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 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]

Originally posted by 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.
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]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
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]

Originally posted by Tosefos
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' :D

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]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
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.

Originally posted by Marian
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.

Originally posted by Marian
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.


Originally posted by Marian
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 (http://www.hypnotize.me.uk/hypnotherapy-nlp-manchester/NewScientist.pdf)

Originally posted by Marian
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

Originally posted by Marian
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.

Originally posted by Marian
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.

Originally posted by Marian
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.

Originally posted by Marian
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]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
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"?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by tonyb
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"?
And "the mind" is just a useless metaphor when trying to understand behavior, whether that mind is conscious, preconscious, subconscious or any other unobservable fiction.
"Never mind, it ain't matter."
Mulla Nasruden

[Jono]

If hypnosis is as it is called in this forum, as woo woo, then Derren Brown might be the only woo woo with the appreciation and perhaps slight admiration from James Randi.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by WhiteLion
If hypnosis is as it is called in this forum, as woo woo, then Derren Brown might be the only woo woo with the appreciation and perhaps slight admiration from James Randi.
My babelfish seems to be a bit off. What was that again?

[tonyb]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
And "the mind" is just a useless metaphor when trying to understand behavior, whether that mind is conscious, preconscious, subconscious or any other unobservable fiction.
"Never mind, it ain't matter."
Mulla Nasruden
Strange that this "useless" metaphor is found so useful by so many then.

The world of psychology has moved on since the limitations of the behaviourist school of a few decades ago that tried to disregard internal mental processes.

[tonyb]

Originally posted by odorousrex
To me, Hypnosis seems "woo-woo". I doubt that I could ever be hypnotized.
There is nothing woo-woo about hypnosis. If you have the ability to imagine something then you can do it. If you actually knew what hypnosis was rather than the mythical idea that's spread around then you'd know that whether or not you become hypnotised is completely within your own power.

Originally posted by odorousrex
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)
Hypnosis works for many people.

Originally posted by odorousrex
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.
What specifically is the "lie" that the hypnotist is telling somebody?

Originally posted by odorousrex
However, for every success, I'm sure there are many more failures.
On what basis do you make this assertion?

[tonyb]

Originally posted by pjh
Nothing that DB does uses any powers of suggestion, body language, NLP or hypnotism.
Quotes from DB from the very article you linked to:

"When I say at the beginning it's a mixture of psychological techniques and magic, I do hold by that. Because some of the stuff I do is magic based and some of it is genuinely suggestion based..."

"The automatic writing thing, I love, and I use a lot of hypnotic inductions on stage..."

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by tonyb
There is nothing woo-woo about hypnosis. If you have the ability to imagine something then you can do it...
Right.
If I have the ability to imagine I can fly to Fort Lauderdale right now without benefit of tickets to Jet Blue or any other airline, then I can do it?
What planet are you from?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by tonyb
Strange that this "useless" metaphor is found so useful by so many then....
Not so strange. Look at the number of people who use the useless metaphor "god" to explain everything
And argumentum ad populum never swayed me at all.

[tonyb]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Not so strange. Look at the number of people who use the useless metaphor "god" to explain everything
And argumentum ad populum never swayed me at all.
I understand your points, but I'm drawing a distinction between what science requires as proof of something and what people may find useful in their lives.

So, to use your example, whilst many of us (myself included) have no personal belief in any god, it is true to say that the concept of one is found useful by many other people, regardless of whether it can be scientifically proven.

Likewise, you're quite correct that proof isn't determined by a show of hands, but that doesn't stop certain metaphors being useful for people.

Another example that's kind of related to hypnosis is the practice of NLP. I accept that there's little (if any) of it that's scientifically validated, and as a result it takes a lot of flak from skeptics. But this misses the point, because NLP isn't about whether things are actually true of false, rather what might be useful to help people manage aspects of their lives. And NLP does contain many things that many peolple find useful.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by tonyb
... And NLP does contain many things that many peolple find useful.
Claus! Help me out here.
I don't believe you can provide any evidence supporting that statement.

[pjh]

quote:Originally posted by pjh
Nothing that DB does uses any powers of suggestion, body language, NLP or hypnotism.


Quotes from DB from the very article you linked to:

"When I say at the beginning it's a mixture of psychological techniques and magic, I do hold by that. Because some of the stuff I do is magic based and some of it is genuinely suggestion based..."

"The automatic writing thing, I love, and I use a lot of hypnotic inductions on stage..."

Last edited by tonyb on 02-12-2005 at 11:48 AM


Yep - and Uri Geller claims he bends spoons with his mind!

Derren is a mentalist - this is a best misdirection, at worse he's deliberately misleading gulible people.

I totaly agree - he should be far more honest about how he achieves his tricks, this interview is a good start.

[tonyb]

Originally posted by pjh
Yep - and Uri Geller claims he bends spoons with his mind!

Derren is a mentalist - this is a best misdirection, at worse he's deliberately misleading gulible people.

I totaly agree - he should be far more honest about how he achieves his tricks, this interview is a good start.
Hang on pjh, you provided the DB interview link yourself as his most candid one, given that it was with a fellow magician and for magicians. This interview clearly states that he does incorporate suggestion, and since I also own a couple of his magician's only lecture videos that explain certain effects I know FOR A FACT that some of the routines are very suggestion oriented. There's one in particular that is entirely based on both suggestion and reading of body clues.

Obviously much or most of what he does is pure 'trickery', but for you to claim point blank that he never uses any form of suggestion, body language, etc. is just plain wrong.

[tonyb]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Claus! Help me out here.
I don't believe you can provide any evidence supporting that statement.
Okay, here's my supporting evidence: I personally have found some of the things NLP to be beneficial in my life.

Ancedotal? Yes, admittedly, but I've already said that scienfitic "proof" is not a prerequisite of something being useful to somebody.

Simple example: All of us do dumb things from time to time and might then feel bad about ourselves thinking how stupid we were, etc. NLP contains a technique that some others have found helpful in changing that negative feeling state into a positive one. I have tried that technique and found it helps. Would it help everyone? Maybe not, but that's not what NLP claims (or if someone does then they've missunderstood the purpose of NLP).

Am I supposed to wait for scientific proof that this technique might be helpful for some people before trying it or believing that it might work?

I'm a big supporter of science and in education against superstition, etc., but I frankly don't care much if a technique that I personally find useful in my life lacks a double-blind peer-reviewed journal published study. What matters more is that my life is that tiny bit better through having tried something and found it useful.

Is that really so unreasonable?

[pjh]

Obviously much or most of what he does is pure 'trickery', but for you to claim point blank that he never uses any form of suggestion, body language, etc. is just plain wrong.

This is way OT for this thread - how about returning to Hypnotism - how about a trick that you are absolutely sure Derren uses Hypnotism to achieve - describe the effects and how you believe it is done.

[tonyb]

Originally posted by pjh
This is way OT for this thread - how about returning to Hypnotism - how about a trick that you are absolutely sure Derren uses Hypnotism to achieve - describe the effects and how you believe it is done.
Effect where he uses purely a combination of suggestion and body reading (ie. no "tricks" as such): "Invisible Deal". DB is able to tell a spectator the name of a card which that spectator merely thought about, after dealing cards from an imaginary deck. If you want to know how this is done then you can track down his explanation video. It's not my place to reveal methods in this forum.

Effect where the use of hypnosis is probably the method: DB makes passengers on the London Underground forget the name of the station that is their destination. (I admit I cannot be certain that hypnosis is his actual method, but will state that such a technique is feasible with certain people. If you want to learn how, take a course on hypnotism).

[The Mighty Thor]

You are totally wrong about the first one. The "invisible Deal", as you call it, is a well-known trick that many magicians, even amateurs like me, can do. It requires no skill but for a simple calculation.

It is very clever -- so, I'm not surprised you were fooled. Indeed, you probably (by your explanation) have mis-remembered what actually happened.

Think about it. Describe exactly what Derren did, and then compare with your original description.

With magic, the trick is in the detail.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
You are totally wrong about the first one. The "invisible Deal", as you call it, is a well-known trick that many magicians, even amateurs like me, can do. It requires no skill but for a simple calculation.
I had an invisible deck around here, but I lost it.

[pjh]

Effect where the use of hypnosis is probably the method: DB makes passengers on the London Underground forget the name of the station that is their destination. (I admit I cannot be certain that hypnosis is his actual method, but will state that such a technique is feasible with certain people. If you want to learn how, take a course on hypnotism).


I'm not sure I understand you - for this to be hypnosis, is there a bit before (close your eyes ... you're feeling sleepy etc.) we don't see or are you saying that it is possible to hypnotise someone into forgetting their station in just what we see?

How about the much more plausible explanation - that in this 'Reality TV' world, some people when a TV camera is stuck in their face will play along for their 5 minutes of fame?

[tonyb]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
You are totally wrong about the first one. The "invisible Deal", as you call it, is a well-known trick that many magicians, even amateurs like me, can do. It requires no skill but for a simple calculation.

It is very clever -- so, I'm not surprised you were fooled. Indeed, you probably (by your explanation) have mis-remembered what actually happened.

Think about it. Describe exactly what Derren did, and then compare with your original description.

With magic, the trick is in the detail.
Sorry Mr. Thor (or may I call you Mighty), but I think you're referring to the "Invisible Deck", which is a totally different effect. The effect I referred to is "Invisible Deal" which as I stated in my post uses an imaginary deck of cards, and not the actual (special) deck used in Invisible Deck.

Bear in mind I actually have DB on tape explaining the methodology of the effect I described, and it is DEFINITELY suggestion and body reading based! If you want, PM me and I'll give you a reference to where to find the video, then you'll see for yourself. ;)

[tonyb]

Originally posted by pjh
I'm not sure I understand you - for this to be hypnosis, is there a bit before (close your eyes ... you're feeling sleepy etc.) we don't see or are you saying that it is possible to hypnotise someone into forgetting their station in just what we see?

How about the much more plausible explanation - that in this 'Reality TV' world, some people when a TV camera is stuck in their face will play along for their 5 minutes of fame?
It is a common fallacy (among many other falacies) that people have to close their eyes and be told "you are sleepy..." etc. Obviously on the show we only get to see an edited version of what happens, so it's quite likely that more work was done that we don't see. But with the right people this needn't take long, ie. a few minutes.

Of course there is the possibility that the people were just "pretending" and going along with it for their proverbial 5 minutes, but my claim is only that based on my own knowledge and experience of the subject that, with the right people it is possible for them to genuinely temporarily forget something you wouldn't expect them to.

Let me reiterate that there's no special power or force that DB (or anybody else) is exerting over somebody. It's only a question of psychological techniques which I'm quite sure are perfectly explainable using rational and understood processes. The subjects that "forget" are voluntarily "buying in" to the techniques as they are applied, and it certainly wouldn't work on everybody.

Many hypnotists claim that somewhere between 10 - 20% of the population are what is know as "hyper-suggestible", the kind of people that stage hypnotists look for in their act. This doesn't mean they are gullible or stupid, just more suggestible.

So what it comes down to is that either some people can be "caused" to temporarily forget things, or they are all just pretending for whatever motives. I choose to believe the former (although there are bound to be some pretenders, obviously). I don't really know how it can be proven either way, unless there existed some foolproof way of knowing when someone is lying (like a polygraph machine - only kidding :D ).

[Garvarn]

Originally posted by 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'm also curious about that, although I oppose your end statement.

posted by tonyb
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.

What do you mean by "qualified" hypnotherapist. Have you taken a correspondence course or a weekend course? Do you have a diploma or a certificate, and what do you have to do to get one of each in your particular "school"? As you may be aware of, there are loads of "institutes" "teaching" hypnotherapy and issuing impressing documents on achievements. www.hypnotherapy-control-board.org is one of them (VERY impressing name).

I quote from Key Concepts in Hypnosis, by Campbell Perry, whos knowledge and experience in hypnosis by far exceeds both yours and mine, tonyb:

"A further difficulty in finding a properly qualified clinician who is trained in hypnotic procedures is that many of the lay hypnotists confer upon themselves and each other official sounding names, titles and letters after their names; some even designates themselves as 'Doctor', or 'Professor'. These letterings after the name and pseudo-titles imply a legitimacy that, usually, does not exist. The Bulgarian Institute of Hypnosis or the Norwegian College of Hypnotherapists, for instance, could be the name of a legitimate professional practice, but it could, as equally, be the name of a lay hypnosis organization."
http://www.fmsfonline.org/hypnosis.html

So if you state that you are a qualified hypnotherapist, that tells us nothing. If you state that you are a practicing hypnotherapist, it must be remembered that hypnosis is fairly easy to learn -- some say it can be learned in a couple of hours, so your practicing doesn't tell us that much either. Above all, it does not automatically qualify you to tell us about the "reality" of hypnosis.

posted by tonyb
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.

Could you please provide me with a study based on "reality" that backs that up?

posted by tonyb
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.

It scares me a bit that someone claiming therapeutic skills belittle this atrocity, especially since it so clearly illustrates the danger of glorifying hypnosis as a therapeutic tool.

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

No, those are excerpts taken from studies, out of context.

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

Yes, it can be a valid therapeutic method for those with traumatic events, but it is not to be practiced by poorly educated hypnotherapists lacking a wider psychological understanding of trauma and its effects.

posted by tonyb
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.

This is simply not true, but I understand why it is necessary for you to nurture this popular myth - it adds excitement to your profession, "the key to the soul". The problem with hypnosis is that it boosts imagination rather than expose alleged repressed memories. Fantasy takes on reality value for the hypnotized individual and becomes accepted by him as having happened in reality. Nor the hypnotized or the hypnotizer may be able to distinguish fantasy from reality. I suggest you read the excellent Believed-In Imaginings - The Narrative Construction of Reality, edited by De Rivera.

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

There were "some" that implanted false memories? The phenomena had epidemic proportions! And how do you know that this isn't the norm now? You still spread the myth of repressed memories.

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

Neither are you, you are a hypnotherapist, and that could mean a lot of things...

[tonyb]

Chateaubriand, thanks for your comments, which I will address. I note from your profile that you are a graphic designer. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that despite all your book reading you have never trained or practiced as a therapist of any description. Well I have, so I'd be careful of assuming that your knowledge is superior to mine.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
What do you mean by "qualified" hypnotherapist. Have you taken a correspondence course or a weekend course? Do you have a diploma or a certificate, and what do you have to do to get one of each in your particular "school"? As you may be aware of, there are loads of "institutes" "teaching" hypnotherapy and issuing impressing documents on achievements. www.hypnotherapy-control-board.org is one of them (VERY impressing name).

The course I did lasted over one year, and to maintain my membership of associations I have to take regular ongoing training. I know there are quick courses around, but please don't insult me by assuming that I would only do that.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
I quote from Key Concepts in Hypnosis, by Campbell Perry, whos knowledge and experience in hypnosis by far exceeds both yours and mine, tonyb:

"A further difficulty in finding a properly qualified clinician who is trained in hypnotic procedures is that many of the lay hypnotists confer upon themselves and each other official sounding names, titles and letters after their names; some even designates themselves as 'Doctor', or 'Professor'. These letterings after the name and pseudo-titles imply a legitimacy that, usually, does not exist. The Bulgarian Institute of Hypnosis or the Norwegian College of Hypnotherapists, for instance, could be the name of a legitimate professional practice, but it could, as equally, be the name of a lay hypnosis organization."
http://www.fmsfonline.org/hypnosis.html

I wasn't aware that I made any impressive sounding claims, and to do so contravenes the official code of ethics of all major associations.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
So if you state that you are a qualified hypnotherapist, that tells us nothing. If you state that you are a practicing hypnotherapist, it must be remembered that hypnosis is fairly easy to learn -- some say it can be learned in a couple of hours, so your practicing doesn't tell us that much either. Above all, it does not automatically qualify you to tell us about the "reality" of hypnosis.

Yes, hypnosis is easy to learn - but hypnotherapy takes quite a bit more time and practice. Please learn to distinguish between the two, since it is the therapy that is the major part of the work. And how silly of me to think that being a hypnotherapist would mean that I might know something about hypnosis.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
Could you please provide me with a study based on "reality" that backs that up?

Not offhand. But to give one example, it is fairly standard for a counselling service near to me to expect people to attend about 35 weekly sessions. The most I have ever needed to see anybody for is 13, and it's usually fewer.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
It scares me a bit that someone claiming therapeutic skills belittle this atrocity, especially since it so clearly illustrates the danger of glorifying hypnosis as a therapeutic tool.

I was not belittling anything. I was pointing out the FACT that the number of incidents where this occurred is in the vast minority compared to the total number of hypnotherapy sessions that have ever taken place. It's called not tarring everybody with the same brush.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
No, those are excerpts taken from studies, out of context.

Sorry. Perhaps when I have a spare 5 years I'll do the research for you. And why are they out of context?

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
Yes, it can be a valid therapeutic method for those with traumatic events, but it is not to be practiced by poorly educated hypnotherapists lacking a wider psychological understanding of trauma and its effects.

Agreed. Are you saying that I come into this category? Considering you know very little about me or my knowledge I sincerely hope you are not.


Originally posted by Chateaubriand
This is simply not true, but I understand why it is necessary for you to nurture this popular myth - it adds excitement to your profession, "the key to the soul". The problem with hypnosis is that it boosts imagination rather than expose alleged repressed memories. Fantasy takes on reality value for the hypnotized individual and becomes accepted by him as having happened in reality. Nor the hypnotized or the hypnotizer may be able to distinguish fantasy from reality. I suggest you read the excellent Believed-In Imaginings - The Narrative Construction of Reality, edited by De Rivera.
There were "some" that implanted false memories? The phenomena had epidemic proportions! And how do you know that this isn't the norm now? You still spread the myth of repressed memories.

Do you assume I don't read up on memory, etc? I'm well aware of the subject and the controversy surrounding repression. My assertion is based on first hand experience in clinical settings, not merely from book reading. The studies by Elizabeth Loftus etc. I'm fully aware of, but what she and others test doesn't always mimic what actually happens in a one-on-one therapeutic setting.


So, in summary, my assertions come from actual real life knowledge and experience, whereas yours comes merely from books. I know which I'd rather believe.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by tonyb
Chateaubriand, thanks for your comments, which I will address. I note from your profile that you are a graphic designer. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that despite all your book reading you have never trained or practiced as a therapist of any description. Well I have, so I'd be careful of assuming that your knowledge is superior to mine.


The course I did lasted over one year, and to maintain my membership of associations I have to take regular ongoing training. I know there are quick courses around, but please don't insult me by assuming that I would only do that.


I wasn't aware that I made any impressive sounding claims, and to do so contravenes the official code of ethics of all major associations.


Yes, hypnosis is easy to learn - but hypnotherapy takes quite a bit more time and practice. Please learn to distinguish between the two, since it is the therapy that is the major part of the work. And how silly of me to think that being a hypnotherapist would mean that I might know something about hypnosis.


Not offhand. But to give one example, it is fairly standard for a counselling service near to me to expect people to attend about 35 weekly sessions. The most I have ever needed to see anybody for is 13, and it's usually fewer.


I was not belittling anything. I was pointing out the FACT that the number of incidents where this occurred is in the vast minority compared to the total number of hypnotherapy sessions that have ever taken place. It's called not tarring everybody with the same brush.


Sorry. Perhaps when I have a spare 5 years I'll do the research for you. And why are they out of context?


Agreed. Are you saying that I come into this category? Considering you know very little about me or my knowledge I sincerely hope you are not.



Do you assume I don't read up on memory, etc? I'm well aware of the subject and the controversy surrounding repression. My assertion is based on first hand experience in clinical settings, not merely from book reading. The studies by Elizabeth Loftus etc. I'm fully aware of, but what she and others test doesn't always mimic what actually happens in a one-on-one therapeutic setting.


So, in summary, my assertions come from actual real life knowledge and experience, whereas yours comes merely from books. I know which I'd rather believe.

Elizabeth Loftus testified at the Paul Shanley trial. He was still found guilty. (Basically, he has been given a death sentence). Once Pandora's box is opened, there is no putting the damage done back inside. The public generally believe in repressed memories because they have been told the phenomenon exists, and is "scientifically sound".

The time is coming when just being accused (no matter the ulterior motives of the accuser) will be enough to convict.

It's like Salem all over. And I'm not denying that child abuse happens. Clearly, and tragically, it does. I'm just not convinced that "recovered memories" are anything but implanted memories or confabulation. If we believe these, we should also believe that people have been kidnapped by aliens, taken "somewhere", experimented on, and returned to earth after the aleins have made sure that no scrap of physical evidence is available to support their fantasy.

The McMartin pre-school, Orkney, and Cleveland debacles should be enough to warrant extreme caution.

I accept I jumped the gun with the "Invisible Deck". I apologise.

So, without me having to see the video you refer to, what is Derren's explanation of the invisible deal?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by tonyb
Well I have, so I'd be careful of assuming that your knowledge is superior to mine.

The course I did lasted over one year, and to maintain my membership of associations I have to take regular ongoing training. I know there are quick courses around, but please don't insult me by assuming that I would only do that.

You realize your failure to name the institution you attended and specific certifications you were given damages your credibility as an unbiased expert, right? It leads me (an unbiased observer very much interested in the facts on this matter) to believe you are embarassed by them or to suspect your credentials might not hold up under close scrutiny.

I have a BS in Computer Engineering from the University of Cincinnati. If someone questioned my training, the institution that trained me and the exact credentials the institution bestowed upon me would be among the first things I would mention (even if I'm not all that proud to be a Bearcat. Heh.)

[flyboy217]

These articles seem to have some merit:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/05.08/01-hypnosis.html

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/08.21/hypnosis.html

[Garvarn]

Originally posted by tonyb
Chateaubriand, thanks for your comments, which I will address. I note from your profile that you are a graphic designer. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that despite all your book reading you have never trained or practiced as a therapist of any description. Well I have, so I'd be careful of assuming that your knowledge is superior to mine.

I recognize your attempt to disqualify my opinion on basis of what I do for a living, but may I remind you that the therapists -- and quite a lot of them -- that were responsible for planting memories of abuse, of alien obductions and of satanic rituals, also trained and practiced as therapists? Reality, and the courts, in an escalating number of processes, have proven that they knew very little about what actually comes out of hypnotic regression.

Originally posted by tonyb
The course I did lasted over one year, and to maintain my membership of associations I have to take regular ongoing training. I know there are quick courses around, but please don't insult me by assuming that I would only do that.

I notice that you are careful not to tell what course you took and what associations you are a member of.


Originally posted by tonyb
I wasn't aware that I made any impressive sounding claims, and to do so contravenes the official code of ethics of all major associations.

You claim that your knowledge of hypnosis is superior but the content of your post doesn't back it up.

Originally posted by tonyb
Yes, hypnosis is easy to learn - but hypnotherapy takes quite a bit more time and practice. Please learn to distinguish between the two, since it is the therapy that is the major part of the work. And how silly of me to think that being a hypnotherapist would mean that I might know something about hypnosis.

After browsing a great number of hypnotherapist's webpages and reading how they present hypnosis, I would say that most of them just repeat the old myths. Are you one of them?


Originally posted by tonyb
Not offhand. But to give one example, it is fairly standard for a counselling service near to me to expect people to attend about 35 weekly sessions. The most I have ever needed to see anybody for is 13, and it's usually fewer.

That could also be a measurement of sloppyness. If so, how do you rank yourself?

Originally posted by tonyb
I was not belittling anything. I was pointing out the FACT that the number of incidents where this occurred is in the vast minority compared to the total number of hypnotherapy sessions that have ever taken place. It's called not tarring everybody with the same brush.

In almost every little town, in almost every Western country, there is a drive-in-educated hypnotherapist doing age regressions and telling people that hypnosis brings forward things that are repressed. Look it up in your local paper -- I think the correct header is "Health Care". What happens when the patient decides to fantasize about ritual abuse instead of 17th century life at the French court?

By the way, do you know how many cases of incest memories, satanic ritual abuse and alien obductions that were reported during the 80s and the 90s in the US alone? Could you do an estimate of the numbers that were not reported?

Originally posted by tonyb
Sorry. Perhaps when I have a spare 5 years I'll do the research for you. And why are they out of context?

Because they are cut and pasted from studies or articles and the conclusions of those are not included. They are cut out of their context, simply.

Originally posted by tonyb
Agreed. Are you saying that I come into this category? Considering you know very little about me or my knowledge I sincerely hope you are not.

I know only what you write and what you claim. That is enough.

Originally posted by tonyb
Do you assume I don't read up on memory, etc? I'm well aware of the subject and the controversy surrounding repression. My assertion is based on first hand experience in clinical settings, not merely from book reading. The studies by Elizabeth Loftus etc. I'm fully aware of, but what she and others test doesn't always mimic what actually happens in a one-on-one therapeutic setting.

So you have a contempt for research too, and consider your first hand experience in clinical settings as superior. Does that mean that you regard research in this field as separated from reality? I must tell you, tonyb, it's beginning to get creepy.

Originally posted by tonyb
So, in summary, my assertions come from actual real life knowledge and experience, whereas yours comes merely from books. I know which I'd rather believe.

I see. And the things that are written in books, do you disregard them too? In this context, factual knowledge derived from studies and research?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
I recognize your attempt to disqualify my opinion on basis of what I do for a living, but may I remind you that the therapists -- and quite a lot of them -- that were responsible for planting memories of abuse, of alien obductions and of satanic rituals, also trained and practiced as therapists? Reality, and the courts, in an escalating number of processes, have proven that they knew very little about what actually comes out of hypnotic regression.



I notice that you are careful not to tell what course you took and what associations you are a member of.




You claim that your knowledge of hypnosis is superior but the content of your post doesn't back it up.



After browsing a great number of hypnotherapist's webpages and reading how they present hypnosis, I would say that most of them just repeat the old myths. Are you one of them?

That could also be a measurement of sloppyness. If so, how do you rank yourself?

In almost every little town, in almost every Western country, there is a drive-in-educated hypnotherapist doing age regressions and telling people that hypnosis brings forward things that are repressed. Look it up in your local paper -- I think the correct header is "Health Care". What happens when the patient decides to fantasize about ritual abuse instead of 17th century life at the French court?

By the way, do you know how many cases of incest memories, satanic ritual abuse and alien obductions that were reported during the 80s and the 90s in the US alone? Could you do an estimate of the numbers that were not reported?

Because they are cut and pasted from studies or articles and the conclusions of those are not included. They are cut out of their context, simply.

I know only what you write and what you claim. That is enough.

So you have a contempt for research too, and consider your first hand experience in clinical settings as superior. Does that mean that you regard research in this field as separated from reality? I must tell you, tonyb, it's beginning to get creepy.

I see. And the things that are written in books, do you disregard them too? In this context, factual knowledge derived from studies and research?

I wonder if tonyb has seen these:

The power of suggestion can play games with memory, persuading people that false memories are real, according to Northwestern University experts.

While we might like to think that our memories are accurate logs of our lives, that's not always true.

Our memories are imperfect to begin with, and forgetfulness isn't the only glitch. The brain can also be convinced that events that never took place actually did occur. That's what happened in Northwestern's recent experiment with 11 adults.

The test was conducted by researchers including Brian Gonsalves, formerly of Northwestern's psychology department and now a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University.
http://my.webmd.com/search/search_results/?pagenumber=2&query=false+memories&filter=mywebmd_all_filter&channelId=


Study: Distress Doesn't Necessarily Validate Traumatic Memories

By Jennifer Warner
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD
on Friday, June 25, 2004

June 25, 2004 -- Recalling a traumatic memory may provoke severe distress in people, even if the memory may be a product of their own imagination, according to a new study.

The study showed that people who claim to have been abducted by aliens show the same signs of distress, such as increased heart rate, sweating, and muscle tension, shown by people recalling more plausible traumatic events, such as wartime experiences.

Researchers say these signs of distress are often viewed as a testament to authenticity of a person's memory of a traumatic event, such as childhood abuse. But the researchers say these results show that physiological responses should not be used to verify traumatic memories in the evaluation of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The study also showed that people who said they were abducted by aliens also scored higher on measures of psychological traits that make them more likely to experience alterations in consciousness, to have a rich fantasy life, and to endorse unconventional beliefs.
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/89/100279.htm?printing=true

[tonyb]

Chateaubriand and delphi_ote, I will keep this post brief.

My points is essentially that I have read much of the same books as you as regards the controversy over repression, etc , as well as reading the cases for. I have also practiced in the real world. As a net result I have drawn my own conclusions based on what I believe to be an unbiased starting point. If you choose to differ because you only wish to believe one point of view, that is your perogative.

I also choose not to reveal my training organisation because I wish to retain a degree of anonymity on this forum. If you choose to read suspicion into that then that is up to you. I am not going to pander to your goading.

I am well aware that confabulation and false memories are a reality, and that much damage has been done in the past. But if you believe that this represents the common practice amongst hypnotherapists then you are very mistaken.

This will be my last post and final word in this thread, as it is pointless to continue discussion with those who seem to think we are all just charaltans who don't know what we are doing. And if you choose to read suspicious motives into that too, then so be it. My conscience is clear.

[Garvarn]

Originally posted by tonyb
Chateaubriand and delphi_ote, I will keep this post brief.

Thanks, I understand why.

Originally posted by tonyb
My points is essentially that I have read much of the same books as you as regards the controversy over repression, etc , as well as reading the cases for. I have also practiced in the real world. As a net result I have drawn my own conclusions based on what I believe to be an unbiased starting point. If you choose to differ because you only wish to believe one point of view, that is your perogative.

Again you fail to refer to something specific. I have mentioned one book, Believed-In Imaginings, and would gladly have discussed it, since it deals explicitly with the phenomena of "repressed" or "recovered" memories, but somehow I sense that you are not inclined to be specific.

Originally posted by tonyb
I also choose not to reveal my training organisation because I wish to retain a degree of anonymity on this forum. If you choose to read suspicion into that then that is up to you. I am not going to pander to your goading.

I respect your anonymity -- although I'm curios to what "schools" or organizations are so small that exposing them would reveal the identity of one individual. Your first instinct was to disqualify my opinion due to my occupation; now you're refusing to back up your own. Fishy...

Originally posted by tonyb
I am well aware that confabulation and false memories are a reality, and that much damage has been done in the past. But if you believe that this represents the common practice amongst hypnotherapists then you are very mistaken.

In the past? Most hypnotherapist still practice "age regression" and "previous life experiences". I'll bet you do too.

Originally posted by tonyb
This will be my last post and final word in this thread, as it is pointless to continue discussion with those who seem to think we are all just charaltans who don't know what we are doing. And if you choose to read suspicious motives into that too, then so be it. My conscience is clear.

Of course it is, since you have little understanding of the limitations or dangers of hypnosis.

[Minkster]

I think the term hypnosis is a broad term. If we are talking about stage hypnosis or regressive hypnosis then the act itself isn't necessarily woo (as suggestion really does take place) however the actual result is not what it seems to someone observing - so someone barking like a dog is not under the 'control' of the hypnotist, and someone re-living a past live clearly isn't but is instead being 'led' by the hypnotist. So, suggestion isn't woo but the overall belief that hypnotists are 'controlling' the subject IS woo.

Mainstream hypnotherapy is a slightly different kettle of fish though. And maybe it has the wrong name - far better for it to be called 'relaxation therapy'. Yes, there is a strong element of suggestion being applied when the subject is in a very relaxed state, but thats okay in itself. Self-'hypnosis' works by the same technique and is akin to meditation. This, coupled with a placebo effect can prove very useful in treating people who want to give up smoking, want to sleep better, want to be more confident or want to avoid food temptation and so on. It will work for some and not others, but I can't see that it harms anyone.

So, to summarise - in my opinion I would say :

Stage Hypnosis = Woo
Regressive Hypnosis = Woo
Hynotherapy (for self-empowerment) = Probably not Woo

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by tonyb
I also choose not to reveal my training organisation because I wish to retain a degree of anonymity on this forum. If you choose to read suspicion into that then that is up to you. I am not going to pander to your goading.


tonyb, I dropped into this forum because I am honestly curious and have yet to come to a conclusion on this subject. I found it wonderful that an expert with certification in the field would comment on these issues. My comments were not goading, just trying to point out that you're weakening your case. I want the facts on a very important issue, and you're arguing with one hand tied behind your back.

Being a certified expert lends weight to your arguments, but anyone can claim to be an expert in any field. I have no idea what your certification means. When I asked for this information, you got angry. You called an honest question "goading." This lends more to my suspicions that you're just trying to take a shortcut in your argument. Rather than give a convincing arument, it's easier to claim to be an expert.

Please either make your case without appealing to your own authority, or explain to me how you came to be an authority.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by flyboy217
These articles seem to have some merit:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/05.08/01-hypnosis.html

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/08.21/hypnosis.html

These are interesting articles, until I hit something like this:

"I am also interested in using hypnosis to help people get better physically. That means using the mind to make structural changes in the body, to accelerate healing at the tissue level.

She implies that the mind acts on the body in a unique way under hypnosis, but she does not suggest a mechanism. Her conclusion does not follow from her experiments, either: "hypnosis acts on the mind and we note a correlation with changes in the body. Therefore, hypnosis makes the mind change the body." Maybe so, but her experiment does not necessarily demonstrate this.

Or this:

"What we have shown for the first time," Kosslyn concludes, "is that hypnosis changes conscious experience in a way not possible when we are not under hypnosis."

That statement clearly does not follow from their results. "Not possible... when not under hypnosis" implies they measured the mind under all conditions which are not hypnosis and the resulting data showed that altered brain activity was not possible. Clearly that was not their experiment. They only showed that it IS possible under hypnosis.

These are basic failings in elementary logic. I'm not being pedantic here. Without the correct interpretation of results, we draw very wrong conclusions from them.