Hypnosis and Stroop interference

[tsg]

In particular, I was able to get pople to do things they would NEVER have done otherwise (perform embarassing acts in public).

The explanation I've heard for this is that the idea of being under someone else's control gives the person being hypnotized an excuse for acting in a manner they normally wouldn't. Essentially it's giving them permission to behave in a way they may already have a desire to, but are normally too shy to, because the hypnotist is "making" them and, in their minds, they are no longer responsible for their own actions. It's an excuse to lower their inhibitions and nothing more.

 

[kellyb]

The explanation I've heard for this is that the idea of being under someone else's control gives the person being hypnotized an excuse for acting in a manner they normally wouldn't. Essentially it's giving them permission to behave in a way they may already have a desire to, but are normally too shy to, because the hypnotist is "making" them and, in their minds, they are no longer responsible for their own actions. It's an excuse to lower their inhibitions and nothing more.

I work in concert production,and see/work a lot of "hypnotist" shows.
That is EXACTLY what I came to after watching a few of them.
The ones that don't "play along" are sent away, "unhypnotized".

ETA:
For example, I went on this stage hypnotist's site to see what his take on it was.
http://www.fliporley.com/flipNews/askFlipPublic.asp?firstLetter=&memID=29

Does anyone ever fake it up on stage?

Answer:
I’m sure it happens from time to time. Whenever I suspect someone is faking, I will point it out to the audience. If I am not sure, I will initially give them the benefit of the doubt. If they seem sincere, I will usually give them an opportunity to get focused to see if they can "go under". If they are up there to mock me, to play to their friends, or to try and ruin the show I will ask them to leave the stage immediately. As I mentioned earlier, most people who think they are faking are really hypnotized and just don’t realize it because it feels so normal.

Most people who fake being hypnotized are really hypnotized?

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

From everything I've read, "the scientific consensus" is just solidly sitting on the fence regarding hypnosis.
I have no idea what Randi or the forum thinks of the subject...in fact last week I did a search here to see, and there aren't any threads that I could find. (I was thinking of starting a thread on theatrical hypnotism.)

kellyb,
Don't know about the scientific consensus, and that is why I asked for advice. But JREF is linked to skepdic, which has this to say:
http://skepdic.com/hypnosis.html

Apologies if you've seen this before. But I think it's safe to say that skeptics are skeptical of claims about the hypnotic state. I started this discussion because the study results seemed to show that there's something peculiar to hypnosis. However, I had overlooked the possibility of similar results with unhypnotized, suggestible subjects.

So, back to square one for hypnosis.


Regards

Edited for clarity

 

[phildonnia]

I, for one, am skeptical even of the Stroop effect in the original context. It purports to show that you can process written words faster than you can recognize colors. However, the whole thing relies on being able to read the names of the colors out loud.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to discover that its faster to read a word and say a word than to look at a color, translate it into a word, and then say it; the latter being a slightly more convoluted mental exercise.

But then, I'm not a psychologist.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I, for one, am skeptical even of the Stroop effect in the original context. It purports to show that you can process written words faster than you can recognize colors. However, the whole thing relies on being able to read the names of the colors out loud.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to discover that its faster to read a word and say a word than to look at a color, translate it into a word, and then say it; the latter being a slightly more convoluted mental exercise.

But then, I'm not a psychologist.

This person is.
http://staff.washington.edu/chudler/words.html

 

[kellyb]

kellyb,
Don't know about the scientific consensus, and that is why I asked for advice. But JREF is linked to skepdic, which has this to say:
http://skepdic.com/hypnosis.html

Apologies if you've seen this before. But I think it's safe to say that skeptics are skeptical of claims about the hypnotic state. I started this discussion because the study results seemed to show that there's something peculiar to hypnosis. However, I had overlooked the possibility of similar results with unhypnotized, suggestible subjects.

So, back to square one for hypnosis.


Regards

Edited for clarity

I hadn't seen that. Thanks.
I had no idea what the JREF take on it was. I'm just someone who used to want to be a hypnotist, but started learning about it, and decided it was crap.
And then, later, I started working hypnotist shows as an audio engineer and saw that for what it was.
I also post quite a bit at a believer's forum, so I definitely see a lot of stuff about the "regressive" variety, and after many debates, I'm fairly convinced that's bull, too.

But, being a former pentecostalish christian, I also believe now that the mind can certainly do some weird stuff, so it's no skin off my back if hypnosis is proven.
I think there's something there, but no one's figured out what it is, exactly, yet.
I think "hypnotic states" happen, but psychology's understanding of it just hasn't come close to catching up, yet.
I'm very familiar with what's considered clinical hypnosis, and I'm not impressed. It's weak (ime) and it doesn't really stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Religious fervor is much more compelling, IMO.
But it would be down-right unethical of science to even try to duplicate what it takes for religion to induce whatever happens in religion regarding weird mental states.

So I'm not sure science will ever be able to figure hypnosis out.

 

[Diabolos]

For Randi's take on the subject, see this entry in his Encyclopedia:
http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/hypnotism_hypnosis.html

I agree with his assessment with the exception of the very last line "This is an idea that professional hypnotists do not care to hear.". Whilst true of some, many I've met would also happily agree with his opinions. I think he may be basing his regard for hypnotists on those from a few decades ago.

My personal take is to view hypnosis not as a special state that's somehow special, but rather a term of convenience to describe the combination of how the simpler and normal psychological processes of belief, expectation, suggestion, imagination, motivation, etc. work together.

 

[phildonnia]

This person is.
http://staff.washington.edu/chudler/words.html

Thanks! I guess I've only ever heard of the "speed of processing theory" (until now).