hypnosis-real science or woo?

As I understand it the Lamaze system of of breathing and focus used to control pain during child berth is a form of hypnosis itself. This method has been used with positive results for decades.
 
DouglasL said:
As I understand it the Lamaze system of of breathing and focus used to control pain during child berth is a form of hypnosis itself.
Click to expand...

That's exactly one of the problems with hypnosis--the definition. If Lamaze is hypnosis, then what about plain ol' relaxation? What about progressive relaxation or guided imagery relaxation? Is what goes on at faith healing (where someone with a painful condition feels a temporary relief in pain--probably due to a rush of endorphins and playing out a role) the same? What about what I said, regarding quitting smoking--telling all your friends about it?
 
Telling everyone that you (have/going to) quit could have the same affect, that is you quit smoking because you told everyone that you would. However in my personal case the argument is not applicable, I told no one that I was going to quit nor did I announce the fact that I had quit. One of my (more observent:D) friends took three days to notice that I was not having my usual cigar at lunch time.
 
DouglasL said:
Telling everyone that you (have/going to) quit could have the same affect, that is you quit smoking because you told everyone that you would. However in my personal case the argument is not applicable, I told no one that I was going to quit nor did I announce the fact that I had quit. One of my (more observent:D) friends took three days to notice that I was not having my usual cigar at lunch time.
Click to expand...

I know.

I'm talking about what I mentioned in one of my earlier posts on this threads. I think that telling everyone you know you have quit is probably as helpful as hypnotherapy. About all I hear with hypnotherapy are success anecdotes, but that's because few people will share their failure stories.

FWIW, I think quitting with a group or at least a buddy is useful. I did that. I quit along with a woman I had a big crush on. I don't think it was any amazing hitherto unknown capacity of the brain, but that it provided me with extra motivation and someone who would check up on me. (Literally, we'd call each other any time we had particularly rough cravings or just a bad day.) She went back to smoking after a few months, but I stayed quit. I do believe she managed to quit a year or so later.

I also think something of my competitive nature was involved.

Anyway, back to hypnosis, if all of this stuff counts, then "hypnosis" is a label for an awfully broad category. It might not even be right to call it a single category.

I'd be willing to bet that a very great number of people who call themselves hypnotherapists believe in the whole age-regression thing. Granted, this isn't the research that Robinson mentioned, but it is probably what most of "hypnotism" is (there are probably more people engaged in that than in actual research). And I suspect there's a substantial minority of them who believe in past-life regression and recovering memories of alien abduction through hypnosis. This stuff is certainly not "squarely in the domain of normal cognitive science".
 
Pyrts said:
Hypnosis is real, and a tool used by psychologists and therapists. It is something that the body does naturally, but with some behavioral programming (suggestions and reinforcement), it can help you accomplish things and control (to some extent) stimuli like pain and anxiety.
Click to expand...

Yep, just like tapping certain points on your body is a quick way to cure PTSD. Thought Feild therapy is where it is at! You just get your meridians in order and everything is so much better!
 
Okay, I had to answer this because I do perform r - rate stage hypnosis. I haven't read the article, though. I'll read that when I'm not at work. (Day job.. :-) )

Being a full-blown skeptic, I don't make any woo explainations about it. In fact, when I perform, I tell people the following right as I go on stage: (and please bare in mind, this is my experience and opinion after twenty years of doing hypnosis and studying as a hobby into making it a side business)

I tell them that hypnosis will not make you do things you don't want to do, you cannot die and there will never be a point where you "can't get out of a trance".

Hypnosis will not make your breasts grow bigger, regress you into past lives, make you predict the future and use your "psi-powers".

Here is what it is:

It's the same thing as being at the movies. You are there in a dark theatre watching an action movie, let's say. You are in a comfortable seat, with fresh air, etc. The action movie is very exciting and very well done. You are so focused on the movie, your heart is racing, your body jumps at something unexpected and your adrenline is pumping. This all happens and you almost feel the action along with the hero dispite the guy crunching his popcorn loudly two rows down. :-)

Another example would be when you have a long drive and you put on the radio. Let's say a bunch of songs you like are played right in a row. You get so into the songs, you suddenly look around and say "how'd I get here?"

Hypnosis is the same day-to-day thing. The only difference is that I, as the hypnostist, take advantage of your suggestablity during that time. My suggestions work partly because you desire it to, and mostly because you trust me.

Nothing magic. No trance states, (even though I still use the word trance during my performance, I use it just for a lack of a better word). Just pure concentration, desire and suggestions.

---even after explaining that, I still get people on stage and follow my suggestions :-)

Now in the case of losing weight or stopping smoking, it works because you want it to. If it fails, I firmly believe it's because the person hypnotized really wasn't ready to lose weight or quit smoking, etc. So your success is something you can be really proud of --- essentially, you did all by yourself! You should be proud and congratulations!

The only thing I would like to add is that hypnosis, since it happens during the time a human being is open to suggestions, it is far easier to make conditioning possible.

For instance, if I hypnotize someone to jump when they hear a bell, let's say, they'll do that for a while after the session out of pure suggestablity, but if I keep putting the person under, and reinforcing the suggestion, adding good feelings or some kind of reward, then it will work a lot longer. Yes, it iis classic conditioning, but with using hypnosis, it becomes eaiser.

Again, this all my opinion. It is based on what I've studied, learned and experienced. I try to avoid all woo in this explaination. So if you see a shred of woo, please tell me. :-)
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
I'd be willing to bet that a very great number of people who call themselves hypnotherapists believe in the whole age-regression thing.
Click to expand...


I'm "qualified" (but non-practising) both in hypnotherapy and as an Advanced Past Life Regression practitioner courtesy of an extra eight day course.

To offer a few anecdotal thoughts only as all my books, etc are in storage:

Regarding this-life regressions there did seem to be a general conviction in the reality of the memories. Although confabulation and the need to avoid leading questions/suggestions was to a degree covered, the memories were taken as at least true for the individual and if that's the memory they believe in then that's the memory to work with.

With past-lives, in my experience when training I can only say that some believed in it, some were on the fence and some of us didn't. With those that did it was pretty much in accord with already held new agey/Buddhist type beliefs. As far as I recall, none of my group became convinced through the training and direct experience. In therapeautic terms it was generally sold in terms of being a method by which the subject could deal metaphorically with issues too painful to deal with directly in relation to this life.

Personally I find the ease of innocently installing false memories in the midst of what can be a powerfully involving emotional process of imagination worrying and believe these areas generally best avoided.

For giving up smoking, etc in my experience it pretty much depends on whether the subject genuinely and emotionally wants to in the first place. If they just think they should give up or expect hypnosis to do all the work for them then it ain't gonna happen.

I pretty much agree with what's been said. It's all just a method of creating and playing on expectation and belief. There's a good reason why many stage performers consider the pre-induction speech to be the most important element in their show.
 
Last edited:
JFrankA said:
...this all my opinion. It is based on what I've studied, learned and experienced. I try to avoid all woo in this explaination. So if you see a shred of woo, please tell me. :-)
Click to expand...

That (the movie thing in particular) was the best explanation I've ever seen, thanks very much.
 
JonWhite said:
I'm "qualified" (but non-practising) both in hypnotherapy and as an Advanced Past Life Regression practitioner courtesy of an extra eight day course.
Click to expand...
Just curious--what did it take to be certified (or whatever) in hypnotherapy in general?

The research does seem to indicate that the difference between a qualified hypnotist and a person just reading a script is way less important than the hypnotizability of the subject.

Regarding this-life regressions there did seem to be a general conviction in the reality of the memories. Although confabulation and the need to avoid leading questions/suggestions was to a degree covered, the memories were taken as at least true for the individual and if that's the memory they believe in then that's the memory to work with.

<snip>

Personally I find the ease of innocently installing false memories in the midst of what can be a powerfully involving emotional process of imagination worrying and believe these areas generally best avoided.
Click to expand...
Yep. And memory research shows that you don't even have to be trying for confabulation to happen. And once a memory is fixed, it seems as real as anything.

I think what bugs me more is the notion of pretending that memory works like a video recorder when we know it doesn't. Even if it's useful in a clinical way (as you mentioned with treating past-life regression as a metaphor--the part I snipped out), I think it's unethical not to inform the patient that this is just pretend. Doesn't informed consent apply to these clinical practices? You can't really go back and replay memories (even in this lifetime) and count on them being accurate.

As one of 10 siblings, I run into this all the time. Two or more of us compare memories of some event, and there are often conflicting memories--all of us insisting we can picture it vividly in our minds, but at most only one can be accurate.

Back to therapy: One technique for dealing with phobias is to use guided imagery (or whatever technique) to get very relaxed, then imagine the stimulus of the phobia and observe your physiological changes (increased respiration, heartbeat, muscle tension, etc.), then quickly re-do the relaxation technique to calm down. Gradually you can desensitize the response to imagining the stimulus. Hopefully it will eventually allow you to get out there and begin desensitization training with the real thing.

Again, is this hypnosis? Is there anything to be gained by doing this with a hypnotherapist rather than a regular cognitive therapist?
 
Back to therapy: One technique for dealing with phobias is to use guided imagery (or whatever technique) to get very relaxed, then imagine the stimulus of the phobia and observe your physiological changes (increased respiration, heartbeat, muscle tension, etc.), then quickly re-do the relaxation technique to calm down. Gradually you can desensitize the response to imagining the stimulus. Hopefully it will eventually allow you to get out there and begin desensitization training with the real thing.

Again, is this hypnosis? Is there anything to be gained by doing this with a hypnotherapist rather than a regular cognitive therapist?
Click to expand...

I think that depends on the hypnotist. If you get one that's full of woo, noooo way. However, if you get one that is, well, sensible, then it would be almost as good.

(Here we go, "my opinion" time again! :-) )

I've always said that an induction is almost like a poem. So if a hypnotherapist uses the above techinque, keeps away from woo, but gets very detailed in the imagery and the reinforcements, I think it would work almost as well as a cognitive therapist. (assuming a cognitive therapist would have more scientific know how...)

However, if you're a got vivid imagination, you'll probably be better off. :-)

and you're welcome Big Les. Love the avatar. :-)
 
Last edited:
JFrankA said:
I think that depends on the hypnotist. If you get one that's full of woo, noooo way. However, if you get one that is, well, sensible, then it would be almost as good.

(Here we go, "my opinion" time again! :-) )

I've always said that an induction is almost like a poem. So if a hypnotherapist uses the above techinque, keeps away from woo, but gets very detailed in the imagery and the reinforcements, I think it would work almost as well as a cognitive therapist. (assuming a cognitive therapist would have more scientific know how...)

However, if you're a got vivid imagination, you'll probably be better off. :-)
Click to expand...
JFrankA, I wasn't asking about effectiveness. My question is about the definition of hypnosis. How is it different than the relaxation therapy (which is used already by non-hypnotherapist therapists) I described?

You keep saying just use hypnosis in a non-woo way, but that only begs the question.
 
JFrankA, I wasn't asking about effectiveness. My question is about the definition of hypnosis. How is it different than the relaxation therapy (which is used already by non-hypnotherapist therapists) I described?

You keep saying just use hypnosis in a non-woo way, but that only begs the question.
Click to expand...

Sorry. My misunderstanding. I shouldn't do this while I'm at work. :-)

First off, let me restate my disclaimer: this is merely opinion of a person who has studied and performed hypnosis for almost 20 years. I have no degrees from colleges nor to do I have a "hypnosis certificate". That being said, let me try to answer your question based on that. :-)

Like a lot of things that are woo, I believe that hypnosis, meditation, "soul searching" whatever is based on a something that is fact but has been blown out of proportion.

The facts are: the mind can focus on something with different degrees of intensity, i.e. concentrating just enough to read and still be aware of whats going on to concentrating so strongly that it takes a while for outside stimulus to be percieved.

Also, people are easily suggestable depending on them being confused, or concentrating or merely being distracted.

Also, people can be conditioned to feel a reward when they perform an act after recieving a stimulus.

These three things make up all forms of, well, for lack of a better word, "mind-power", let's say. It happens every day: watching tv, reading a book, having a discussion, working out a problem, etc. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. It's just who we are.

Some people are more open to suggestions than others, some people are more willing to believe their imagination more than others and some people can focus more easily than others. These people are the ones who claim that, for example, pain control through this "mind-power", works.

Personally, I'm not sure about that. I do know that there are times when I'm working out in the yard or something and I get cut and don't know it until I see the blood drip off my arm. Then I feel the pain. It's not anything magical, it's simply because I was concentrating so hard on what I was doing, I didn't percieve the pain that was there at the time. It does come eventually, though.

In the case of people experiencing whatever was suggested to them, it's part of the same thing, I would guess. Like waking up from a dream that you thought was real. And, as in my go-to-the-movies example, I can remember coming out of Star Wars for the first time feeling like I went through what Luke went through. :-)

So it's something that is real and can be measured scientifically, but has been, again for lack of a better word, "woo-ed out" to the extreme.

Finally, in answer to your question: How is hypnosis different than relaxation therapy or meditation or even "questing for a your soul"? Not very. The subject is doing something that's no different than watching tv, but the method of doing it is different. E.g. Hypnosis involves someone else who makes the suggestions, meditation invovles just being by yourself and making your own suggestions, relaxation therapy involves the same thing as hypnosis but with a different pratter. It goes on and on, but IMHO a person doing any of those things is doing something that's no different than what you are doing now:

Concentrating and being open to suggestions. :-)

....hope that clears it up. Again, I am very open to debate because I want to stay as far away from woo as possible dispite me being an entertainer.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Just curious--what did it take to be certified (or whatever) in hypnotherapy in general?
Click to expand...


Here in the UK there's not any worthwhile governing body so it really comes down to whatever institution one trains with.

For me, it consisted of:

6 days foundation.
16 days "professional" course, with a written, multi-choice and practical exam at the end plus 5 case histories presented to become D.C.H. (Diploma in Clinical Hypnotherapy) "qualified".
8 days "advanced" course (which included delights such as EFT) after which letters D.H.P. (Diploma in Hypnotherapy and Psychotherapy(!!)) gained.


Various other courses such as Advanced Past lives, Deep States, CBT & EFT were also available (at a price of course) which give even more "qualifications" simply by attending enough of them.

At the end of the day all such training is unregulated and provided by a business with cash-flow as the bottom line.


The research does seem to indicate that the difference between a qualified hypnotist and a person just reading a script is way less important than the hypnotizability of the subject.
Click to expand...


Quite probably. A large part of the actual hypnotic process though is in giving absolute conviction for the subject(s) in what can and will happen. One also often needs a whole range of "tools" available beyond basic scripts as more open and particularly analytical sessions can go off at tangents. That's not to say that some hypnotherapists don't work purely in script based direct suggestion sessions (such as many in giving up smoking) and may well be replaceable. :)


Yep. And memory research shows that you don't even have to be trying for confabulation to happen. And once a memory is fixed, it seems as real as anything.
Click to expand...


Yep, scary.


...I think it's unethical not to inform the patient that this is just pretend. Doesn't informed consent apply to these clinical practices? You can't really go back and replay memories (even in this lifetime) and count on them being accurate.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

However the nature of the beast - particularly with past lives - is that it often appeals to those who may well already believe in such things as true. Unless obviously related to the presented condition or detrimental to the client's well-being one is not in a position to start questioning such beliefs.

Any hypnotherapist that presents this as genuine due to their own convictions is clearly acting unethically, but with no guidelines and regulation there's nothing to stop them.


Back to therapy: One technique for dealing with phobias is to use guided imagery (or whatever technique) to get very relaxed, then imagine the stimulus of the phobia and observe your physiological changes (increased respiration, heartbeat, muscle tension, etc.), then quickly re-do the relaxation technique to calm down. Gradually you can desensitize the response to imagining the stimulus. Hopefully it will eventually allow you to get out there and begin desensitization training with the real thing.
Click to expand...


Systematic desensitisation would be my preferred method too.

However, in hypnotherapy a phobia method often taught is to use regression to go back to the ISE (Initial Sensitising Event) and SSE (Subsequent Sensitising Event) both for understanding and "reframing", with all the potential confabulation problems mentioned.

Is hypnosis woo?

Personal opinion is no. Within limits it is a very useful technique that can be of genuine help. Unfortunately these limits are often gone beyond with some practitioners selling rubbish such as breast enlargement or past lives as real. Also, it is often practised by woo's alongside nonsense such as Reiki, EFT, Kinesiology or Dog knows what else...

A valid regulatory authority for the field is much needed.
 
Last edited:
JonWhite said:
However, in hypnotherapy a phobia method often taught is to use regression to go back to the ISE (Initial Sensitising Event) and SSE (Subsequent Sensitising Event) both for understanding and "reframing", with all the potential confabulation problems mentioned.
Click to expand...
And the problem of the assumption that the phobia is caused by some initial event. It's a pretty big assumption. Sounds Freudian too. (By that I mean, it doesn't sound like something based on much if any science.)
Is hypnosis woo?

Personal opinion is no. Within limits it is a very useful technique that can be of genuine help.
Click to expand...
I guess I agree. Though the utility of something is no argument that it isn't woo or is science. (I hear so many believers in quack treatments saying, "But it works!" without asking what that means.)

At the very least, hypnotherapy has a woo problem (that is, many of its practitioners espouse woo concepts such as past life and same life regression believing them to be authentic and reliable replaying of past events--contrary to evidence of the plasticity of memory), and it has a definition problem.

While I might not say hypnosis in general is woo, I also wouldn't say it is mainstream science.
 
Back to the research issue:

Imagine a drug trial that started by screening subjects to see who was susceptible to a certain drug, then using that highly susceptible group to compare to the placebo group. It would be sort of like saying, "If you ignore this set of subjects because their outcome measures were too low, we can show that this drug was highly effective compared to a placebo." That's just not legitimate methodology.

That is what many published hypnosis studies do when they screen for high-hypnotizable subjects.
 
JonWhite said:
Just to add, a pretty balanced site with some good info is here.
Click to expand...

Hypnosis is a minefield! It is often occupied by charlatans and woo woo artists.

I was a member of the British Society for Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis for 20+ years. It has now amalgamated with the British Society for Medical and Dental Hypnosis. The above link is reliable. Nuff said - except note the spurious "qualifications" in newspaper ads.

You can trust anything Mike Heap puts his name to.
 
The "real" hypnosis just seems to be a different, potentially more efficient (or otherwise useful) way of accessing the information and predispositions to behave a certain way that are already in the brain - like concentrating really hard or exercising a special measure of willpower, or of course, (to the extreme) changing one's brain chemistry with drugs. Some people can just achieve these seemingly unusual (for them) things by trying very hard or by imagining their own special motivation. Others need help from other people to do the same, and this is where hypnosis seems to be able to help at least some people, or to help them think or act in a certain way.

So of all that's claimed, only a small part is valid, and it certainly isn't hard science. But neither is hypnosis woo "all the way down". This alone sets it apart from most other is-it/isn't it topics of woo-related discussion. I suppose you could argue that astrology has (or had) a similar degree of legitimacy - it's just that this became proper astronomy, and what was left over developed (or failed to) into astrology. Whereas behavioural sciences and psychology are only recently separating the wheat from the hypnotic chaff. If hypnosis follows the same developmental pattern, once the aforementioned disciplines have taken all that's legitimate from hypnosis, what's left really will be woo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom