3 students die after principal hypnotizes them

[Skeptic Ginger]

Michael Shermer agrees.

while real, remains elusive ... It is with hypnosis in particular that I depart ways from many of my skeptical colleagues who argue that it is nothing more than fantasy role-playing, or worse, pure fakery.

Yep, agrees with the evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. Could you provide a definition of real hypnosis? Perhaps even a scientific definition?

There is a current accepted clinical definition:

Definition of Hypnosis

Hypnosis is a state of inner absorption, concentration and focused attention. It is like using a magnifying glass to focus the rays of the sun and make them more powerful. Similarly, when our minds are concentrated and focused, we are able to use our minds more powerfully. Because hypnosis allows people to use more of their potential, learning self-hypnosis is the ultimate act of self-control.

While there is general agreement that certain effects of hypnosis exist, there are differences of opinion within the research and clinical communities about how hypnosis works. ...

The definition is also in a state of flux as research provides more details about what is actually going on in the brain during a hypnotic trance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes but it happened to me, its different!

This is where I see this going.

Anecdotal evidence has it's place. The knee-jerk reaction that no anecdotal evidence is ever valid is rather foolish.

And people are ignoring what else I said:

The alternative explanations are less likely.
And there is now more than sufficient evidence documenting the existence of an altered state when a person is under hypnosis.

 

[p0lka]

Please pay attention to what I claimed.

I observed. (Unless you want to discount all scientific evidence that involves observation. )
The alternative explanations are less likely.
And there is now more than sufficient evidence documenting the existence of an altered state when a person is under hypnosis.


It's annoying when people prefer to keep putting their foot in their mouth asking for someone else to prove a claim where there is all kinds of research validating it. I prefer to check to see if my position is still valid when someone challenges it before I keep sticking my neck further and further out. But apparently some of you prefer to hold on to old concepts.

I am reminded of H-pylori, cholera from the Broad St pump, and plate tectonics, all evidence based science that took years from the time the evidence was put forth until scientists convinced of old conclusions, finally looked at the existing evidence.

What is controversial is hypnotherapy, and recovery of memories. What is no longer controversial to people actually looking at the current body of research is the fact a hypnotic state exists and it is a unique state of consciousness. There is now current research ongoing to see if said hypnosis has any clinical value. But that is a separate issue from whether or not a hypnotic state of consciousness exists and can be induced, more easily in some people than in others.


The Existence of a Hypnotic State Revealed by Eye Movements


Hypnotic induction is followed by state-like changes in the organization of EEG functional connectivity in the theta and beta frequency bands in high-hypnotically susceptible individuals


More recently, hypnosis has begun to be employed as a method for manipulating subjects' mental states, both cognitive and affective, to provide information about the neural substrates of experience, thought, and action. This instrumental use of hypnosis is particularly well-suited for identifying the neural correlates of conscious and unconscious perception and memory, and of voluntary and involuntary action.

Hypnosis as an empirically supported clinical intervention: the state of the evidence and a look to the future.

Pain perception and hypnosis: findings from recent functional neuroimaging studies.

look at your quotes,

It looks to me, that there is an assumption of hypnosis being a real thing before they do their tests.
or placebo/suggestibility.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

does it mean they were not?

I didn't say that. I said it was not evidence everyone was faking it.

BS it looks like to me.

Perhaps you should update your knowledge base with current research.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's possible; however, I provided a set of reasonable and scientific criteria by which "Real" hypnotists can distinguish themselves from the "charlatans". Until they make some effort to do so, it's not my job to pretend an objective distinction exists.

The science is waaay past you here. See the links I've provided, all looking at empirical clinical evidence that is measurable, consistent and repeatable.

 

[Checkmite]

Hypnosis is a state of inner absorption, concentration and focused attention. It is like using a magnifying glass to focus the rays of the sun and make them more powerful. Similarly, when our minds are concentrated and focused, we are able to use our minds more powerfully. Because hypnosis allows people to use more of their potential, learning self-hypnosis is the ultimate act of self-control.

This definition is quite useless; in any case there's already a word for that kind of thing; it's called "meditation". There are also separate studies conducted expressly on meditation, which do not conflate it with "hypnosis". Why these other people choose to rebrand meditation as "hypnosis" or even "self-hypnosis" is a mystery only they can sufficiently explain.

By the way phrases like "using one's mind more powerfully", and "using more of your potential" are both gigantic woo markers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hasn't your experience with your 15 year old brother and friend (can we agree he is a charlatan) clouded your picture of hypnosis?

No, it was a pretty amazing observation.


What I especially find entertaining in this thread is, I went over all this stuff years back in a different thread. And here we are all this time later and people are still arguing the old beliefs they picked up about the hypnotic state continuing to resist an effort to bring themselves up to date with current research.

 

[p0lka]

The science is waaay past you here. See the links I've provided, all looking at empirical clinical evidence that is measurable, consistent and repeatable.

Do all the test subjects believe in hypnosis?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not only that, but the whole thing about how it simply doesn't "work" on a lot of people is also a red flag.

Why?

I'm not the least bit surprised it doesn't work with me. I can't even stand to do that stupid exercise where you are supposed to relax your body a couple muscles at a time from head to toe.

Not the fact that it doesn't work all by itself - after all, some chemical drugs have little or no effect in different patients - but rather that simply not wanting to be hypnotized is often the deciding factor.

Aspirin works on me, whether I want it to or not. If a drug didn't work on me, it still wouldn't even if I hoped really hard that it would. Contrarily, I can resolve that "I cannot be hypnotized", and it will magically, just like that, be true.

But you are comparing a drug to something like being able to fall asleep. Apples and oranges there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

FTFY.

Wrong, because I could explain it.

And again, because people do so like to ignore parts of an argument,

The alternative explanations are less likely.
And there is now more than sufficient evidence documenting the existence of an altered state when a person is under hypnosis.
​

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

maybe "acting in a way that I couldn't readily explain." is the definition of hypnosis?
Its not like anyone has actually defined hypnosis yet.

Because you don't know there is a definition, it must not exist. What's that called? Oh yeah, the Dunning–Kruger effect.

 

[Olowkow]

I did a lot of hypnosis in college and afterwards. Most was just among friends and acquaintances in the dorm, but I had a friend who was a stage hypnotist and we did some shows together. He had a business helping people quit smoking and he specializes in dealing with agoraphobia. I did hypnosis mainly for entertainment and for demonstration of what could be done. When I was doing it, there were no laws regulating any facet of hypnosis. I'm not sure about the legality now.

When I read the article, my first reaction was that it's a mistake to try to do any sort of therapy with people without extensive education in psychology. Although I never really had any serious problems with any subjects, I always made it a point of not getting into any kind of therapy. While it may be that a subject could be given a post hypnotic suggestion that would be so troubling that he would become depressed or despondent, I really find it difficult to believe that a legal argument can be made that this person was responsible for the deaths of the students. From what I know of the subject, it really sounds like a lot of ignorance coming into play.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

look at your quotes,

It looks to me, that there is an assumption of hypnosis being a real thing before they do their tests.
or placebo/suggestibility.

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

 

[Checkmite]

Anyone can fall asleep; in fact, not sleeping is actually a sign of a serious problem. On the other hand, only certain special people are "susceptible" to being hypnotized - a category which conveniently doesn't include skeptics, and one wonders whether this immunity is related for instance to the magical ability of skeptics to prevent psychics' powers from functioning correctly in their presence.

Coincidentally, there are chemicals that are capable of inducing various mental states in humans. Interestingly, hypnosis isn't one of those states.

 

[arthwollipot]

remember, stage hypnotists do the 'suggestibility test' first as far as I know.

what does suggestibility even mean?
I suggest it is picking out the people who are more likely to go along with the whole hypnotised routine in the first place.

Yes, but sometimes people go along with the routine without consciously deciding to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did a lot of hypnosis in college and afterwards. Most was just among friends and acquaintances in the dorm, but I had a friend who was a stage hypnotist and we did some shows together. He had a business helping people quit smoking and he specializes in dealing with agoraphobia. I did hypnosis mainly for entertainment and for demonstration of what could be done. When I was doing it, there were no laws regulating any facet of hypnosis. I'm not sure about the legality now.

Gee Olowkow, surely all the people you hypnotized were just faking it.

When I read the article, my first reaction was that it's a mistake to try to do any sort of therapy with people without extensive education in psychology. Although I never really had any serious problems with any subjects, I always made it a point of not getting into any kind of therapy. While it may be that a subject could be given a post hypnotic suggestion that would be so troubling that he would become depressed or despondent, I really find it difficult to believe that a legal argument can be made that this person was responsible for the deaths of the students. From what I know of the subject, it really sounds like a lot of ignorance coming into play.

One can convince juries of all sorts of nonsense. It may be changed on appeal, or it may be just messing with these kids without the proper credentials and consents was the issue.

The kid who crashed the car, honestly, it's a pretty sleazy lawyer that can sue someone because someone else fell asleep at the wheel.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Anyone can fall asleep; in fact, not sleeping is actually a sign of a serious problem. On the other hand, only certain special people are "susceptible" to being hypnotized - a category which conveniently doesn't include skeptics, and one wonders whether this immunity is related for instance to the magical ability of skeptics to prevent psychics' powers from functioning correctly in their presence.

Coincidentally, there are chemicals that are capable of inducing various mental states in humans. Interestingly, hypnosis isn't one of those states.

Are you unable to consider brains differ in many ways, why not this way?

 

[Checkmite]

Are you unable to consider brains differ in many ways, why not this way?

"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?

 

[Olowkow]

Gee Olowkow, surely all the people you hypnotized were just faking it.

One can convince juries of all sorts of nonsense. It may be changed on appeal, or it may be just messing with these kids without the proper credentials and consents was the issue.

The kid who crashed the car, honestly, it's a pretty sleazy lawyer that can sue someone because someone else fell asleep at the wheel.

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.

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.