Hypnosis: had any experience of it?

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do you define a "mild" hallucination?

You cherry picked one study and then broadly concluded that's the only hallucination that could be induced. They used the color change as an objective measure. Nothing in the study suggested more elaborate hallucinations could not be induced.

And as for stage hypnosis, seems to me people are relying on Penn and Teller as evidence stage hypnosis is bogus. Did they do a scientific study?

You cannot argue, however, that the current science validates your perception of that experience. It simply does not. And given what we know about stage hypnosis, it is far more likely that you were simply fooled by a good performance.

I can and I did.

Given you weren't there, you cannot support your conclusion my friend was faking it when she freaked out. She freaked out. It wasn't fake. I'm not surprised people in the thread want to dismiss that. But she did. There are zero reasons to think that might have been an act.

What the evidence I posted supports is the conclusion that there is an objectively identifiable hypnotic state.

And it supports the conclusion one can induce hallucinations when a person is hypnotized.

So, hypnosis is real, it can induce hallucinations, and my friend freaked out. I saw it with my own eyes. It's a shame more of you couldn't have seen it. I can guarantee you would see hypnosis in a different light if you had.

 

[xjx388]

How do you define a "mild" hallucination?

I call it mild because it only involves a slight perceptual change -seeing a blue square when presented with a red square. What you are describing is a more complex hallucination involving the senses of sight and proprioception. Kind of like the difference between putting on filtered glasses and having just your sense of color changed and putting on virtual reality goggles and having your whole perception change.

You cherry picked one study

No, you presented one study.

and then broadly concluded that's the only hallucination that could be induced.

I have made no such conclusion. I only said that it does not follow that more complex illusions are therefore inducible.

They used the color change as an objective measure. Nothing in the study suggested more elaborate hallucinations could not be induced.

And nothing in the study suggests they can be induced.

And as for stage hypnosis, seems to me people are relying on Penn and Teller as evidence stage hypnosis is bogus. Did they do a scientific study?

That's like asking James Randi if he did scientific studies on Uri Gellar and other "psychics." Everything you are describing is detailed in manuals of stage hypnotism. The techniques have nothing to do with actual hypnosis. As magicians, Penn and Teller know this. Thus, their skepticism is justified and the onus is on the proponents to present better evidence.

I can and I did.

OK, you can argue it but not convincingly.

Given you weren't there, you cannot support your conclusion my friend was faking it when she freaked out.

I have only concluded that it's more likely that she was faking it, giving the audience what was expected. This is the foundation of stage hypnosis. I won't dismiss the possibility that she was genuinely hypnotized but I'm not going to accept it based on a story and some unrelated scientific cites.

She freaked out. It wasn't fake. I'm not surprised people in the thread want to dismiss that. But she did. There are zero reasons to think that might have been an act.

Reason 1: She didn't want to embarrass your brother. Reason 2: She felt pressure to produce something. Reason 3: She and your brother worked together to fool you. Need I go on? These are all the kinds of things that stage hypnotism manuals talk about and manipulate in order to put on a good show.

What the evidence I posted supports is the conclusion that there is an objectively identifiable hypnotic state.

Well, it's evidence but it's not conclusive. Even if it was conclusive evidence of a hypnotic state, it is not evidence that a hypnotic state has the effects you describe.

And it supports the conclusion one can induce hallucinations when a person is hypnotized.

Very, very weakly given the n of that particular study. Even then, it does not support the conclusion that one can induce the kind of hallucinations you have described.

So, hypnosis is real, it can induce hallucinations, and my friend freaked out. I saw it with my own eyes. It's a shame more of you couldn't have seen it. I can guarantee you would see hypnosis in a different light if you had.

I've been to stage hypnosis shows. Very entertaining and convincing when done well. I do not see hypnosis in a different light. Stage hypnosis has nothing to do with actual hypnosis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
No, you presented one study.I have made no such conclusion. I only said that it does not follow that more complex illusions are therefore inducible. And nothing in the study suggests they can be induced.

I posted links to 5 different studies.

As for convincing, I don't care. I know what I saw, it wasn't a black figure in the woods or a light in the sky. It wasn't a shadow in a window or on a photographic image.

My friend freaked out, truly freaked out. All this business about faking it, you don't know the situation. You don't know Teri. I do.

Here's the thing, do you remember your friends at 14? Did you know them well enough to know who was a good actor or liar and who wasn't? Teri was not a good actor or liar. She wasn't that sophisticated.

....I've been to stage hypnosis shows. Very entertaining and convincing when done well. I do not see hypnosis in a different light. Stage hypnosis has nothing to do with actual hypnosis.

I disagree. My brother went to a stage show. He was convinced and he came home and proved it.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I've been thinking about this incident and something about it seems wrong to me. It's common enough to be afraid of heights or falling. It's common enough to become upset and be unable to function normally when perceiving heights or the possibility of falling. This is partially an adaptive reaction, because in natural environments heights and falling can be life-threatening.

But kicking is not an adaptive reaction to the danger of falling, and it's not (thankfully) a common reaction to being in a high place or in a situation where falling is likely. Screaming, sure. Freezing up, clinging, trying to crawl or lie down, perhaps shaking or sweating are the kinds of reactions one would expect. But kicking doesn't fit, unless a person is trying to gain purchase while hanging (e.g. by their arms, or being hanged by the neck). The scenario described was being on the ceiling, not hanging from it. Kicking would be the last thing you'd want to do, or would instinctively tend to do.

The implication is that Teri found the hypnotic suggestion distressing or deserving of a generically distressed response, but not because of any perceived reality of being on the ceiling looking down

She was sitting on a couch and was kicking her legs to get down. No sure what you are picturing. I would imagine a person who was standing would do something different.

Think about it, if you weren't on the ceiling looking down you would come up with all those scenarios in your mind of how you'd react. But you can't say what you would do if suddenly you actually believed you were on the ceiling.

You can imagine all the reasons you want not to believe what I say I observed. She freaked out. The kicking was a natural reaction attempting to get down.

But you weren't on the ceiling either. Why is your opinion of what a 'natural reaction' to this would be better than anyone else's?

No, that wasn't what you were saying at all. You said that myriad could not know what a natural reaction would be, and then in the same post go on to claim that you would.
The more you shift and wriggle on this, the less convincing you become. Sorry, but that's how it looks.

It's not me changing anything.

I said I recognized my friend was freaked out for real.

I didn't say I knew what a reaction to finding yourself on the ceiling would be, no one does, who else has it happened to?

Sigh...

You can't twist the argument around to change what I said. That's not how it works.

My friend is told she's on the ceiling looking down. Immediately she starts screaming and kicking her legs.

Believe what you want.

An argument that the reaction should have been something else is baseless.

Please highlight any point in this exchange where I have changed what you said.
Then you can go on to elaborating on your last point (highlighted for clarity).
Several days, and several pages on, and you have still not said on what grounds you dismiss Myriad's point. How is your view that kicking is a natural reaction, acceptable and true and Myriad's, that it is not, unacceptable and false, when they are both based on the same level of knowledge?

My belief, as I have already stated, is not relevant here, nor have I expressed any beliefs either way. Please try to stick to what I have posted, not what you think I am posting. Makes for a much more productive discussion, I find.

 

[xjx388]

I posted links to 5 different studies.

As for convincing, I don't care. I know what I saw, it wasn't a black figure in the woods or a light in the sky. It wasn't a shadow in a window or on a photographic image.

My friend freaked out, truly freaked out. All this business about faking it, you don't know the situation. You don't know Teri. I do.

You are right, of course. I'm in no position to question your recollection of the events. I believe that you believe she wasn't faking it.

What I am arguing is that it's possible that your recollections and belief are in error. After all, you can't know what was inside her head at the time.

Here's the thing, do you remember your friends at 14? Did you know them well enough to know who was a good actor or liar and who wasn't? Teri was not a good actor or liar. She wasn't that sophisticated.

Well, I'm 48 now and my recollections of when I was 14 are rather sketchy. I remember the broad strokes but specifics are suspect. But I do remember one thing: I was also 14. My perceptions of my friends were likely not very accurate.

I disagree. My brother went to a stage show. He was convinced and he came home and proved it.

So does your brother still do hypnosis? If I had been able to hypnotize a girl at that age . . . well, let's just say I don't think I could have stopped!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please highlight any point in this exchange where I have changed what you said.
Then you can go on to elaborating on your last point (highlighted for clarity).
Several days, and several pages on, and you have still not said on what grounds you dismiss Myriad's point. How is your view that kicking is a natural reaction, acceptable and true and Myriad's, that it is not, unacceptable and false, when they are both based on the same level of knowledge?

My belief, as I have already stated, is not relevant here, nor have I expressed any beliefs either way. Please try to stick to what I have posted, not what you think I am posting. Makes for a much more productive discussion, I find.

Last time:

One (me in this case) can recognize a panic reaction. The cause of the reaction is a separate issue.

Arguing it wasn't a real panic reaction because one (Myriad in this case) knows how someone would react who had a fear of heights and that wasn't it, is nonsense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are right, of course. I'm in no position to question your recollection of the events. I believe that you believe she wasn't faking it.

What I am arguing is that it's possible that your recollections and belief are in error. After all, you can't know what was inside her head at the time.

Well, I'm 48 now and my recollections of when I was 14 are rather sketchy. I remember the broad strokes but specifics are suspect. But I do remember one thing: I was also 14. My perceptions of my friends were likely not very accurate.

Dismiss away. I expect that from everyone here, which is why I haven't said anyone should believe hypnosis is real based solely on my anecdote.

I was sophisticated at 14 actually, but that's neither here nor there. Some things make an impression on you and your memory of that event is enhanced. This was one of those things.

So does your brother still do hypnosis? If I had been able to hypnotize a girl at that age . . . well, let's just say I don't think I could have stopped!

It was a passing fad.

Not everyone is into date rape, BTW. Did you also consider using rohypnol on girls?

 

[xjx388]

Dismiss away. I expect that from everyone here, which is why I haven't said anyone should believe hypnosis is real based solely on my anecdote.



I was sophisticated at 14 actually, but that's neither here nor there. Some things make an impression on you and your memory of that event is enhanced. This was one of those things.



It was a passing fad.



Not everyone is into date rape, BTW. Did you also consider using rohypnol on girls?

Oh my lord... perhaps hypnosis can help you tune up your sense of humor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh my lord... perhaps hypnosis can help you tune up your sense of humor?

Or you might consider paying attention to and being a bit more sensitive to current events.

 

[xjx388]

Or you might consider paying attention to and being a bit more sensitive to current events.

OR, maybe you could acknowledge the point behind the joke? If hypnotism was as easy and effective as you make it out to be here, people would be using it for all kinds of nefarious purposes. Or even not-so-nefarious purposes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You want me to laugh at your non-funny joke?

From my POV: You should just apologize for it.

 

[EHocking]

I've been thinking about hypnosis since arguing in another thread about Sirhan Sirhan.

Here are my questions about hypnosis:

If it works, why has it not been used to end crime?

If it works why do people still smoke, drink to excess, or abuse drugs?

If it works, why are there still fat people, and people with eating disorders?

I understand the power of suggestion; I was a salesman for 12 years. I understand that people who willingly buy into a belief system will see a world filled with incidents which support this belief system (UFO's, Bigfoot, ghosts, angels, etc). The idea that people can be reprogrammed without their consent doesn't wash with me.

Belief in its efficacy does look like many woo beliefs, and in many ways believers have an emotional investment in their belief.
I no longer correct my niece when she blathers on about how affective acupuncture is for her back problems (constant treatments over 10 years anyone?). The emotional investment in their particular belief often prevents them admitting that they may be incorrect or admit to confirmation bias.
I have a very intelligent brother in law who rejects the moon landing - and there is no talking to him.
It is a belief in fantasy as deeply rooted as any religious belief.
Any evidence or argument presented that questions their belief is rejected out of hand.

Some times it is just not worth the effort of the discussion (unless, of course, you enjoy poking idjits).

 

[xjx388]

You want me to laugh at your non-funny joke?

From my POV: You should just apologize for it.

I don’t care if you laugh or not. But from my POV, that’s a big point you are hand waving away with your offense at a harmless joke. Hypnosis doesn’t work that way so no ladies are in danger from my mesmerist advances. Now, maybe if I got my jollies from making women see all squares as blue....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Belief in its efficacy does look like many woo beliefs, and in many ways believers have an emotional investment in their belief.
I no longer correct my niece when she blathers on about how affective acupuncture is for her back problems (constant treatments over 10 years anyone?). The emotional investment in their particular belief often prevents them admitting that they may be incorrect or admit to confirmation bias.
I have a very intelligent brother in law who rejects the moon landing - and there is no talking to him.
It is a belief in fantasy as deeply rooted as any religious belief.
Any evidence or argument presented that questions their belief is rejected out of hand.

Some times it is just not worth the effort of the discussion (unless, of course, you enjoy poking idjits).

Efficacy is a whole other debate and one in which I'm on the: evidence is not established side.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don’t care if you laugh or not. But from my POV, that’s a big point you are hand waving away with your offense at a harmless joke. Hypnosis doesn’t work that way so no ladies are in danger from my mesmerist advances. Now, maybe if I got my jollies from making women see all squares as blue....

And this has to do with your rape culture joke I didn't find funny, how?

Sorry, I'm not following you.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Please highlight any point in this exchange where I have changed what you said.
Then you can go on to elaborating on your last point (highlighted for clarity).
Several days, and several pages on, and you have still not said on what grounds you dismiss Myriad's point. How is your view that kicking is a natural reaction, acceptable and true and Myriad's, that it is not, unacceptable and false, when they are both based on the same level of knowledge?

My belief, as I have already stated, is not relevant here, nor have I expressed any beliefs either way. Please try to stick to what I have posted, not what you think I am posting. Makes for a much more productive discussion, I find.

Last time:

One (me in this case) can recognize a panic reaction. The cause of the reaction is a separate issue.

Arguing it wasn't a real panic reaction because one (Myriad in this case) knows how someone would react who had a fear of heights and that wasn't it, is nonsense.

Truly unbecoming dishonesty.

Is your silence on my first point a tacit admission that I have not changed one word of what you wrote, or were you just hoping no-one would notice?

Then you go on to change your claim again, again presumably hoping no-one would notice.
The point we are discussing, which I am quite sure you are aware of, is not that there was a reaction, but specifically what that reaction was. You claimed to know what that reaction would be, but you have still not explained how you can know that, given your own parameters on this, and you still have not proceeded beyond a brusque, handwaving dismissal of anyone else's knowledge of what that reaction would be.

Is it something about having the word 'skeptic' in the membership name that makes people adopt woo-merchant tactics? Reliance on anecdote, a stubborn refusal to consider alternative explanations, selective quotations of cherry-picked studies, and a general shiftiness and avoidance of difficult questions.

Skeptic Ginger: Congratulations. Your use of the aforementioned tactics, has caused me to abandon my neutrality in this matter. Consider me one of the anti's. You might want to consider revising your debating strategies in the future.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Truly unbecoming dishonesty.

Is your silence on my first point a tacit admission that I have not changed one word of what you wrote, or were you just hoping no-one would notice?

Then you go on to change your claim again, again presumably hoping no-one would notice.
The point we are discussing, which I am quite sure you are aware of, is not that there was a reaction, but specifically what that reaction was. You claimed to know what that reaction would be, but you have still not explained how you can know that, given your own parameters on this, and you still have not proceeded beyond a brusque, handwaving dismissal of anyone else's knowledge of what that reaction would be.

Is it something about having the word 'skeptic' in the membership name that makes people adopt woo-merchant tactics? Reliance on anecdote, a stubborn refusal to consider alternative explanations, selective quotations of cherry-picked studies, and a general shiftiness and avoidance of difficult questions.

Skeptic Ginger: Congratulations. Your use of the aforementioned tactics, has caused me to abandon my neutrality in this matter. Consider me one of the anti's. You might want to consider revising your debating strategies in the future.

 

[xjx388]

And this has to do with your rape culture joke I didn't find funny, how?



Sorry, I'm not following you.

I can make it clearer: my joke was predicated on the idea that if hypnosis worked as easily as you describe, so easy that a kid went to a show and figured it out well enough to hypnotize a young teenager -well, male kids (and adults for that matter) would surely be using it to “seduce” young ladies. But it doesn’t work so there is no danger to young ladies.

Which, I find, is much funnier than my meager joke -that you take so much offense to an impossible and imaginary scenario and that your offense is rooted in your belief that hypnosis like you describe is real.

Either that or you are feigning offense as a smokescreen to avoid having to admit, “Ok, it’s possible she wasn’t hypnotized.”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Either that or you are feigning offense as a smokescreen to avoid having to admit, “Ok, it’s possible she wasn’t hypnotized.”

I was about to ignore this drifting off-topic post until you added this.



Both of you guys are using a bizarre but all too common arguing tactic. We need a new fallacy: argument by goading.

 

[xjx388]

I was about to ignore this drifting off-topic post until you added this.



Both of you guys are using a bizarre but all too common arguing tactic. We need a new fallacy: argument by goading.

While we are at it, we should add: argument by emoji.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk