Hypnosis acts, have you ever been involved?

Cuddles, Well I'm not very well versed on "astrology or palmistry" but unlike these, hypnosis and acupuncture have been scientifically proven to be successful in treating patients with ailments.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that a lot of the people on this forum don't believe in things that haven't experienced or can't "touch". Even when some of these things have been scientifically proven. Like I asked before, what do I need to do to prove hypnosis to you? Is there anything? What would have to happen for you to believe in it?
 
i won't quote much, if at all, as theres too much to quote. this is addressed to hypno-rick.

feel free to show these studies as i'd be intrigued to see them. someone else posted one that was in the new york times in another thread, it was heavily flawed.

back to hypnotherapy, i'll try not to repeat myself but probably will. hypnosis is mostly based on illusion created by the commanded performed acts of the volunteers/patients such as the amnesia and falling into a trance. the issues hypnosis can deal with are so minor, they aren't issues. you said hypnosis is self-hypnosis, then why does anyone need to seek fee based help for such minor issues if any, if they can deal with these issues them selves?
 
Rick,

Recovered memory therapy has been proven to be bogus (and in some cases, very dangerous)... people under hypnosis make up false memories formed by the suggestions of the therapist, and when they "come out", they often have very vivid memories of things that probably didn't happen. There are tons of experiments that have been done to show that people's memories are falible and prone to suggestion-- this is why eye-witness testimony is really not as sound as a lot of people think it is.

The wikipedia article, as well as Bob Carroll's article, are good references:
http://skepdic.com/repress.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered_memory_therapy

I, for one, do think that there is evidence to suggest that hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness, and I still think there may be something to hypnotherapy for self-improvement, but I'm not convinced by the evidence so far. However, I do find it plausible that hypnotherapy could lead to a change in attitude that might help with certain mental issues. On my "woo" spectrum, it falls higher than chiropractic but lower than using acupuncture to treat pain, at least until I see some more convincing scientific evidence (not anecdotal evidence).
 
The subconscious mind remembers 97% more then the conscious mind. Better said, the conscious mind only remembers around 3% of what you experience using all your senses. The subconscious mind remembers the other 97%.

Nope--memory doesn't work this way. Where did you get these figures?

When your client imagines a past event and visualizes re-experiencing it, you invite confabulation. The mind is NOT like a video recorder that you can replay and enhance to see details you didn't notice the first time. Implanting false memories is pretty easy to do (even unintentionally), and false memories seem as real as anything.

The accupuncture comparison is very apt. For a long time, people could say lots of studies show that it "works". It "works" compared to no treatment at all (a control group), but it's always been tricky to do a placebo control. Not too long ago, studies were done with a placebo accupuncture (someone inserting needles in random places), and there was no difference between that and "real" accupuncture.

I've yet to see any study of hypnotherapy that compared it to a placebo of hypnothereapy--again, it would be very difficult to do so and still keep the study double-blinded.

That's why the biggest question is based on the theory--what exactly is hypnosis?
 
On my "woo" spectrum, it falls higher than chiropractic but lower than using acupuncture to treat pain, at least until I see some more convincing scientific evidence (not anecdotal evidence).

I'd buy that.

Chiropractic has been proven to help with some forms of back pain (not for cancer, or ear infections, etc.), and that generally no better than most other kinds of massage. The theory chiropractic is based on (the notion of "subluxations" cooked up by an Iowa grocer) has been proven wrong. So what does it mean to say chiropractic "works"?

Is hypnotherapy any better than guided imagery relaxation? Is it the same phenomenon? Is standard talk therapy aimed toward motivation or creating a positive attitude any different or less effective?
 
Joe, There are different brain waves of sleep. We could look at the groups (Alpha, Theta, and Delta) or we can look look at the specific hertz of these waves. The Alpha and Theta groups of brain waves are hypnosis. They are what they called the altered consciousness. Beta is wide and Delta is deep sleep. From the middle of alpha to the middle of theta is where you dream. There is no difference (short of the length of time) between day dreams (zoning out) and dreams you have in your sleep...
Hypnotized patients' EEG patterns cannot be distinguished from their EEG patterns in their normal waking states.
Dixon and Lawrence (1992)Two hundred years of hypnosis research, in Fromm and Nash (eds)Contemporary Hypnosis Research, NY, Guilford.
Orne and Dinges (1989)Hypnosis, in Kaplan and Sadock (eds) Contemporay Textbook of Psychiatry (5th Ed.) Baltimore, Williams and Williams.
 
If you can provide proof that acupuncture works as it says it does, you'll be approx $1M better off.
 
If you can provide proof that acupuncture works as it says it does, you'll be approx $1M better off.

The TCM parts of acupuncture ("chi" and all that) are bogus, and I wouldn't recommend acupuncture to treat a brain tumor or liver disease. However, there are some studies where acupuncture was effective in treating musculoskeletal pain, e.g.:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/145/1/I-17

But there are also studies that do not support acupuncture for treating some other forms of pain, e.g.:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/143/1/I-24

As Joe wrote, it's hard to design a good control group. The best studies use sham needles-- I saw these demonstrated on Scientific American Frontiers on PBS. The needle goes into the handle instead of the patient, but supposedly the patients can't tell the difference (Alan Alda couldn't).

I think it would also be very hard to design a control group to test hypnotherapy.
 
Ivor, money, thanks for the mnemonic info. Funny, every stage hypnotist/mentalist that I've ever seen has also done memory "tricks".

HypnoRick, I would be careful of over-selling hypnotherapy. I fully endorse cognitive-behavioral therapy, and think that hypnosis can be used effectively in that context. That said, there are an awful lot of extremely flaky people that are "into" hypnosis or are hypnotherapists. It's as if they became so bowled over once they realized the powers of the mind, that they started attributing to the mind powers that it doesn't have. Also, I'd like to reiterate that I disbelieve in the hypnotic "trance". I don't think it's necessary to argue for such a thing to argue for the existence of the effects of hypnosis.

On hypnosis and memory: Hasn't it been shown that a relaxed mind has better powers of recall? Relaxation is almost always part of hypnosis, and I believe that any memory improvement "under" hypnosis is attributable to relaxation. I once read of a study where people were shown an arrangement of small objects for a set amount of time, then asked a series of questions to test their recall of the placement of the objects. There was a control group and a hypnotized group. The hypnotized subjects showed a slightly better memory, however: When asked leading questions - "Where was the red car placed?" - when there was no red car - yeah, they "remembered" that better, too.

On hypnosis and therapy: CBT has mostly to do with how a person "talks" to themselves. Playing this cooperative game sometimes called hypnosis helps some people chill out enough to talk to themselves openly and honestly. Guided imagery relaxation is what therapists call it to avoid the resistance many people would have to being hypnotized. It seems to be invaluable in curing Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, as well. With PTSD, every time the sufferer remembers their traumatic event, they are flooded with nasty emotions. Reliving the trauma. For some reason not fully understood, if they can remember the event without all the emotional baggage, that is when they start getting better. That's where the hypnotherapy, or whatever you want to call it, comes in. It allows people to remember with a sort of detachment. Of course, as noted, the therapist has to be very careful to not implant any false memories, through direct suggestion, or indirectly through questions.

On the topic of "a hypnotized person won't do something against their morals/that they wouldn't normally do.": Well, probably not in one session, but over time a hypnotist could really mess up a suggestible person. They could change what it is that their subject would normally do. I saw a TV documentary about a therapist/hypnotist that moved into a small town. Several women in the town that went to see him for relatively minor issues, anxiety and depression, ended up with MPD and self-injurious behaviours, because of his hypnotic therapy. Burning and cutting themselves was not what they would have previously normally done.
 
Mfasion, I'm not family with the term "Recovered Memory Therapy". Is that the same as regression. You continue to point out the negative side of regression work. An well trained, ethical hypnotherapist does absolutly no leading or suggestions in a regression session. None at all.
 
Mfasion, I'm not family with the term "Recovered Memory Therapy". Is that the same as regression. You continue to point out the negative side of regression work. An well trained, ethical hypnotherapist does absolutly no leading or suggestions in a regression session. None at all.
Now you have me curious to know what you mean by regression, Hypno-Rick.
 
An well trained, ethical hypnotherapist does absolutly no leading or suggestions in a regression session. None at all.

I have serious reservations about this statement - not because I doubt your honesty (it's pretty obvious that you're a sincere believer in this), but because it is extremely easy to lead somebody without knowing that you're leading.

Do you have any taped regression sessions that a patient will consent to you releasing to us so that we can verify this for ourselves?
 
thomps1d, I do audio and visually record all sessions. But client confidentiality keeps me from letting anyone see these. Perhaps the next regression client I work with I will ask if they are open to this. It wouldn't bother me at all. As long as the client is open to it.
 
Porch, I will find the "official" definition of regression from the National Guild of Hypnotists and I will post it. I want to make sure I use the exact wording so that we can all be on the same page.
 
Now you have me curious to know what you mean by regression, Hypno-Rick.

I'm pretty sure he means that he asks his patient to go back and "re-live" an event in the past and describe to the therapist what's going on. In fact, even doing just that, as I mentioned before, is a wide open invitation for confabulation. It doesn't mean anyone is lying, and it doesn't mean the therapist is (necessarily) trying to implant a false memory or intentionally lead the patient to anything.

Again, memory doesn't work like rewinding and replaying a videotape (though I am beginning to feel like a broken record myself). All that's happening in these situations is imagining.

There's plenty of evidence that memory is very plastic, and very faulty.
 
Porch, The NGH training manual gives this definition for "Age Regression" - "A re-experiencing of earlier events in life, usually limited to a specific time or time period"
 
Joe, I'm not disagreeing with you that is possible to be "a wide open invitation for confabulation". I believe if "lead, pressured or otherwise coerced" this is extremely possible, I'll even go as far as to say likely. But I do believe that if it is something that the client experienced or saw we can revisit it. Not unlike soldiers with PSTD and their nightmares. To them their nightmare is extremely real. It even effects their body, even though it is just a "dream". Their heart rate increases, they sweat, their body moves around, they talk or even scream. Just as a question, how is this different?
 
I believe some police forces are trained to use cognitive structured interviews for obtaining eyewitness accounts.

Also, as other have said, memory is very fragile, no matter what "state" the brain is in. One indication that a memory may not be real is if the person recalling the memory is "seeing" it in a third person perspective rather than through their own eyes.
 
Cuddles, Well I'm not very well versed on "astrology or palmistry" but unlike these, hypnosis and acupuncture have been scientifically proven to be successful in treating patients with ailments.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that a lot of the people on this forum don't believe in things that haven't experienced or can't "touch". Even when some of these things have been scientifically proven. Like I asked before, what do I need to do to prove hypnosis to you? Is there anything? What would have to happen for you to believe in it?

Oh dear, oh dear. You see, this is why so few people take hypnotherapy seriously, because you simply can't provide evidence. What do you need to do to prove it to us? Show us these studies that "scientifically proved" it. Instead of just claiming we have to see it to believe it, why can you not just get some evidence that it works? As for acupuncture, I agree, hypnotherapy is exactly as effective and scientific as acupuncture.

The TCM parts of acupuncture ("chi" and all that) are bogus, and I wouldn't recommend acupuncture to treat a brain tumor or liver disease. However, there are some studies where acupuncture was effective in treating musculoskeletal pain, e.g.:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/145/1/I-17

But there are also studies that do not support acupuncture for treating some other forms of pain, e.g.:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/143/1/I-24

As Joe wrote, it's hard to design a good control group. The best studies use sham needles-- I saw these demonstrated on Scientific American Frontiers on PBS. The needle goes into the handle instead of the patient, but supposedly the patients can't tell the difference (Alan Alda couldn't).

I think it would also be very hard to design a control group to test hypnotherapy.

Unfortunately there is some very good evidence that there are clear differences between fake and real needles. Even in the studies that conclude that the placebo needles are credible, there is still a very clear difference in the response.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9717924
FINDINGS: Of 60 volunteers, 54 felt a penetration with acupuncture (mean visual analogue scale [VAS] 13.4; SD 10.58) and 47 felt it with placebo (VAS 8.86; SD 10.55), 34 felt a dull pain sensation (DEQI) with acupuncture and 13 with placebo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14659523&dopt=Abstract
http://www.superdragon.co.uk/acupuncture knowledge/placebo acupuncture needles.htm
The fact that more than a third of patients treated with the placebo needle experienced de qi did raise some concerns among the scientists, who said that the results of their experiment "· call into question the main claim of placebo needles that they only are eliciting a placebo response."

In addition, it is worth noticing that all the studies which use a "credible" placebo needle, even with the obvious difference in response and with questions over the activity of the placebo, there is no difference between acupuncture and control groups. That is, acupuncture is no better than a placebo even when it is possible to tell the differnce between the treatment and the placebo. Acupuncture does not work. I won't even bother bringing up the studies showing that acupunture points are utter bollocks, since there isn't even any question over that.
 
For those of you that want "Scientific" studies with double blinds and the such, you can go to http://www.ijceh.com/. Unfortunately this is a subscription site only.

I have attached here a summary of an article that Dr. David Spiegel wrote. Dr. Spiegel works out of Stanford University is the "Associate Chair: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences". He is one of the leading researchers on hypnosis.


Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1983; 2 (81): 140-3
Naloxone fails to reverse hypnotic alleviation of chronic pain.

Spiegel D, Albert LH

The hypothesis that the alleviation of chronic pain with hypnosis is mediated by endorphins was tested. Six patients with chronic pain secondary to peripheral nerve irritation were taught to control the pain utilizing self-hypnosis. Each subject was tested at 5-min intervals during four 1-h sessions for the amount of reduction of pain sensation and suffering associated with hypnosis while being given, in a random double-blind crossover fashion, an IV injection of either 10 mg naloxone or a saline placebo through an indwelling catheter. The patients demonstrated significant alleviation of the pain with hypnosis, but this effect was not significantly diminished in the naloxone condition. These findings contradict the hypothesis that endorphins are involved in hypnotic analgesia.
PubMedID: 6415744
 

Back
Top Bottom