Hypnosis

[nineinchnails_999]

I have a question regarding hypnosis. Is it woo-woo? Is there legitimate evidence confirming that it works? The reason I'm asking is for a few reasons.

First, I was taught about hypnosis in my psychology class, and from what I could tell, my professor didn't believe any of it. He's a very skeptical person (indeed, he's the reason I'm here today) as well as very bright, so I (perhaps foolishly, perhaps not) seemed to decide for myself that hypnosis was probably not very scientific.

Second, this past week I've been reading The Borderlands of Science by Micheal Shermer, and in his book he lists hypnosis as a "borderland science" which I take to mean that its still up in the air; we can't determine if this works scientifically or not. It hasn't been mentioned in the rest of the book (granted I'm not quite finished with it yet) so I got onto the Skeptic's Dictionary and had a look at their entry, which also took a pretty hard stance against hypnotism. After that I didn't think too much of it, because it wasn't that relevant, and to be honest I wasn't THAT interested.

The last reason piqued my interest, however, and that is that my dad told me today that he's going to start seeing a hypnotist. He claims that he's not sleeping well and wants to see if hypnotism could possibly cure this. Since then I've been quite worried, and I've performed more searches online, but not too many have been fruitful. I'm sure that there has to have been scientific studies done on this sort of thing, but I really don't know where to start looking. Most importantly though, should I be worried about my dad? I would hate to see him waste his money, but more importantly I am also afraid that he might be putting his health at risk. Can anyone help me out? My dad is a very reasonable man, I'm sure if I can find enough of the right evidence to prove him one way or the other that he will believe me.

Edited for typos.

 

[odorousrex]

To me, Hypnosis seems "woo-woo". I doubt that I could ever be hypnotized.

However, does work for some people. My mom used it to quit drinking back in the 80's, and she hasn't touched alcohol since. (It was not overnight, it took several sessions)

I think that hypnosis works like a lie detector. If you believe in the lie the hypnotist is telling you (i.e. I can make you stop drinking) it may very well work on you.

However, for every success, I'm sure there are many more failures.

 

[Marian]

You may find this useful:

http://skepdic.com/hypnosis.html

The use of hypnosis in psychology is very limited. More commonly it's the root of a number of abusive practices (the worst of which is the repressed memory crap IMO).

I've known some who have used it (in a limited fashion) and most who don't. The limited uses I'm aware of are areas of substance abuse (alcohol, drugs) and frankly I'm not aware of any studies showing any real benefits. I'm sure some studies have probably been done, but I don't recall ever coming across any when I was in school.

My personal opinion would be ....I would never advise someone to use hypnotherapy. However I don't think it's generally harmful when used short term for some very specific problems. (Harmful being actual harm to the patient). It may do little to no good though. All the evidence I've heard as to its successes have been ancedotal from either people in the field or a few people I've known who have availed themselves of various sessions. None of which seemed very impressive to me.

Another huge problem with hypnosis is when it is used on someone who has experienced a traumatic event. It should *never* be used on such people, as it can cause them to vividly relive the emotions of the event. That's one reason why it's so obscene to use in any case where abuse is suspected. You certainly want to deal with the emotions surrounding the situation, however you don't want to cause them to experience it again in that manner.

Also talk to your professor about 'repressed memories' it doesn't mean quite what the quacks act like it means. It doesn't mean a memory that's "forgotten" at all, it's merely something that's not in adult context. A brief personal example is (which is really funny) when I was in college my friends and I were sitting around talking about (weirdly enough) parents and sex. Most of them had walked in on their parents at some time or another. One of them made a reference to their parents taking "naps" (which was setting aside time for them to be intimate). I said, well my parents took OH MY GOD!!! (You should have seen my face). My parents took naps on the weekend and we were forbidden to disturb them unless one of us died, or was bleeding profusely, and then you'd better have lost a limb. I never put it together.

The memory wasn't "repressed", I was well aware that my parents took naps. However I never looked at that memory with an adult mind, in a different context. THAT is the crux of actual repressed memories. People don't have amnesia of traumatic events, the problem is generally that they *can't* forget them. Rather the larger problem is when abuse is masked for children into alternative activities that they don't recognize as abuse with a child's mind, but that an adult (or they as an adult) would clearly recognize.

Hypnotherapy is not needed for those cases, and they are not common. Unfortunately many morons rushed in with the fad of 'recovered memories' and basically implanted false memories with numerous repeated suggestive hypnotherapy sessions. Those patients were indeed abused, but by their psychologists.

Anyway I think it's open for debate, but personally I can't think of any situation offhand where I think its use would be necessary or even desirable. YMMV.

 

[geni]

The only clincal study that I can find. Doesn't amount to much.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2689375

 

[Marian]

I wasn't counting relaxation techniques (which are self-hypnotic) when I made my post. Those do have some benefit for relaxation and anxiety relief. Progressive muscle relaxation has had a few studies done IIRC.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by nineinchnails_999

I have a question regarding hypnosis. Is it woo-woo? Is there legitimate evidence confirming that it works? The reason I'm asking is for a few reasons.

First, I was taught about hypnosis in my psychology class, and from what I could tell, my professor didn't believe any of it. He's a very skeptical person (indeed, he's the reason I'm here today) as well as very bright, so I (perhaps foolishly, perhaps not) seemed to decide for myself that hypnosis was probably not very scientific.

Second, this past week I've been reading The Borderlands of Science by Micheal Shermer, and in his book he lists hypnosis as a "borderland science" which I take to mean that its still up in the air; we can't determine if this works scientifically or not. It hasn't been mentioned in the rest of the book (granted I'm not quite finished with it yet) so I got onto the Skeptic's Dictionary and had a look at their entry, which also took a pretty hard stance against hypnotism. After that I didn't think too much of it, because it wasn't that relevant, and to be honest I wasn't THAT interested.

The last reason piqued my interest, however, and that is that my dad told me today that he's going to start seeing a hypnotist. He claims that he's not sleeping well and wants to see if hypnotism could possibly cure this. Since then I've been quite worried, and I've performed more searches online, but not too many have been fruitful. I'm sure that there has to have been scientific studies done on this sort of thing, but I really don't know where to start looking. Most importantly though, should I be worried about my dad? I would hate to see him waste his money, but more importantly I am also afraid that he might be putting his health at risk. Can anyone help me out? My dad is a very reasonable man, I'm sure if I can find enough of the right evidence to prove him one way or the other that he will believe me.

Edited for typos.

In questioning hypnosis' legitimacy, do mean to dispute the existence of an actual trance state that the human psyche can undergo, or just hypnosis' supposed therapeutic benefits?

 

[nineinchnails_999]

Wow thanks for the replies, I'm interested in this solely for the health benefits that are supposed to be involved. Right now I won't doubt anything, if its been tested and its shown to have worked. Specifically I'm worried about my dad who's seeing a hypnotist for sleeping problems. If hypnotism works for these sorts of things great, if not then I'd like to inform my dad so that he doesn't keep wasting his money while his condition gets worse. I had formed a judgement about hypnotism before, but admittedly it was premature, and I haven't seen any scientific evidence, which I would really like to see if there is any. Tests like what geni found would be the best, if they actually showed some conclusive results. I did a little more poking around on that site with no more results however...

I'm just looking for evidence either way, more for piece of mind for me and my father, not to argue. My primary concern is my dad's health. While his situation is far from life threatening, it is getting in the way of his normal life. I'm just trying to find some good answers. Thanks again for your replies.

 

[mgdwcb]

There is one failry famous case. In 1957 a Lancet article (UK Medical journal) published a case of a 16 year old male suffering from an extraordinary skin disease, icthyosis (a problem with the sebaceous sweat glands which is a congenital problem).

Mason gives hypnotic suggestions to the patient for his right arm to be cured and the arm is noticeably better 11 days later whereas the left arm remains the same. Zone-specific effects. Convincing evidence for the effects of the hypnotic suggestions.

I've not read the Lancet article but this site mentions the case.

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~gfong/psych101/hypnosis.html

 

[Marian]

NIN my suggestion would be regarding your personal matter would be to look into whomever is offering the service. Are they licensed by the state (MFCC, LSW, etc...assuming they're in the US). What claims do they make? What methods do they use?

If they're licensed in the United States, you can generally review actions against their license. For example the medical board in California has internet access so that patients can review license information about doctors (and any actions taken against their license). It's not a complete picture, but it does give more information. Not every state offers this, but more and more states are making this information more readily available as it is public record. If you're in the US and the state you're in doesn't offer the information on a website, you can contact the licensing board to obtain that information (that which is public record, sometimes there may be actions which are not public record).

The only reason I would suggest reviewing that would be because many states don't regulate 'hypnosis' per se. In otherwords, someone who's taken a course in it, and has recieved certification (from whatever source) may be able to open up business.

The big difference is the wording. AFAIK if you use the word "hypnotherapy" in California (I'm not familiar with licensing in other states) then that implies 'therapy', which implies that you're licensed to perform therapy, which has specific state guidelines for licensing requirements. As far as I was able to find out in California someone can practice "hypnosis" with the same credentials as would be required for a "Tarot card reader". In other words, none. It merely depends on the specifics being claimed, and if you're careful with wording, someone can open up a business with no real credentials to speak of.

So if it were my father, I'd look into the person offering the service, what their credentials are, what claims they're making for the service, and if they are a licensed therapist (or licensed by any board or by the state at all), verify with the board (if they are licensed by a board) that there are no complaints (as well as with the BBB, or whatever consumer watchdog group(s) exist in your area.

Once you know their credentials, what 'hypnosis' they intend to perform, what claims they are making, you can then do much more specific research into whether or not that would be benefical for your dad, or whether it's a 'woowoo'.

In regards to 'harm', I assume your father has had a medical exam, since insomnia can have underlying medical reasons. I am not a medical doctor (and hence am not giving medical advice) but for example he could have sleep apnea, and that is why he's having problems sleeping. So seeing a physician and eliminating common medical problems would be important.

Hope that helps.

 

[nineinchnails_999]

All of this information has helped a lot, especially about checking credentials of the hypnotist. Thankfully, it seems like the worry won't be needed, as my dad had his first (and last) appointment with the guy. He said that he felt the guy may have known what he was doing, but that he couldn't even be hypnotized, and he wasn't going to keep trying until he could. The only reason that he wanted to go to a hypnotist in the first place is because our regular family doctor has already tried a couple things that haven't been too successful. I feel much better with him trying things with a licensed medical doctor that may not work than with some unknown hypnotist who may have come from anywhere (that also may not work). At least I'LL sleep better at nights now.

Personally I think my dad could just use a break from work...but I'm no medical doctor either.

 

[Tosefos]

i really dont see why hypnotherapy is seen as questionable to begin with.

i come from an academic psychological background, and have studied alot about the subconscious and its role in our psychological makeup.
All these things are very orthadox psychological axioms, the features of the subconscious can be readily seen through many phenomenon. Without the beleif in the subconscious human intelligence would be a mystery and we would probably beleive in souls etc again. furthermore the mechanisms by which the subconscious operates and how suggestion, particularly in `trances` can profoundly affect the subconscious(just watch derren brown, most of his `act` comes from the power of subconscious suggestion absorbtion) are recreateable under lab settings, this makes it a science. If a person could hypnotise a person into feeling no pain in a specific organ or even slowing down heart rate and prehaps even much stranger operations Mr Randi would never fork over $1M, why? because hypnotism and its effectiveness is fact and not a pseudoscience.
So when everthing is broken down and viewed critically(as opposed to musing on a few fragments of assumptions) i cant see what people could could see in hypnosis that would make in unacceptable. thers nothing mysterious about hypnotism that would make it `paranormal` and im very dissapointed at the ignorant accusations made about the effectiveness from people who appear to lack even the most rudimentary grasp of psychological ideas.

 

[plindboe]

Here are several studies and papers:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=hypnosis+suggestion&btnG=Search

There seem to be consistant positive results as far as I can tell.

Edited to add: nineinchnails, I believe hypnosis has that in common with placebo, that the effect depends on your belief that it will work. Therefore I would suggest you to support your father in his decision, instead of airing your skepticism to him, and the chance that it will work might increase. Just a thought.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I wasn't counting relaxation techniques (which are self-hypnotic) when I made my post. Those do have some benefit for relaxation and anxiety relief. Progressive muscle relaxation has had a few studies done IIRC.

I agree. And there are quite a number of good, peer reviewed studies.
Combining systematic desensitization with deep muscle relaxation seems to help reduce anxiety. But only if you trust it. And believe.
Anyone ever see the claim that hypnosis could remove corns and warts?
Seems similar to the Orgone cloud busters.

 

[plindboe]

Anyone ever see the claim that hypnosis could remove corns and warts?
Seems similar to the Orgone cloud busters.

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/3/245

Hypnosis, placebo, and suggestion in the treatment of warts

NP Spanos, RJ Stenstrom and JC Johnston
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.

Two experiments assessed the effects of psychological variables on wart regression. In Experiment 1, subjects given hypnotic suggestion exhibited more wart regression than those given either a placebo treatment or no treatment. In Experiment 2, hypnotic and nonhypnotic subjects given the same suggestions were equally likely to exhibit wart regression and more likely to show this effect than no treatment controls. In both experiments, treated subjects who lost warts reported more vivid suggested imagery than treated subjects who did not lose warts. However, hypnotizability and attribute measures of imagery propensity were unrelated to wart loss. Subjects given the suggestion that they would lose warts on only one side of the body did not show evidence of a side-specific treatment effect.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Re: i really dont see why hypnotherapy is seen as questionable to begin with.

i come from an academic psychological background, and have studied alot about the subconscious and its role in our psychological makeup.

I seriously doubt that. The subconscious is not falsifiable, by fooken definition. Anyone who uses the subconscious to explain any behavior is fooken deluded.

 

[pjh]

Without the beleif in the subconscious human intelligence would be a mystery and we would probably beleive in souls etc again. furthermore the mechanisms by which the subconscious operates and how suggestion, particularly in `trances` can profoundly affect the subconscious(just watch derren brown, most of his `act` comes from the power of subconscious suggestion absorbtion) are recreateable under lab settings, this makes it a science.

There ya go .... bringing Derren Brown into it as 'proof'

Derren is a Mentalist.

For the most 'honest' interview DB has done:

http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html
Read the Section What's in a claim?

Nothing that DB does uses any powers of suggestion, body language, NLP or hypnotism.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: i really dont see why hypnotherapy is seen as questionable to begin with.

I seriously doubt that. The subconscious is not falsifiable, by fooken definition. Anyone who uses the subconscious to explain any behavior is fooken deluded.

We may be reading different definitions of the subconscious, then, since there are a number of definitions that are quite falsifiable, and in fact demonstrable. In my work, I tend to use the "cognitive activity of which the subject is unaware" definition -- freesearch gives a similar definition, to wit : "The part of your mind which notices and remembers information when you are not actively trying to do so, and which influences your behaviour although you are not aware of it."

For example, studies in language research will often "prime" subjects by presenting them with stimuli that happen too fast for the subjects to directly be aware of, but that nonetheless have substantial cognitive effect. A more interesting effect is the well-known and well-documented "blindsight" phenomenon, where people with brain damage in the visual cortex can respond accurately to images that they can't "see."

But you're welcome to come up with an explanation for "blindsight" that doesn't involve cognitive processing below the level of consciousness. Good fooken luck.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Thanks for the link, great interview.
By the way, if Tosefos really had any academic background in psych, it would not have used the term "subconscious". Even the Freudian woos use "unconscious" when they are talking about the unfalsifiable.

 

[tonyb]

Why do so many people, including skeptics, know so little hypnosis, hypnotherapy, and how it's used in the real world, and instead regurgitate misinformation?

I will address one particular post in the thread and try to actually state the reality of hypnosis. I will point out now that my I am actually a qualified and practicing hypnotherapist. So I think I know *something* about the subject.

The use of hypnosis in psychology is very limited.
[/B]

If you're referring to mainstream psychiatry, psychotherapy and counselling then this is mainly true (although quite often some of these therapists are using it to a degree without realising it). It's interesting, though, that hypnotherapists often need to see patients for far fewer sessions that the other "non-hypnosis' approaches.

More commonly it's the root of a number of abusive practices (the worst of which is the repressed memory crap IMO).[/B]

There were a limited spate of these incidents over a few years, which represents a TINY minority of the actual work performed by hypnotherapists around the world.

I've known some who have used it (in a limited fashion) and most who don't. The limited uses I'm aware of are areas of substance abuse (alcohol, drugs) and frankly I'm not aware of any studies showing any real benefits. I'm sure some studies have probably been done, but I don't recall ever coming across any when I was in school.
[/B]

Hypnotherapy is not particularly good for alcohol/drugs, so it's no surprise to me that if that's your only experience of it then you don't rate it. It is, however, effective for helping people stop smoking. And that's backed up by a meta analysis performed by the University of Iowa that concluded it was the MOST effective method of quitting.
Summary of Study

All the evidence I've heard as to its successes have been ancedotal from either people in the field or a few people I've known who have availed themselves of various sessions. None of which seemed very impressive to me.
[/B]

There's lots of studies if you care to look:
http://www.altor.org/et-bulk.htm

Another huge problem with hypnosis is when it is used on someone who has experienced a traumatic event. It should *never* be used on such people, as it can cause them to vividly relive the emotions of the event. That's one reason why it's so obscene to use in any case where abuse is suspected. You certainly want to deal with the emotions surrounding the situation, however you don't want to cause them to experience it again in that manner.
[/B]

It is a perfectly valid therapeutic method for those with traumatic events, and something I reguarly use hypnosis for and with highly effective results.

Also talk to your professor about 'repressed memories' it doesn't mean quite what the quacks act like it means. It doesn't mean a memory that's "forgotten" at all, it's merely something that's not in adult context. A brief personal example is (which is really funny) when I was in college my friends and I were sitting around talking about (weirdly enough) parents and sex. Most of them had walked in on their parents at some time or another. One of them made a reference to their parents taking "naps" (which was setting aside time for them to be intimate). I said, well my parents took OH MY GOD!!! (You should have seen my face). My parents took naps on the weekend and we were forbidden to disturb them unless one of us died, or was bleeding profusely, and then you'd better have lost a limb. I never put it together.

The memory wasn't "repressed", I was well aware that my parents took naps. However I never looked at that memory with an adult mind, in a different context. THAT is the crux of actual repressed memories. People don't have amnesia of traumatic events, the problem is generally that they *can't* forget them. Rather the larger problem is when abuse is masked for children into alternative activities that they don't recognize as abuse with a child's mind, but that an adult (or they as an adult) would clearly recognize.
[/B]

What does a repressed memory amount to? All it means is something that has been consciously forgotten, often because it was uncomfortable for the person to deal with at the time. Why is this concept so difficult for some people to accept? I don't seek out repressed memories, and I certainly don't implant any, but I can assure you that they do occassionally crop up.

Hypnotherapy is not needed for those cases, and they are not common. Unfortunately many morons rushed in with the fad of 'recovered memories' and basically implanted false memories with numerous repeated suggestive hypnotherapy sessions. Those patients were indeed abused, but by their psychologists.
[/B]

True, there were some that implanted false memories, but that isn't the norm now.

Anyway I think it's open for debate, but personally I can't think of any situation offhand where I think its use would be necessary or even desirable. YMMV. [/B]

But then you're not a trained therapist, are you?

 

[tonyb]

Re: Re: i really dont see why hypnotherapy is seen as questionable to begin with.

I seriously doubt that. The subconscious is not falsifiable, by fooken definition. Anyone who uses the subconscious to explain any behavior is fooken deluded.

So how would you define processes in the mind that aren't currently in conscious awareness. Would not a nice simple word like "subconscious" be a useful way of describing it? Or are you saying that there's no such thing as things outside of conscious awareness?

According to you I'm (fookin) deluding myself whenever I perform an automatic mental function, such as a habit.

Why don't people get that the term "subconscious" is just a useful model or metaphor about the mind rather than a literal thing that has to be "proven"?