hypnosis-real science or woo?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was just playing a very high speed and pretty demanding racing game on my 360, and a mate came online. I was speaking to him and fired up a race to see if I could concentrate on both at the same time (I get mixed results typically).

I somehow managed to win the race and miss most of the obstacles, and had virtually no memory of having done so. Yet I didn't miss anything he was saying. I think this is the kind of state you're talking about, the difference being that hypnosis involves the triggering of this state and the exploitation of the suggestibility and compliance level of the subject.

That sounds more like "The Flow" as described by Csikszentmihalyi than hypnosis.

 

[JFrankA]

That sounds more like "The Flow" as described by Csikszentmihalyi than hypnosis.

I've never heard of "The Flow" before, and only read about it in this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihaly_Csikszentmihalyi but my first knee-jerk reaction is that it's another way of someone trying to put some kind of "mystical power" statement to a thing we all do everyday.

The mind focuses, it picks up on a lot of subtle cues, even if we are not immediently aware of them. No big deal. What I did like was when Big Les said

the exploitation of the suggestibility and compliance level of the subject.

(Bold is my doing).

People are very suggestable, especially when they want something to happen.

I still say that Big Les hit it right on the head as to an explaination.

 

[DouglasL]

Thanks Big Les. I like your explanation. It reminds me of "target focus" that fighter pilots talked about when I was in the US Air Force.

 

[simonmaal]

A deep hypnotic trance is not the same as relaxation.

Evidence please?

And to address your later posts that you are using to support this view, you are trying to extrapolate causal factors from correlations, which is a fatal logical fallacy. Correlations between hypnosis and psychological/physiological changes do not provide clear evidence that such changes are unique to hypnosis. For example, some meditations and relaxation techniques are very similar, if not identical to hypnosis. In addition, compliance, obedience and conformity have been found to be more powerful influences on "hypnotic" phenomenon than a "state of hypnosis"; I originally addressed this in the Derren Brown thread (simply Google "Simonmaal Derren Brown" for dozens of videos and my explanation which has been widely spread round the internet).

In regards to avoiding the word "hypnosis", it's ironic you say that, because that word was coined by a researcher to avoid using the term "Mesmerized", because of the connotations associated with the word.
Gravitz & Gerton (1984)

James Braid, Letter to The Lancet, 1845

Actually, the word "hypnosis" is a grave misapplication of the root word. Hypnos is the Greek god of sleep because the original belief was that hypnosis was a form of sleep. In fact, the brain activity during hypnosis differs considerably from that observed during slow-wave sleep (see Carter, 2002).

Changes in 3 brain regions occur during hypnosis; activity increases in the motor and sensory areas (suggestion a higher amount of mental imagery, aka daydreaming) and an increase in blood flow is observed in the right anterior cingulate cortex (suggesting a heightened focus on internal events, also aka daydreaming).

See:

Barabasz, A., Barabasz, M., Jensen, S., Travisan, M. & Warner, D. (1999) 'Critical event-related potentials show the structure of hypnotic suggestions is crucial', International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 47, pp. 5-22.​

Carter, R. (2002) 'Mapping the Mind', London, Phoenix​

De Pascalis, V. (1999) 'Psychophysiological correlates of hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility' International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 47, pp. 117-143.​

Gruzelier, J.H. (1998) A working model of the neurophysiology of hypnosis: A review of evidence' Contemporary Hypnosis, 15, pp. 5-23.​

 

[simonmaal]

What are you on about? Plenty of it is bunk. The whole idea of some special altered state, or that you can reveal hidden internal knowledge or gain some special insight using it, is bunk.

Yes indeed, see my latest post. The only way in which we can help to access "pyschological material" results from an increased focus on internal events rather than the external world, just as success in an exam relies on this: the process colloquially known as "concentration". When we concentrate on what is going on in our mind, we are more able to imagine or make changes. Just as a musician or actor rehearses events before they happen, so does the person undergoing therapy. No mind control, no tricks, no sleight of mouth.

But this also occurs in counselling, psychotherapy and cognitive behavioural therapy; we focus on our thoughts and feelings in order to make sense of them and thus gain more control over them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Hypnotherapy as a true therapeutic intervention should be subject to the same epistemology and methodology as every other therapy. From that point of view, the findings can be considered as "hard science" as that from the other therapies.

And that's what most people think it constitutes. Probably because for many years, that's all there was to it. The fact that science is starting to sort wheat from chaff doesn't diminish the fact that hypnosis as originally conceived, was total woo. It just happened to hit upon some useful psychology.

Yes, the idea of some caped svengali is ridiculous. Anybody remember the suspicion among many that the Soviet Union was employing some form of mass hypnosis device beamed at the United States? The notion sounds utterly ludicrous now found many a sympathetic ear back in the day.

But on a more realistic note, I earlier showed links to research that shows hypnotherapy as an effective aid in IBS treatment. Hypnosis is a serious field of study, but we need more research to isolate exactly what it is that can make it a potentially powerful tool.

 

[simonmaal]

I agree with that. Also, in my opinion, hypnosis involves a level of concentration that relaxation doesn't really have.

You are entitled to an opinion that has no basis in science and is therefore completely wrong. Doesn't mean it holds any water though. I'm being a little bit flippant there but are you arguing that a person in hypnosis is not relaxed?

When someone relaxes, they generally try to NOT to think of anything, letting thoughts wander.

If your thoughts are wandering, you are thinking of something. Your statement contradicts itself.

To go into, (for lack of a better word), a state of hypnosis, there is a focus on something.

Ditto my last comment.

 

[simonmaal]

Hypnosis is "a trancelike state that resembles sleep but is induced by a person whose suggestions are readily accepted by the subject"
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Why is Merriam-Webster considered an authority on hypnosis?

I guess most people just accept that hypnosis is what the definition says it is.

The definition according to who?

The Stanford Scale measures how strong the suggestions are accepted.

Ah, so if we define hypnosis as being when "a person is in a state of mind where they will readily accept suggestions", we can measure that person's depth of hypnosis by how strong the suggestions are accepted? That is as classic a circular argument as I have ever seen. And I guess Milgram forgot to report that his participants were hypnotised before administering the false electric shock. Heck, that detail was also missing from Asch and the Stanford prison experiment.

 

[amb]

What are you on about? Plenty of it is bunk. The whole idea of some special altered state, or that you can reveal hidden internal knowledge or gain some special insight using it, is bunk. And that's what most people think it constitutes. Probably because for many years, that's all there was to it. The fact that science is starting to sort wheat from chaff doesn't diminish the fact that hypnosis as originally conceived, was total woo. It just happened to hit upon some useful psychology.

Entertainment value. A person can not be forced to do something he doesn't want to do under so-called hypnosis. Charlatans have been claiming to be able to stop people smoking for years, with no succes. The only way the person will give up smoking is if he really wants to. Hypnosis is bunkum. Otherwise, every time I see a stunner, she would remove her clothing for me.

 

[Belz...]

Otherwise, every time I see a stunner, she would remove her clothing for me.

That's odd. It works for me!

 

[JFrankA]

You are entitled to an opinion that has no basis in science and is therefore completely wrong. Doesn't mean it holds any water though. I'm being a little bit flippant there but are you arguing that a person in hypnosis is not relaxed?

No, I'm not argueing that at all. All I'm saying is that people constrate on a goal in the hypnosis case, that in relaxation, there is none. For example, when I'm tried, I don't concentrate on losing weight, or solving a problem, my mind wanders.

If your thoughts are wandering, you are thinking of something. Your statement contradicts itself.

I didn't say you stop thinking, I simply said you try not to. And I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. All I meant was that there is no concentration on something. Also, with relaxation, there isn't someone else trying to appeal to your suggestablity. (Which I didn't say before, sorry).

Ditto my last comment.

As I said, I'm probably explaining my opinion terribly.

All I am saying that "hypnosis" and relaxation are different ONLY in the fact that in the case of "hypnosis", there is a concentration on a goal, AND an exploitation of the suggestablity of the person in that "state". Where as in relaxation there is no such concentration. I never said there's no thinking.
As an example of what I think the difference is:

A "trance" can be considered solving a puzzle, playing a video game, watching a movie, reading a book, driving a car, being in a "meditative" or "hypnotic state". All the same thing: the person is focusing on ...whatever. Nothing magical about it. (And I've never said that there was ). Just someone focusing so much on a goal. With "hypnosis" there's the added difference of the suggestablity of the person being exploited as well.

Now, I realize that by the way I've explained it, popping in a movie can be considered "hypnosis". As I've said before: this type of "state" is not unusual, magic, supernatural, etc. It is something that everyone does to an extent every day. Just something that we all do.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Good info and comments, simonmaal. Thanks.

Especially this:

Ah, so if we define hypnosis as being when "a person is in a state of mind where they will readily accept suggestions", we can measure that person's depth of hypnosis by how strong the suggestions are accepted? That is as classic a circular argument as I have ever seen.

Which is what I've been trying to say. There's a problem with defining what hypnosis is--especially in terms of doing research.

This is the same problem with any study that first screens for hypnotizability and then has anything to say about the effect of being hypnotized.

Seriously, consider any treatment and the null hypothesis predicts that your measured result is likely to be a normal distribution. If you just count the subjects at one end of that normal distribution, you really can't reject the null hypothesis.

 

[JonWhite]

All I'm saying is that people constrate on a goal in the hypnosis case, that in relaxation, there is none...

All I meant was that there is no concentration on something. Also, with relaxation, there isn't someone else trying to appeal to your suggestablity. ...

All I am saying that "hypnosis" and relaxation are different ONLY in the fact that in the case of "hypnosis", there is a concentration on a goal, AND an exploitation of the suggestablity of the person in that "state". Where as in relaxation there is no such concentration.

I'm curious on this distinction between the state of relaxation and hypnosis. Are they that seperate?

The very first hypnotic script I (and probably most hypnotists) learnt was a "progressive relaxation", the purpose of which is to use the focus and concentration of the subject to achieve an ever increasing level of physical relaxation. It is largely comprised of suggestions such as, ".. now focus your attention on the large and small muscles of your thighs and the wonderful feelings of relaxation that you are allowing yourself to have there". The subject becoming more and more relaxed precisely because of their focus on the goal of relaxation, according to the suggestions of doing so.

Or to put it another way (ignoring any sprirtual overtones) meditation is accepted as a relaxation technique. Nonetheless it does this by means of continual and restricted focus, albeit on a mantra, breathing or whatever.

With regards to hypnotherapy I have always generally seen the "hypnotic" state, however the subject experiences it according to expectation, as being one of both physical (and mental) relaxation combined with the narrowed concentration on the suggested goal which makes it (the suggestion) in theory potentially more effective - subject also to conformist tendencies, etc.

 

[amb]

That's odd. It works for me!

You must let me have your technique. I swear, I will paint your house or something if you will only give me you're secrete.

 

[amb]

Good info and comments, simonmaal. Thanks.

Especially this:


Which is what I've been trying to say. There's a problem with defining what hypnosis is--especially in terms of doing research.

This is the same problem with any study that first screens for hypnotizability and then has anything to say about the effect of being hypnotized.

Seriously, consider any treatment and the null hypothesis predicts that your measured result is likely to be a normal distribution. If you just count the subjects at one end of that normal distribution, you really can't reject the null hypothesis.

Hypnosis is just like acupuncture. It's all in the mind, just like homosex.....er homeopathy.

 

[simonmaal]

Entertainment value. A person can not be forced to do something he doesn't want to do under so-called hypnosis.

Very true, unless of course that person would normally do something s/he doesn't want to do. Hypnosis makes little difference in that respect; it is more to do with the triplet forces of obedience, compliance and conformity.

Charlatans have been claiming to be able to stop people smoking for years, with no succes.

This is not strictly true. The studies cited by PubMed have shown no difference between smoking cessation hypnotherapy and a placebo, but that each is better than a control (although there are variations between the different studies, but only relating to the relationship between control group data and the other two). So it could be argued that hypnosis is not effective and therefore is a questionable aid to smoking cessation. But because we are arguing that hypnosis is a deliberately induced placebo, then it could be argued that hypnosis is indeed effective, but only insofar as it is capable of creating the placebo effect. But to make that claim would be to depart from tradition.

So to ask the question on whether or not hypnotherapy is effective, we are asking a moral question as well as a scientific one; a very thorny issue. Please also bear in mind that the studies were done on very small sample sizes and there is little information on how the variables were controlled.

Other studies (for other interventions such as IBS hypnotherapy) have found hypnosis to be more effective than a placebo but it is not yet entirely clear why.

The only way the person will give up smoking is if he really wants to.

True, but your next comment seems to miss all the information and studies cited thus far:

Hypnosis is bunkum. Otherwise, every time I see a stunner, she would remove her clothing for me.

Please take a look at the studies and then reconsider because by trying to confirm the consequent, you are committing a logical fallacy (but only if you have read the research). You need to refine your conclusion.

 

[simonmaal]

JFrankA

Despite first appearance, I think we might be agreeing on this issue if we can get past the semantics!

So before we can go any further, I think we need to define what we mean by "relaxation": are we to define it as a physiological state, an emotional state, a focus of attention (or lack thereof), all three or something else?

 

[Big Les]

I think you guys are actually on the same page as well to be honest.

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA

Despite first appearance, I think we might be agreeing on this issue if we can get past the semantics!

I think so too. I just think I'm stating my opinion poorly.

So before we can go any further, I think we need to define what we mean by "relaxation": are we to define it as a physiological state, an emotional state, a focus of attention (or lack thereof), all three or something else?

Good point. Well, I'll give it a shot. Feel free to debate, please.

Relaxation can include either a focus of attention (e.g. movie watching, problem solving, etc) or lack there of (e.g. going to sleep). The body is not doing anything physically strenuous (e.g. sports or lifting etc), if it's doing anything at all. The emotional outcome of all relaxation is to ...oh geez, the best I can put this... is to store or recharge the body's enegry (and possibly to clear the mind of overloaded thoughts).

This way, relaxation can be watching tv, reading a book, doing a crossword, playing a video game, going to sleep, closing your eyes for a few seconds, taking a walk, driving a car, etc.

It's a very general description but I think relaxation is a general thing and different for different people. Some people find reading relaxing, while I don't, for example.

The bottom line is that with all relaxation, there is little or no movement, and that the person relaxing is feeling like s/he is storeing or recharging his/her physical, emotional, and mental states.

*whew*

 

[Senex]

Hypnosis has no conventional wisdom -- research on this issue is contradictory. Anyone with a little knowledge could give subjects a suggestion that their hand is attached to a helium ballon and succeed with raising most subject's hand. The most gifted hypnotist can't make someone do what they don't wish to do.

Some people can compartmentalize pain in their mind and endure great pain while calling it hypnosis. If the name hypnosis was never coined they might still be able to bear that pain. It's a topic I used to have great interest in and decided it is all about suggestion -- but don't ask me to define it past that because no one can.

I somehow managed to win the race and miss most of the obstacles, and had virtually no memory of having done so.

The force was with you that day

 

[amb]

Very true, unless of course that person would normally do something s/he doesn't want to do. Hypnosis makes little difference in that respect; it is more to do with the triplet forces of obedience, compliance and conformity.

This is not strictly true. The studies cited by PubMed have shown no difference between smoking cessation hypnotherapy and a placebo, but that each is better than a control (although there are variations between the different studies, but only relating to the relationship between control group data and the other two). So it could be argued that hypnosis is not effective and therefore is a questionable aid to smoking cessation. But because we are arguing that hypnosis is a deliberately induced placebo, then it could be argued that hypnosis is indeed effective, but only insofar as it is capable of creating the placebo effect. But to make that claim would be to depart from tradition.

So to ask the question on whether or not hypnotherapy is effective, we are asking a moral question as well as a scientific one; a very thorny issue. Please also bear in mind that the studies were done on very small sample sizes and there is little information on how the variables were controlled.

Other studies (for other interventions such as IBS hypnotherapy) have found hypnosis to be more effective than a placebo but it is not yet entirely clear why.

True, but your next comment seems to miss all the information and studies cited thus far:

Please take a look at the studies and then reconsider because by trying to confirm the consequent, you are committing a logical fallacy (but only if you have read the research). You need to refine your conclusion.

Why is it that when a controversial subject like homesex...er homeopathy, herbalist, chiropracter, osteopath, hypnosis, iridology ect. ,it's always ''the test were not conclusive or large enough to reach any conclusion''? Could it possibly be that there's very little benefit in any of it or none at all?