characterize it, or on degrees, but honestly the way you have described it sounds suspiciously like accepting it is an "altered state".

No you can't do that. My point is just the opposite; no altered state status for hypnosis.

Just as taking a placebo would put you in an "altered state"

Aha! You admit taking a sugar pill can put you in an altered state. Your definition of an alternate state is so unchallenging as to be meaningless.

Now, I would take it a step farther and suggest that that "altered state" can affect real results--such as reducing stress which in turn could reverse or eliminate the condition the placebo was meant for--but that's an argument for another day. I just don't see the distinction in phraseology that you are trying to make out. Carry on!

Can plain talk-therapy do the same thing without the change of state of mind? Why add the alternate state concept. I guess it is an Occam's razor thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, to falsify it, I'd need to present brain imaging in controls of a specific type? Because that puts a pretty low bar on hypnosis. For example, there are several studies showing cocaine users respond (detectable on fMRI) to "cuing" related to cocaine (http://edepositireland.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/30226/Garavan AJP00.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y). Are we then justified in saying that cocaine users are operating in an "altered" state?

There needs to be a bit more of the "how is hypnosis different" in the picture, since any distinguishing feature of an fMRI could be called an altered brain state. Sure, it is, but what's the significance? We wouldn't for instance, agree that psychic powers were real, simply because practitioners showed a similar, even distinct, fMRI scan when they were receiving visions.

Here, for example, is a study using fMRI to show that religious belief can help lessen pain - does it mean I have to agree that God is real?
http://www2.southeastern.edu/Academ...eminar/evo of ritual/pain and virgin mary.pdf

This probably just spirals back down to what the definition of hypnosis is going to be.

First, the 'ergo god is real' is a totally crap analogy, I already addressed it.

Second, instead of addressing the research I posted links to, you are making up hypotheticals.

How about addressing the actual research?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are correct that I did not quote you, and that I over-summarized. The point is the same though, which is that this:



is not a useful statement.

I'll revise to remove the 'straw':

I don't much disagree with your overall conclusion wrt hypnotism and the other data you've used to form it. Just with the way you've characterized your friend's actions as strong evidence rather than anecdote. You say it's better explained by the phenomenon of hypnosis than by trickery because hypnosis is demonstrably real and your friend was not acting or faking. And you may well even be correct! However, I don't think that's an acceptable level of certainty to anyone else but you. Nor should it be.

If someone told you they watched a jet take off and fly in the sky, would you say that anecdote was insufficient to support the conclusions jets fly? No, because you know they fly, there is other evidence that jets fly. It would just be a person telling you they witnessed a jet taking off.

There is other evidence hypnotic trances are real and people in them can have induced hallucinations. I observed a person experiencing an induced hallucination and the person's actions were shocking. It was not something one would have expected had the person merely been acting out a 'suggestion'.

 

[Senex]

If someone told you they watched a jet take off and fly in the sky, would you say that anecdote was insufficient to support the conclusions jets fly? No, because you know they fly, there is other evidence that jets fly. It would just be a person telling you they witnessed a jet taking off.

This is the fallacy of equivocation. Witnessing a jet taking off and seeing your friend kicking her heels up and yelling are not the same.

There is other evidence hypnotic trances are real and people in them can have induced hallucinations. I observed a person experiencing an induced hallucination and the person's actions were shocking. It was not something one would have expected had the person merely been acting out a 'suggestion'.

It might be enlightening for you to contact your friend and ask her how she recollects the event.

 

[xjx388]

The existence of positive research into whatever a hypnotic state is or is not does not in any way validate the idea that hypnosis can cause someone to kill themselves or believe that they are on the roof.

Stage hypnotism is a well understood phenomenon (by it's practitioners if not the general public) where people are basically acting and relaxing their inhibitions willingly. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the idea that a stage hypnotist (or the principal in question or SG's brother for that matter) can induce an altered state of consciousness which renders the subject so suggestible as to actually hallucinate something or implant a suggestion which the subject is powerless to resist.

There may be scientific evidence that getting someone to relax, as is usually done in a therapeutic hypnotic session, can cause changes in brain waves similar to meditation or light sleep. But that evidence does not in any way back up claims that "my brother hypnotized my friend into thinking she was on the roof." If therapeutic hypnotism does anything it all, it relaxes the subject enough to turn off the usual filters of the mind so that they can put better attention towards addressing whatever problem they are there to address. It's not as if a therapy session involves the hypnotist saying, "you don't smoke anymore," and the subject then automatically does not smoke anymore. You would have to really want to stop smoking in the first place, which you must because that's why you are there, right?

 

[Lithrael]

If someone told you they watched a jet take off and fly in the sky, would you say that anecdote was insufficient to support the conclusions jets fly? No, because you know they fly, there is other evidence that jets fly. It would just be a person telling you they witnessed a jet taking off.

Naw man this is more like seeing the corner of a $20 tip sticking out of a server book and using that as evidence that the lady next to you that just got up from her $5 breakfast is an amazing tipper, when you can't be sure it's not one of those half-jacksons that say Jesus Loves You in the middle. Even if you think she looked like a very honest lady. Now pretend the next day the server asks you if that lady yesterday tipped, because either she didn't, or the busboy stole that tip. Would you say "yes" or would you say you saw the corner of a $20 in the book? The observation is not the conclusion. It's just plain not enough evidence to rule on when expecting a third party to trust your conclusion as a fact. Fake 20s and real 20s both exist. No matter how real hypnosis is, fake hypnosis definitely exists.

 

[marplots]

First, the 'ergo god is real' is a totally crap analogy, I already addressed it.

Second, instead of addressing the research I posted links to, you are making up hypotheticals.

How about addressing the actual research?

Why? I don't even know what you are advocating. From what I can tell, it bears no relationship to the experiment you linked to.

Here's a quote from the actual researchers about it:
"At this point, anything beyond changing color perception is pure speculation, Kosslyn and Thompson insist. However, Kosslyn refers to their study as "the thin edge of a wedge that shows that conscious experience can be changed in a willfully directed way by hypnosis."

So, when I mention other ways we willfully alter our conscious experiences, you don't find them worthy? Why not just call all such things "hypnosis" and be done with it?

Ways I willfully direct my own conscious experiences:

• Get drunk
• Listen to music
• Sing - alone or with others
• Squeeze my eyes tightly
• De-focus my eyes
• Eat a large meal
• Stay awake for a long time
• Fall in love

 

[Senex]

The existence of positive research into whatever a hypnotic state is or is not does not in any way validate the idea that hypnosis can cause someone to kill themselves or believe that they are on the roof.

Stage hypnotism is a well understood phenomenon (by it's practitioners if not the general public) where people are basically acting and relaxing their inhibitions willingly. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the idea that a stage hypnotist (or the principal in question or SG's brother for that matter) can induce an altered state of consciousness which renders the subject so suggestible as to actually hallucinate something or implant a suggestion which the subject is powerless to resist.

There may be scientific evidence that getting someone to relax, as is usually done in a therapeutic hypnotic session, can cause changes in brain waves similar to meditation or light sleep. But that evidence does not in any way back up claims that "my brother hypnotized my friend into thinking she was on the roof." If therapeutic hypnotism does anything it all, it relaxes the subject enough to turn off the usual filters of the mind so that they can put better attention towards addressing whatever problem they are there to address. It's not as if a therapy session involves the hypnotist saying, "you don't smoke anymore," and the subject then automatically does not smoke anymore. You would have to really want to stop smoking in the first place, which you must because that's why you are there, right?

I agree with everything you say but I would minimize

There may be scientific evidence that getting someone to relax, as is usually done in a therapeutic hypnotic session, can cause changes in brain waves similar to meditation or light sleep.

because there isn't even much evidence to support this small claim.