Randi's Encyclopedia: Hypnosis

[Suggestologist]

In the past I have found Randi's comments about hypnosis to be both inconsistent and inaccurate. The article in his encyclopedia is no different. I will also discuss Kreskin's comments about M.H. Erickson as they appear in How To Be (a fake) Kreskin. I think that people like Shermer (based on a comment in Why People Believe Weird Things) and Darren Brown (based on comments in Pure Effect)would also find fault. Penn & Teller would probably agree with the Randi/Kreskin position based on their episode of B***S*** regarding Hypnosis (not the one dealing with alien abductions which involved hypnotic regression, but the one with Wendi Freisen).

First, Randi' Encyclopedia, "Hypnosis":

One of the most controversial subjects or phenomena in psychology is hypnotism. It is said to be an altered state of mind which a subject enters at the instruction of the operator, a trance condition in which the subject is amenable to suggestions made by the operator. Stage demonstrations of the phenomenon were once very common.

Since there are no adequate definitions of "trance'' and no means whereby one can test for that state, it appears more likely that hypnotism is a mutual agreement of the operator and the subject that the subject will co-operate in following suggestions and in acting out various suggested scenarios. As such, hypnotism may be a valuable tool in psychology.

This is one interpretation. However, it is not correct to say that one cannot test for a trance state. Catalepsy, muscle tone, economy of movement, and other behaviors are indicators. Can people fake-out the tests? Yes, it's possible. But not for a naive subject who thinks hypnosis is about swinging a watch.

In addition, PET scans indicate that hypnotic trance is different from imagination and can produce actual (as opposed to "imagined"?) visual hallucination. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,652010,00.html
This seems (to me) to meet Kreskin's (former) $100,000 hypnosis challenge.

Nor is it correct to say that "mutual agreement" must exist. The shock induction, the surprise induction, as well as the reverse-set, and confusion induction techniques cannot rely on agreement, and are sometimes done with people directly (at least consciously) opposed to being hypnotized.

Certainly, the picture of the hypnotist (operator) as a figure of power with control over the unwilling victim, is the product of ignorance and superstition.

And modern hypnotists often take a permissive as opposed to authoritarian approach to hypnosis. The caricature of the powerful controlling hypnotist swinging a watch (a myth Randi has spread in one commentary) or making mesmeric hand passes (another myth Randi spread in that commentary) is mostly a matter of hollywood and stage magicians pretending to do hypnosis, not from actual hypnotists.

Anton Mesmer, who gave his name to an early version of hypnotism, "mesmerism,'' played with the notion of animal magnetism and then began to realize that the various objects he used--iron scepters, vats of chemicals, etc.--had nothing to do with the experience which his subjects underwent.

So Randi calls hypnosis an "experience". And yes, Mesmer realized that magnets had nothing to do with it.

Recent research has shown that weight loss and cessation of smoking, both popularly advertised as curable by hypnotism, cannot be accomplished without the earnest desire of the sufferer to achieve the desired result; this leads to the question of whether or not the results might not be as easily attained by some other form of approach, such as religious inspiration, the caring of a family member or the intervention of another mystic-sounding but ineffective therapy. This is an idea that professional hypnotists do not care to hear.

I personally have no problem with the possibility that other approaches that rely on belief in supernaturality can work. Recent research on placebo effects confirm this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050616061459.htm

However, calling something "ineffective" when it actualizes a wanted goal is incoherent. And juxtaposing hypnosis alongside paranormal ideas does not make hypnosis anything more or less than "normal". That the cessation of smoking and weight loss require desire of the sufferer to achieve the desired result is not unique to hypnosis. Under what approach would either occur without "earnest desire"? Nicotine patches don't work for people who don't want to quit smoking. Stomach stapling doesn't work for those who do not earnestly desire to lose weight. So the argument is tautological, and short of locking someone up so they can't eat anything, you can't force someone to lose weight unless they really want to; -- under any circumstance.

Furthermore, since I don't know what article or study Randi is referring to, I have to speculate that it may have been saying that in order to be effective one should use hypnotic suggestions to reinforce and enhance whatever desire the subject comes in with, or to create or revivify desire in some way.

It's important to remember that it's what you do in hypnosis that matters, some approaches work (with some people) and some don't (with the same people). As Steve de Shazer wrote: "Hypnosis is more like novacaine, than like tooth extraction." Just being hypnotized won't do much by itself.

Whether such things can be better accomplished through other means is not really for hypnotists to investigate, but the practitioners of those other things. If Randi has evidence of the other approaches he mentioned working as well as or better than hypnosis, let him show it.

Since Randi's article has no sourcing information whatsoever, it is hard to figure out how Randi got this notion that "professional hypnotists do not care to hear" about such things. From personal experience, that's plainly false. Like the idea of hypnotists as "controlling" the subject of hypnosis, this smacks of a basic misunderstanding of hypnosis and professional hypnotists. I demand to view any evidence there may be or to see a retraction of this bluster.

Now let's look at Kreskin's comments from his book, which is also unsourced:

pp.6-7 One of the most famous clinical hypnotists was a psychiatrist, Dr. Milton H. Erickson. Erickson was quite theatrical in his own way, and although he limited his performances and entertainment to educational demonstrations for medical gatherings, he was not beneath resorting to the strategies and tricks of certain stage hypnotists. Often he would spend two or three hours with subjects the night before a demonstration, preconditioning the desired responses, so that when they answered his request for audience volunteers the next day, they would respond rapidly to his suggestions, although perceived by the rest of the gathering as new subjects. My close friend, Dr. Maurice Bryant, an authority on medical hypnosis learned of this firsthand when he worked with Erickson at a medical seminar.

I was unable to find any "Dr. Maurice Bryant" so I have no way of checking what Kreskin wrote. It's possible that Kreskin misunderstood that hypnotists who give demonstrations don't usually use naive subjects when they want to be sure that they demonstrate specific things to an audience, as would be the case for a medical audience. Everything I have read about Erickson, tells me that he often used good subjects, conditioned ahead of time for demonstrations and that this was not hidden from the audience. Of course, someone might walk into a demonstration part-way and not realize this.

The next quote is a bit bizarre to me. Kreskin blames hypnotists for not providing the source of their techniques. But few would care from whom a technique came, Erickson was demonstrating hypnosis, and there are plenty of books with descriptions of the historical evolution of hypnosis. Kreskin is being stupid here:

pp.7 Erickson made famous a hypnotic induction technique in which the subject, seated in a chair, looks at his or her hands, one of which then rises uncontrollably and involuntarily off the lap almost to the point of touching the subject's face. This was dubbed the "arm levitation" and was, in fact, developed by a Dr. Wolberg many years prior to Erickson, althought the latter rarely gave Wolberg any credit.

Actually, arm levitation was not what Erickson was famous for. Utilization, Interspersal, Confusion and other approaches are far more associated with Erickson than arm levitation which is something any hypnotist, Ericksonian or otherwise, should know how to do. I never associated arm levitation with Erickson. Reading Hypnosis: An Exploratory Casebook by Erickson and Rossi bears this out.

Continuing directly, Kreskin now negates Wolberg's origination of arm levitation:

Actually, the community of medical hypnotists share a worldview so myopic that they have never credited the true originators of this stunt, the nineteenth-century stage-hypnotists and mesmerists. I have in my collection numerous photographs of turn-of-the-century hypnotists onstage, performing at a time when speed and fast pacing were not required, causing their subjects' arms to rise off a table and into the air as the subjects become more susceptible to hypnosis

Kreskin makes a universal statement, a false one, about hypnotists being myopic, with no source or evidence pool, just a riff off of a pretended lack of attribution and frankness with an audience during a demonstration. Again, books on hypnosis often include an introductory history of where it all came from and how it developed, and demonstration subjects are usually not naive subjects who have never been hypnotized before.

On this skeptical forum, it's important to point out that M.H. Erickson did NOT believe in psychics or ESP, and Rosen has written about this in My Voice Will Go With You where he recounts that Erickson realized that the "psychics" were reading his subvocalizations (crystal ball = magnifying glass?). Erickson told someone who believed in ESP to go to a psychic and instead of thinking of a relative, think of some other person, and the psychic would invariably misidentify the person they were thinking of (and thereby subvocalizing the wrong name) as the relative. This proved that the psychic was not getting information from the spirit world, but from the subvocalizations of the person in front of them.

Randi Contradicts Himself?
http://www.randi.org/jr/090704bad.html
Randi said:

Though I do not recognize hypnosis as an "altered state of mind," I do agree that the process — whatever its true nature and status — might be of value in analyzing personality problems and discovering needed facts about the subjects.

If I had a transcript, I would go on and criticize Penn & Teller's handling of hypnosis on their Episode devoted to it. Skepdic also has poor information about hypnosis and unsupported acrimony directed at hypnotists.

 

[Olaf/QII]

My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that there are people out there who have a need to attack things. It could be acupuncture, chinese herbal medicine, african-americans, jews, etc

 

[Olaf/QII]

If I had a transcript, I would go on and criticize Penn & Teller's handling of hypnosis on their Episode devoted to it. Skepdic also has poor information about hypnosis and unsupported acrimony directed at hypnotists.

Angry people with some sort of emotional problem? People who are just killing time as they eagerly await the sweet release of death?

 

[Nucular]

Re: Re: Randi's Encyclopedia: Hypnosis

Angry people with some sort of emotional problem? People who are just killing time as they eagerly await the sweet release of death?

wtf are you talking about?

Suggestologist, interesting post. Haven't read it all yet, but I've often wondered about inconsistency in the way sceptics talk about hypnosis, which goes beyond simple disagreement between individuals.

I wonder how much of it might be due to the fact that often, ceptics are magicians or performers who know exactly how many of these things are done, but won't give away everything because obviously that wouldn't be in their interests. So we get hint and apparently contradictory statements which are necessarily incomplete, perhaps.

 

[Nucular]

My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that there are people out there who have a need to attack things. It could be acupuncture, chinese herbal medicine, african-americans, jews, etc

Again, wtf? You seek to compare people who ask for evidence that Chinese herbal medicine does what its proponents claim to people who attack black people for being black?

Your bizarre attack is impressive both in its irony and its surreality.

Still, you're unlikely to get banned for it - must try harder!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Nice post. I believe that an skeptic should remain skeptical until some kind of facts are shown. If a skeptic simply denies something because it seems unlikely, he is not a skeptic.

 

[treble_head]

Hypnotism is very much based in the person being hypnotised. It was well stated in the Penn & Teller episode that there is really no "it". It is impossible to know what someone feels. Do they believe it is real? A lot of the time, they, do. It never detracts from the reality of the person who recalls being abducted or born or what have you. Does it make it real? Hardly so.
Is it real to them? You feckin bet. Hypnotism is a bad subject to try to sound knowledgable about. Believers live it, disbelievers discount it. No medium, no mean. It is what it is.
We need, as skeptics, to be compassionate. Try to understand what they feel and ask if there isn't a logical explanation for it. Show the proof, don't shove the proof.

 

[Suggestologist]

Hypnotism is very much based in the person being hypnotised. It was well stated in the Penn & Teller episode that there is really no "it". It is impossible to know what someone feels.

And P&T are using the old ruse of asking WHERE a private behavior IS (described in The Art of Deception by Capaldi). It is impossible to know (in a "radical" sense) what someone else feels, therefore there is no "it" to feelings, to thoughts, to emotions, to dreams, to pain; therefore none of these things exist. Point to where your "love" is; Aha! you cannot; -- therefore there is no IT to love, there is no such "THING"! A highly solipsistic and unconvincing argument.

Do they believe it is real? A lot of the time, they, do. It never detracts from the reality of the person who recalls being abducted or born or what have you. Does it make it real? Hardly so.

But, you're mixing the actuality of two levels: the content of the experience, and the exerience ITself. Most hypnotists do not think that past-life regression or alien-abduction regression actually turns up memories of what really happened in a past-life or alien-abduction, but are products of the person's imagination. Even regular age-regression, where you take someone back to a younger age in their own life, is taken skeptically by responsible hypnotists and is only thought to be what actually happened with corroborating evidence obtained outside of the context of hypnosis. Hypnotists do think that all such regressions can feel real to the subject, regardless of the actuality of the content.

 

[Ashles]

My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that there are people out there who have a need to attack things.

 

[treble_head]

Oop. I believe I spoke too quickly (I was heading for bed at the time). By "there is no 'it'", I should also have made it evident that I also mean that there are so many different things that are described as "hypnotism" that it can become a dangerous word.

I should also state that as far as I'm concerned, hypnotism is real. My personal experience has been, unfortunately, on the bad side of things. One of my dear friends had been convinced that she had experienced past lives and had been abducted by aliens(all to the tune of $60 a session). She's better now, and may be joining us on the boards, soon. (yay!)

My real concern is, in fact, the perception of hypnotism by most people IS the "wave-a-watch, creepy theramin music" variety.

Also I think you might give the Penn & Teller show on the subject a watch. By calling the show BS, they attack the BS aspects of it, (penis enlargement, even cancer treatment (?!!!!?!) through "hypnosis") Often, they do not toss off the subject as useless, but show how its use can, in many instances, be spurious at best. I think they could have handled this subject a little more delicately, but we can't always have what we want. I think their handling of it may not be the best, but better than it may seem at first.

But, you're mixing the actuality of two levels: the content of the experience, and the exerience ITself. Most hypnotists do not think that past-life regression or alien-abduction regression actually turns up memories of what really happened in a past-life or alien-abduction, but are products of the person's imagination. Even regular age-regression, where you take someone back to a younger age in their own life, is taken skeptically by responsible hypnotists and is only thought to be what actually happened with corroborating evidence obtained outside of the context of hypnosis. Hypnotists do think that all such regressions can feel real to the subject, regardless of the actuality of the content.

The active words should be Responsible Hypnotists. That becomes the active problem. I would genuinely like to hear more about how hypnotism can be used for actual therapy. I'm sure it's there, I just know nothing about it, quite frankly. The problem arises with the "Therapists" who use the act to convince people that they were world famous travelers in past lives or that they've been to distant stars, even often not knowing that they are indeed planting, for lack of a better term those ideas.

I believe that it is highly disturbing that there are many very unqualified people practicing hypnotism out of their own homes for large fees without any sort of training.

Is there a protocol for hypnotic therapy, or more specifically a set way of extracting valid information without unnecessarily adding in the therapist's own thoughts and ideas? Is there a way for this to be a licensed and regulated field? Sorry if this rambles a bit, but I'm still working out all the details and I need more information. Plus, it is super-hard to type out my thoughts in a little box surrounded by html while Mr. Randi stares at everything I type. Anyway, I really look forward to further discussion. You are super-eloquent, btw (no butt kissing. just sayin)

 

[Suggestologist]

Oop. I believe I spoke too quickly (I was heading for bed at the time). By "there is no 'it'", I should also have made it evident that I also mean that there are so many different things that are described as "hypnotism" that it can become a dangerous word.

Yes. It does not describe a lone phenomenon; more like a constellation of them.

I should also state that as far as I'm concerned, hypnotism is real. My personal experience has been, unfortunately, on the bad side of things. One of my dear friends had been convinced that she had experienced past lives and had been abducted by aliens(all to the tune of $60 a session). She's better now, and may be joining us on the boards, soon. (yay!)

My real concern is, in fact, the perception of hypnotism by most people IS the "wave-a-watch, creepy theramin music" variety.

Also I think you might give the Penn & Teller show on the subject a watch.

Yes, I've seen it. My memory tells me that they described both the stage hypnotist and the hypnotist who was doing sessions in what looked like a classroom for.. what was it... smoking cessation; P&T described them both as untypically "honest" about hypnosis. But to me, they are your typical hypnotists who know what they're doing.

By calling the show BS, they attack the BS aspects of it, (penis enlargement, even cancer treatment (?!!!!?!) through "hypnosis") Often, they do not toss off the subject as useless, but show how its use can, in many instances, be spurious at best. I think they could have handled this subject a little more delicately, but we can't always have what we want. I think their handling of it may not be the best, but better than it may seem at first.

While penis enlargement with the assistance of hypnosis is not supported by the evidence, breast enlargement actually is.

The active words should be Responsible Hypnotists. That becomes the active problem. I would genuinely like to hear more about how hypnotism can be used for actual therapy. I'm sure it's there, I just know nothing about it, quite frankly. The problem arises with the "Therapists" who use the act to convince people that they were world famous travelers in past lives or that they've been to distant stars, even often not knowing that they are indeed planting, for lack of a better term those ideas.

I believe that it is highly disturbing that there are many very unqualified people practicing hypnotism out of their own homes for large fees without any sort of training.

There are many organizations. The National Guild of Hypnotists. The Society of Applied Hypnosis actually has some pretty tough proficiency-based standards (you have to be able to demonstrate what you can do, not just pass a written test). There are also a number of clinical hypnosis societies -- you have to be a medical doctor or psychologist or psychotherapist or nurse or something related to be a member of one of those.

Is there a protocol for hypnotic therapy, or more specifically a set way of extracting valid information without unnecessarily adding in the therapist's own thoughts and ideas?

Yes, as I quoted Brian David Phillips in the "Geller hypnotized Michael Jackson" thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870952100#post187095210
there is a difference between "leading" and "guiding".

Is there a way for this to be a licensed and regulated field? Sorry if this rambles a bit, but I'm still working out all the details and I need more information. Plus, it is super-hard to type out my thoughts in a little box surrounded by html while Mr. Randi stares at everything I type. Anyway, I really look forward to further discussion. You are super-eloquent, btw (no butt kissing. just sayin)

In some places it's more regulated than in others. Stage Hypnosis is banned in some places. Like I said, hypnosis societies have standards, some are harder to meet than others.

 

[Loon]

The Society of Applied Hypnosis actually has some pretty tough proficiency-based standards (you have to be able to demonstrate what you can do, not just pass a written test).

This is true, though they don't seem to have any sort of application test or anything. If you can get someone into and out of trance, you get certified. I am unaware of any case where they've said "whoa, it's better for humanity if you don't do this." Of course, they're really new (less than a year, I think) and may not have come across anyone like that. More worrying is the fact that there's not much in the way of "what to do when" or "use this if" or "avoid this if."

I can't speak to any of the other societies, though the SAH people say that many other hypnosis organizations don't even require you to prove you can hypnotize people.

The problem hyponosis has, acceptance wise, is twofold: One, it is still not extremely well documented and researched (there is some, but there's a long way to go). Add to that the rather unquantifiable nature of it- we have only the most rudimentary understanding of what actually goes on in our heads- and you draw woos like flies to honey. The people I've met at SAH use the phrase "the white light community," to describe what we call woo, and in much the same tone.

So now you haev hordes of (poorly-trained?) woos running around among the useful (if poorly trained?) hypnotists, getting them all tarred with the same brush.

I say, more research.

 

[Suggestologist]

This is true, though they don't seem to have any sort of application test or anything. If you can get someone into and out of trance, you get certified. I am unaware of any case where they've said "whoa, it's better for humanity if you don't do this." Of course, they're really new (less than a year, I think) and may not have come across anyone like that. More worrying is the fact that there's not much in the way of "what to do when" or "use this if" or "avoid this if."

You're talking about abreactions? Avoiding and dealing-with?

I say, more research.

What specifically do you want researched about it?

 

[treble_head]

While penis enlargement with the assistance of hypnosis is not supported by the evidence, breast enlargement actually is.

Pardon me for saying so, but alarm bells are ringing. I'd really really like to see the data on this one. Breasts grow and shrink for a number of reasons. Hormonal changes, body weight, pregnancy, etc.

However, the idea of hypnosis permanently changing the size of breasts seems terribly far-fetched. How could that possibly work? I am not discounting it entirely, but I would certainly require evidence as to not only the results, but also the process by which this could happen.

 

[Suggestologist]

Pardon me for saying so, but alarm bells are ringing. I'd really really like to see the data on this one. Breasts grow and shrink for a number of reasons. Hormonal changes, body weight, pregnancy, etc.

However, the idea of hypnosis permanently changing the size of breasts seems terribly far-fetched. How could that possibly work?

I don't recall and am too lazy at this moment to look up the name of the condition where a woman thinks she is pregnant and develops as if they were, including morning sickness, breast milk develops, whatever..., but is actually not.

I think it's lumped in as a type of placebo effect.

 

[Loon]

You're talking about abreactions? Avoiding and dealing-with?

They did talk about abreactions, though nobody experienced one the entire week, so I don't know how well their advice works (or rather, how well any of the trainess would implement it). But that's ot really what I had in mind- more along the lines of "If the reporting problem is this, try this technique" or "this type of induction is best with these types of people" or "generally start with this technique." Instead, they presented a large variety of techniques without giving much of an indication of what differentiated them clinically.

To be fair, this may have been the point. The instructor is very big on experience as a teacher. I may be missing the point, which might be that trance inductions are very lfexible- go have fun and don't hurt anyone.

What specifically do you want researched about it?

For starters? More clinical results from smoking cessation and weight loss. These being the most common things a hypnotists is asked to treat, a bundle of clinical evidence to show the AMA, for example, or the media at large, would go a long way.

Clinical trials of hypnotic pain control could be groundbreaking if even half of what I've been told is true. (I've heard stories of using only hypnosis in the dentist's office- I've never seen it)

Even better studies in things like sports performance or even breast enlargement would be welcome.

Essentailly, more research to show to the lay public who may or may not think this works. If the effects are as cool and as powerful as is often heard, the studies should show it no problem.

 

[treble_head]

I don't recall and am too lazy at this moment to look up the name of the condition where a woman thinks she is pregnant and develops as if they were, including morning sickness, breast milk develops, whatever..., but is actually not.

I think it's lumped in as a type of placebo effect.

So, does this mean that the hypnotist convinces the subject that they are pregnant? If so, that's not entirely moral, I feel, and even if not, and it is someting related, that would still make the effect temporary, and therefore... well... kinda useless.

 

[Suggestologist]

For starters? More clinical results from smoking cessation and weight loss. These being the most common things a hypnotists is asked to treat, a bundle of clinical evidence to show the AMA, for example, or the media at large, would go a long way.

I have looked into the review of hypnosis for smoking cessation. Part of the problem is that the reviewers felt that some of the hypnotic-techniques should actually go into the cognitive-behavioral approach studies due to methodology. I'll repeat again what Steve de Shazer said: "Hypnosis is more like novacaine than like tooth extraction." But... er... posthypnotic suggestions are cognitive-behavioral and were around before there was an approach called cognitive-behavioral.

In order to test (with scientific-reliability) the efficacy of hypnosis on anything, you have to have some set of possible suggestions and the hypnotist would have to choose only amonst those available, you couldn't do radical individualization for the specific person in front of you. And apparently, it cannot look like another approach to the same thing or the reviewers won't be able to figure out how to categorize it properly.

 

[Suggestologist]

So, does this mean that the hypnotist convinces the subject that they are pregnant? If so, that's not entirely moral, I feel, and even if not, and it is someting related, that would still make the effect temporary, and therefore... well... kinda useless.

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm just saying that a woman can go through physiological changes without a biological (first) cause.

 

[Ashles]

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm just saying that a woman can go through physiological changes without a biological (first) cause.

Like treble-head I'd like to see some evidence for this.

There are a lot of claims made about physiological effects from purely psychological trigering (like the infamous ice cube causing a heat blister story).

They rarely hold up to scrutiny.

I'm not saying that it isn't true, merely that there are so many bogus claims in this area that some evidence is really important.