Hypnosis: had any experience of it?

[Wolrab]

I have it on good authority that Sirhan Sirhan is easily hypnotizable and is not responsible for killing RFK. Top men said it. Top men.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, I have read the 'perceived colours' study now. My initial impressions should be taken with a large pinch of salt as a) I only read it quickly and b) it's not my area of science. My immediate concerns however would be with the size of the study ( two people only, both supposedly very highly 'hypnotizable') and that they gave completely opposite results to each other so I'm unclear how that proved anything.

You are misreading that study. They were specifically looking for differences between two highly hypnotizable subjects.

There are two major theoretical questions in hypnosis research, one pertaining to the nature of suggestions (are they based on voluntary imagination or not) and the other on the nature of hypnosis itself (is there a special state involved or not) [7], [22]. Our present results mostly relate to the first question, and support the view that suggestions, at least in some individuals, are different from voluntary imaginings (see also [24]), and therefore difficult to explain by the notion of imaginative suggestibility. As to the second question, our earlier studies on the same subject TS-H support the view that, at least in some individuals, a genuine hypnotic state occurs that cannot be imitated or simulated [8].

It is a complicated study to read, not conducive to skimming.

Here's their earlier study, I had not linked to it earlier:

The Existence of a Hypnotic State Revealed by Eye Movements

We present a detailed case study of a highly hypnotizable subject who reliably shows a range of changes in both automatic and volitional eye movements when given a hypnotic induction. These changes correspond well with the phenomenon referred to as the “trance stare” in the hypnosis literature. Our results show that this ‘trance stare’ is associated with large and objective changes in the optokinetic reflex, the pupillary reflex and programming a saccade to a single target. Control subjects could not imitate these changes voluntarily. For the majority of people, hypnotic induction brings about states resembling normal focused attention or mental imagery. Our data nevertheless highlight that in some cases hypnosis may involve a special state, which qualitatively differs from the normal state of consciousness.

This is typical of the problem studying hypnosis, so few subjects are actually hypnotizable.

So a lot of people maybe are 'going along with the show'. But some of them are not.

From the introduction:

... Major psychological models of hypnosis called the Non-State View theories explicitly reject the existence of a special hypnotic state [2], [3]. Instead, they assume that all hypnotic phenomena involve only cognitive and neural states similar to those occurring outside of hypnosis [3]. The opposing theoretical view called the State-View posits that a hypnotic state exists which differs qualitatively from the normal waking baseline state [2], [3].... Consequently, a special altered hypnotic state is currently considered by some researchers to be merely a popular myth in psychology [4].

That's where most people in this thread are.

Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that the existence of a hypnotic state could be defined empirically by behavioural criteria reflecting changed information processing that cannot be imitated or simulated by nonhypnotized control subjects [2], [3].

They discuss mixed results on physiological measures in a literature review, and list the problems with different research efforts.

The view that hypnosis can involve an altered state would be supported if significant changes were found in automatic eye behavior between baseline and hypnosis....

...We showed that a Hypnotically Induced Stare (HIS) is accompanied by large, objective and inimitable changes in the patterns of eye movements in the case TS-H. The amplitude, velocity and frequency of reflexive saccades were radically suppressed, and the fixation time was increased. Also the pupil size of TS-H diminished during the hypnosis condition.

This study provides the first demonstration of the existence of a special hypnotic state, fulfilling all the strict empirical criteria for such a state (immediate induction and cancellation, objective confirmation through measurements, and inimitability).

Not sure it's the "first demonstration" but it is a good demonstration.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have it on good authority that Sirhan Sirhan is easily hypnotizable and is not responsible for killing RFK. Top men said it. Top men.

I have it on good authority that plate tectonics is a nonsense theory, the crust on the Earth is solid, obviously.

An H-pylori doesn't cause gastric ulcers, we already know it's stomach acid.

And they really should put the pump handle back on the Broad St Pump. People need water, especially if they are dehydrated.

 

[Senex]

I have it on good authority that Sirhan Sirhan is easily hypnotizable and is not responsible for killing RFK. Top men said it. Top men.

We all know the CIA tried their best. Hypnotists aren't running the world nor hypnotic subjects creating havoc. I can perform hypnotism but I have no young women doing my bidding. Sad. Very sad.

 

[Wolrab]

So those top men are wrong? This is a Harvrard professor that is going to get for Sirhan Sirhan. He evenbypnotically suggested that Sirhan do something when reporters were around and Sirhan did it! If that isn't proof, I don't know what is!

 

[Myriad]

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.

I didn't say I didn't believe you observed what you say you observed.

I'm saying that what you say you observed isn't entirely consistent with the person really perceiving and believing their seat was suddenly relocated to the ceiling.

If they were so earnestly attempting to get down, they could have just jumped off the seat. That would do it.

The obvious objection to that is, they would be afraid to fall back down to the floor from such a height. But if you're afraid of falling from a high place, you don't kick, because doing so is likely to make you fall. Instead you freeze, you hold on for dear life, or both.

People's natural reactions to such situations aren't mysterious. Rescue workers study them and prepare for them. Psychologists look for them them as physical symptoms of relevant phobias.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't say I didn't believe you observed what you say you observed.

I'm saying that what you say you observed isn't entirely consistent with the person really perceiving and believing their seat was suddenly relocated to the ceiling.

If they were so earnestly attempting to get down, they could have just jumped off the seat. That would do it.

You don't get it. She freaked out, started kicking her legs up and down and screaming.

There wasn't anything about it that said, 'help, get me down', or 'I'm going to climb down'. No, not like that. She started screaming, freaked out. Not sure why that is so hard to picture.

My brother stopped the hypnosis right then, telling her to wake up. We were all freaked out not expecting that kind of reaction. Besides waking her up, no one did anything else. We were dumb teenagers. It was scary. She didn't remember anything after she woke up.

I find it amusing all the people here with the confirmation bias that hypnosis is fake. I know better.

The obvious objection to that is, they would be afraid to fall back down to the floor from such a height. But if you're afraid of falling from a high place, you don't kick, because doing so is likely to make you fall. Instead you freeze, you hold on for dear life, or both.

People's natural reactions to such situations aren't mysterious. Rescue workers study them and prepare for them. Psychologists look for them them as physical symptoms of relevant phobias.

This is where you are wrong. You are expecting a rational response. How do you know you don't kick? How do you know fear of falling would be rational? Clearly it wasn't.

That should be evidence the person wasn't thinking, wasn't planning, anything like that. She absolutely panicked. Who would have thought to do that if they were faking it? No one! The person faking whether intentionally or unintentionally because they wanted to please the crowd, would have done what you are describing, what you expect them to do, something more rational. Maybe scream at us to get her down. I'm not sure if she even saw that we were there.

Screaming and kicking your legs? That's a person who really was hallucinating they were on the ceiling. Who knows how you would react to that kind of hallucination you suddenly found yourself having?

It looks like there might be more studies on Google Scholar. I'll see what else I can find that looks at susceptible subjects. If* there really are a bunch of people who go along with it when they aren't really hypnotized, those people have to be weeded out of the studies.

I say 'if' because that's the part of this interesting endeavor I have to work to accept. Until I read how few people were easily hypnotized, I would have thought a whole lot more people were actually hypnotized and I couldn't understand why everyone was saying they were faking it.

I don't know if there is a continuum of how deeply a person is hypnotized, or whether two different phenomena are occurring, like people who keep pushing the button they believe is inflicting pain on the person behind the door because they follow authority. I'm not hypnotizable and I'm not the person who would follow authority. Never was that kind of person, got in a lot of trouble because of it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We all know the CIA tried their best. Hypnotists aren't running the world nor hypnotic subjects creating havoc. I can perform hypnotism but I have no young women doing my bidding. Sad. Very sad.

Don't go creating too much straw here. Read my posts. There is no evidence you can control anyone. You can make some people hallucinate. I'm not sure if you can do anything else with hypnosis.


Which reminds me, my brother's friend, Ken, who was hypnotized in the show they went to that started this whole thing of my brother learning how to do it ate an onion my brother told him was an apple. I mentioned this upthread or in the other thread. He got angry with my brother after, saying he burped up onion all day.

How does that happen, though, a person eating an onion like it was an apple, no tears, no trouble biting into it? It was one of the things we thought at the time was clear proof he was hypnotized. I think he probably was and was probably hypnotizable like my friend was. But it was nothing like Teri screaming and kicking in a panic.

You'd have to suppress your physiological response to the onion. When we discussed this earlier the naysayers said some onions are mild enough to do that. I can't go back and see how strong the onion was. Now that's an experience one might be convinced to doubt one's conclusions.

But not the spontaneous screaming, kicking ceiling panic.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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?

All this analysis, have at it. My friend freaked out. I don't need to analyze it, I was there.

She was not 'going along' or whatever is the current fad of dismissing hypnosis is because Penn and Teller said so.

But like I said, my experience is why I know hypnosis is real. I don't expect anyone else to use my anecdote as sufficient evidence. Look at the studies I posted. Brain changes are objectively measured. People can be hypnotized to hallucinate.

Don't believe it. Dismiss it because that is the current fad.

I saw it, it wasn't fake, and the research confirms it.

There's no need to be so defensive, and your response does not in any way answer my question.
If you are going to dismiss someone else's expectation of what a natural response to believing you are on the ceiling because they weren't there, then you have to explain why your expectation cannot be dismissed in the same way.
How are they different?

You are mistaking indifference with defensiveness. I'm not annoyed, and I have no reason to be defensive, I have no need for my anecdote be believed. I've said that a number of times.

It seems however, that more than one person in this thread is annoyed I'm not buying the offered versions. You guys are coming up with any number of things to explain something you didn't see.

That makes sense if you are explaining a noise or an inanimate object moving, whatever. Here though, you are essentially imagining a different scenario than actually occurred, then expecting me to say, 'could be' or something like that.

Sorry, I was there. It was not made up, she freaked out, and that freaked the rest of us out, one of those unforgettable things in one's life.

Firstly, I am not 'you guys'. I am not part of any group here, and am happy to be persuaded either way on this.
However, I have spotted what I believe to be a significant flaw in your argument, and your latest response fails to answer that in any way.
Let me restate:
You claim you can predict what a natural reaction to being on the ceiling would be, and at the same time say that no-one else can do this.You have yet to explain why this should be. You weren't hypnotised, nor did you believe you were on the ceiling. How is your prediction of a natural reaction better than that of someone else who was also neither hypnotised nor under the impression they were on the ceiling?
I am not saying that you made this up, so please don't strawman me.Just answer the question, please.

 

[p0lka]

You don't get it. She freaked out, started kicking her legs up and down and screaming.

There wasn't anything about it that said, 'help, get me down', or 'I'm going to climb down'. No, not like that. She started screaming, freaked out. Not sure why that is so hard to picture.

My brother stopped the hypnosis right then, telling her to wake up. We were all freaked out not expecting that kind of reaction. Besides waking her up, no one did anything else. We were dumb teenagers. It was scary. She didn't remember anything after she woke up.......

I thought that only happened in the movies.

 

[Myriad]

This is where you are wrong. You are expecting a rational response. How do you know you don't kick? How do you know fear of falling would be rational? Clearly it wasn't.

I'm not expecting or describing a rational response, and I never called it such. I called it an expected response, based on my own and many others' observations of behavior. Panic reactions to heights and falling danger are predictable. Freezing and clinging are typical. Kicking or other agitated movement is all but unknown (except, as I said, in the special case of hanging).

This is analogous to the common misperceptions of the panic reaction to drowning, which is not (contrary to movie portrayals etc.) flailing ones arms and yelling for help, but instead quietly (but ineffectually) struggling to stay afloat, which makes drowning difficult for bystanders to recognize.

These are instinctive responses that are adaptive in the natural world but they are not rational. A person suffering from a panic reaction to heights will freeze and cling even when it would be more rational to move away from the danger (descend the ladder one has unwisely ascended; move away from the edge rather than clinging to it; follow a trained rescuer's instructions instead of refusing), just as it would be more rational for a person drowning within a few yards of numerous other people to call and wave for help instead of quietly struggle. I'm basing my expectations on how people have been actually observed to behave in actual analogous situations.

 

[xjx388]

Don't go creating too much straw here. Read my posts. There is no evidence you can control anyone. You can make some people hallucinate. I'm not sure if you can do anything else with hypnosis.


Which reminds me, my brother's friend, Ken, who was hypnotized in the show they went to that started this whole thing of my brother learning how to do it ate an onion my brother told him was an apple. I mentioned this upthread or in the other thread. He got angry with my brother after, saying he burped up onion all day.

How does that happen, though, a person eating an onion like it was an apple, no tears, no trouble biting into it? It was one of the things we thought at the time was clear proof he was hypnotized. I think he probably was and was probably hypnotizable like my friend was. But it was nothing like Teri screaming and kicking in a panic.

You'd have to suppress your physiological response to the onion. When we discussed this earlier the naysayers said some onions are mild enough to do that. I can't go back and see how strong the onion was. Now that's an experience one might be convinced to doubt one's conclusions.

But not the spontaneous screaming, kicking ceiling panic.

The whole issue I have is that you are saying that hypnosis is the only explanation for your observations. It isn't the only explanation; in fact, it isn't even a likely explanation. The reason it isn't likely is that it's widely known (at least in magic circles) that stage hypnotism doesn't really use hypnotism along with the fact that there is no science to support the idea that hypnosis can cause the kinds of hallucinations you observed.

I can eat an onion like an apple without experiencing any of the kinds of reactions you think someone should when they eat on onion. I don't like doing that because my wife won't kiss me and I taste onion all day. Isn't it possible that your brother's friend can also do this?

Isn't it possible that Teri put on a convincing show that fooled you?

Isn't it possible that your brother convinced your friends to put on a show for you?

I think all of those are valid possibilities that we can't eliminate even if you are recalling the episode correctly after all these years.

What I don't think is very possible is that your brother became a hypnotist -capable of inducing vivid hallucinations- after watching a show and reading a few books.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Firstly, I am not 'you guys'. I am not part of any group here, and am happy to be persuaded either way on this.
However, I have spotted what I believe to be a significant flaw in your argument, and your latest response fails to answer that in any way.
Let me restate:
You claim you can predict what a natural reaction to being on the ceiling would be, and at the same time say that no-one else can do this.You have yet to explain why this should be. You weren't hypnotised, nor did you believe you were on the ceiling. How is your prediction of a natural reaction better than that of someone else who was also neither hypnotised nor under the impression they were on the ceiling?
I am not saying that you made this up, so please don't strawman me.Just answer the question, please.

Wasn't a prediction, none of us had any idea the reaction would happen. And, I'm guessing other people might have reacted differently.

I am saying I recognized this person in this case freaked out in a way that would not have happened had she not actually been hallucinating she was on the ceiling.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought that only happened in the movies.

About not remembering? I have no idea how common or uncommon it is. She didn't remember panicking or being on the ceiling. It would have been interesting if she had, asking what she remembered about it. But she didn't.

It sounds like it differs from person to person in one of the studies I cited looking at two easily hypnotized subjects. But I think they were talking about remembering post-hypnotic suggestions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not expecting or describing a rational response, and I never called it such. I called it an expected response, based on my own and many others' observations of behavior. Panic reactions to heights and falling danger are predictable. Freezing and clinging are typical. Kicking or other agitated movement is all but unknown (except, as I said, in the special case of hanging).

How is that not describing your 'expected' reaction? It's what you believe the person would do. You even call them 'instinctive' reactions below.

You also expect it to be "a panic reaction to heights". I dare say standing on terra firma and looking down or any other scenario where fear of heights comes in are all different than believing you are stuck on the ceiling in a room.

This is analogous to the common misperceptions of the panic reaction to drowning, which is not (contrary to movie portrayals etc.) flailing ones arms and yelling for help, but instead quietly (but ineffectually) struggling to stay afloat, which makes drowning difficult for bystanders to recognize.

Yeah, I read that piece on drowning victims too. But that one article didn't convince me all drowning victims react that way. When one is taught rescue methods of drowning people you are always taught to grab them from behind so they can't drag you down with them.

So, I'm not buying your analogy.

Bottom line, think about it. All this effort to claim my friend was faking it, (for reasons), because her reaction didn't make sense, then how would she think to act the way she did?

Second, you weren't there. She freaked out, really freaked out. Why would you do that if you weren't actually hallucinating?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The whole issue I have is that you are saying that hypnosis is the only explanation for your observations. It isn't the only explanation; in fact, it isn't even a likely explanation. The reason it isn't likely is that it's widely known (at least in magic circles) that stage hypnotism doesn't really use hypnotism along with the fact that there is no science to support the idea that hypnosis can cause the kinds of hallucinations you observed.

I can eat an onion like an apple without experiencing any of the kinds of reactions you think someone should when they eat on onion. I don't like doing that because my wife won't kiss me and I taste onion all day. Isn't it possible that your brother's friend can also do this?

Isn't it possible that Teri put on a convincing show that fooled you?

Isn't it possible that your brother convinced your friends to put on a show for you?

I think all of those are valid possibilities that we can't eliminate even if you are recalling the episode correctly after all these years.

What I don't think is very possible is that your brother became a hypnotist -capable of inducing vivid hallucinations- after watching a show and reading a few books.

That's not exactly what I said.

I said, my experience led me to believe hypnosis is real. It led me to dismiss Penn and Teller's BS episode on the subject. Because of my experience I went looking for studies that confirmed there was an objective measure a person really was 'under'. And I found it.

Whereas people convinced it's all bogus haven't looked for research in that area, they've looked for research that shows hypnosis doesn't work, many of those studies look at therapeutic outcomes. I have no problem believing hypnosis for therapeutic outcomes doesn't have a lot of supporting evidence. Or they've looked at research that didn't first identify highly susceptible persons.


Re eating the onion, I already said that wasn't irrefutable evidence. Yes, other people have made the same claim. I cannot go back and see how mild or not the onion was.


As for my brother seeing a stage show, reading how to do it, and then actually doing it, you'd be surprised, as was I, just how easy the technique actually is. There's not a lot of skill to repeating a droning message in monotone. There really isn't. He used a spiel about imagining you are floating on a cloud.

Which is interesting in that like a flashing light causing a seizure, whatever is going on when a person is hypnotized, it's a simple brain switch.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a review of the literature. Instead of arguing that my anecdote is flawed , why not look at the research and tell us why this research is flawed?

New directions in hypnosis research: strategies for advancing the cognitive and clinical neuroscience of hypnosis.

Abstract
This article summarizes key advances in hypnosis research during the past two decades, including (i) clinical research supporting the efficacy of hypnosis for managing a number of clinical symptoms and conditions, (ii) research supporting the role of various divisions in the anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortices in hypnotic responding, and (iii) an emerging finding that high hypnotic suggestibility is associated with atypical brain connectivity profiles. Key recommendations for a research agenda for the next decade include the recommendations that (i) laboratory hypnosis researchers should strongly consider how they assess hypnotic suggestibility in their studies, (ii) inclusion of study participants who score in the middle range of hypnotic suggestibility, and (iii) use of expanding research designs that more clearly delineate the roles of inductions and specific suggestions. Finally, we make two specific suggestions for helping to move the field forward including (i) the use of data sharing and (ii) redirecting resources away from contrasting state and nonstate positions toward studying (a) the efficacy of hypnotic treatments for clinical conditions influenced by central nervous system processes and (b) the neurophysiological underpinnings of hypnotic phenomena. As we learn more about the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying hypnosis and suggestion, we will strengthen our knowledge of both basic brain functions and a host of different psychological functions.

It may be that people who are in the middle range of hypnotic suggestibility are the ones acting like chickens in the stage show that led people to believe hypnosis wasn't real. The people who are actually hypnotized were lost in the mix.

For example, McGeown et al. found that response to a hypnotic induction is associated with a greater selective reduction of resting state medial prefrontal cortex activity [as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)] in individuals who scored high on a measure of hypnotic suggestibility (highs) than those who scored low [lows; McGeown et al. (2009), see also Demertzi et al. (2011); Deeley et al. (2012); McGeown et al. (2015); Jiang et al. (2016)]...

such effects relate to spontaneous changes in conscious states (Terhune et al. 2011; Cardeña et al. 2013; Jamieson and Burgess 2014) [see also Egner et al. (2005)]. Functional connectivity studies using fMRI have also demonstrated differences in the brain networks of highs (Hoeft et al. 2012; Huber et al. 2014), and structural MRI research suggests that highs exhibit greater volume in the rostrum of the corpus callosum (Horton et al. 2004) and medial prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices (Huber et al. 2014; McGeown et al. 2015).

Most importantly for all you naysayers is to pay particular attention to new emerging evidence.

A major development with the advent of cognitive neuroscience and the application of neuroimaging methods to hypnosis has been the validation of participants’ subjective responses to hypnosis (Oakley and Halligan 2013). Traditionally, psychologists and neuroscientists have been skeptical of hypnosis and distrustful of participants’ subjective reports of profound changes in perception following specific suggestions. Although the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying hypnosis have yet to be thoroughly delineated, neuroimaging research has consistently demonstrated that subjective changes in response to suggestion are associated with corresponding changes in brain regions related to the specific psychological function in question (Kosslyn et al. 2000; Derbyshire et al. 2004; Cojan et al. 2009; Demertzi et al. 2011; McGeown et al. 2012; Demertzi et al. 2015).

Faking paralysis? Doubtful.

Cojan et al. observed that suggested paralysis differs from active voluntary motor inhibition by modulating cortical activity in precuneus, thereby potentially implicating imagery and self-monitoring functions in the implementation of this suggestion (Cojan et al. 2009). Such cortical modulation was further accompanied by decreases in functional connectivity between primary motor cortex and premotor areas but increased connectivity between primary motor cortex and precuneus (Cojan et al. 2009) [see also Deeley, Oakley et al. (2013); Deeley, Walsh et al. (2013)].

In conclusion:

Cumulatively, the body of research discussed so far indicates that the perceived effects of hypnosis and hypnotic suggestion have clear impacts on brain activity (in particular, the activity known to underlie the perceived effects), supporting that these effects are “real”; hypnotic subjects are not merely pretending when they report profound changes in their experience due to hypnosis. This research has also begun to help us understand the brain areas and activity patterns which underlie hypnotic responding in general and response to specific hypnotic suggestions.

I know what I saw, my friend wasn't faking anything. I consider that gave me a unique position in that I wasn't dismissive of hypnosis like most skeptics have been.

 

[xjx388]

That's not exactly what I said.

I said, my experience led me to believe hypnosis is real. It led me to dismiss Penn and Teller's BS episode on the subject.

On the basis of one, long ago, incident, you are willing to dismiss a pretty good take down of hypnosis?

Because of my experience I went looking for studies that confirmed there was an objective measure a person really was 'under'. And I found it.

Well, as presented on this thread, you certainly haven't found proof of the "state theory" of hypnosis. At best, it's weak evidence for it.

Whereas people convinced it's all bogus haven't looked for research in that area, they've looked for research that shows hypnosis doesn't work, many of those studies look at therapeutic outcomes. I have no problem believing hypnosis for therapeutic outcomes doesn't have a lot of supporting evidence. Or they've looked at research that didn't first identify highly susceptible persons.

I am not convinced it's all bogus. As I said, there has been some support for limited therapeutic benefits for very specific conditions. That support does not lend any credence, however, to stage hypnotism which is what you have described. Stage hypnotism is well understood to be nothing more than people playing along.

Re eating the onion, I already said that wasn't irrefutable evidence. Yes, other people have made the same claim. I cannot go back and see how mild or not the onion was.

OK, so then it's entirely possible that this was not a demonstration of hypnosis.

As for my brother seeing a stage show, reading how to do it, and then actually doing it, you'd be surprised, as was I, just how easy the technique actually is. There's not a lot of skill to repeating a droning message in monotone. There really isn't. He used a spiel about imagining you are floating on a cloud.

I am aware of the patter used by stage hypnotists. It's a way to build expectation in your audience and put some social pressure on your subjects.

Which is interesting in that like a flashing light causing a seizure, whatever is going on when a person is hypnotized, it's a simple brain switch.

That is a completely unfounded connection.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On the basis of one, long ago, incident, you are willing to dismiss a pretty good take down of hypnosis? Well, as presented on this thread, you certainly haven't found proof of the "state theory" of hypnosis. At best, it's weak evidence for it.

That's not what I said either. I'll let you re-read what I said and try again.

As for 'weak' evidence, on what basis besides hand waving is it weak? fMRI, PET scan, EEG and carefully measured eye movements are hardly considered weak evidence in brain research.

The evidence against hypnosis is actually flawed rather than the other way around. I've said why, multiple times, but I'll repeat it:

Studies failed to identify and look at highly susceptible responders.

I am not convinced it's all bogus. As I said, there has been some support for limited therapeutic benefits for very specific conditions. That support does not lend any credence, however, to stage hypnotism which is what you have described.

So my friend wasn't really induced to hallucinate because it wasn't under circumstances that meet your approval?

Stage hypnotism is well understood to be nothing more than people playing along.

No it isn't. It is believed by many to be people playing along.

OK, so then it's entirely possible that this was not a demonstration of hypnosis.

That's what I said. I believe if you go back to the beginning of this thread you will find I said the same thing then, people challenged the onion eating and I don't believe I argued. Though whether Ken was hypnotized, I believe the evidence leans toward yes.

I am aware of the patter used by stage hypnotists. It's a way to build expectation in your audience and put some social pressure on your subjects.

And?

That is a completely unfounded connection.

Only because you don't understand what connection I was making. I didn't say hypnosis was akin to a seizure or that the mechanisms were anything close to the same. What I said was the brain is capable of changing 'states' like an on-off switch.

 

[p0lka]

About not remembering? I have no idea how common or uncommon it is. She didn't remember panicking or being on the ceiling. It would have been interesting if she had, asking what she remembered about it. But she didn't.

It sounds like it differs from person to person in one of the studies I cited looking at two easily hypnotized subjects. But I think they were talking about remembering post-hypnotic suggestions.

Have you ever entertained the idea that your friends might have set it all up just to freak you out?
How would you know the difference?