The Weblinks link to "Self Hypnosis recordings" has now been removed two times on the grounds of being basically advertisement for a commercial offering. Both times the deletion has been reverted. So since this does not seem to work, what do you do now? --220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HYPNOTISE ONE'S SELF. ANY PSYCHOLOGIST WILL TELL YOU THAT. so that means that the first sentence of this article stays, but the rest has to be moved to a NEW ARTICLE or under HYPNOSIS METHODS. PLEASE READ THE FIRST SENTENCE THIS PAGE IS MESSED UP DOESN'T ANYONE SEE THAT?
- If you use bigger fonts maybe you'll manage to convince yourself this time.Pronoein (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Very terse article, surely more should be said?
There's practically no discussion of possible applications and feasibility of self-hypnosis, or methods by which it is achieved - the only information other than anecdotal historical background seems to effectively say "someone reviewed some studies which showed that self-hypnosis is a correlated with hypnosis. But the experience may be different". Could someone please give some more insight and expand the article? Destynova (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
As a novice editor may I please suggest that many readers could benefit from an impartial ( but subjective ) experiment to see for themselves how self hypnosis "feels". Much more could and should be said as you say.
Here is a simple spiral which may give some readers an actual insight into the effects of self hypnosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencedwolf (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this article could use some general "cleaning up" by someone with expertise in the field of psychology. How does one flag the article as such?
Also, I wish to note that, as mentioned in the (general) "Hypnosis" article, few fields are subject to so much controversy and contradictory evidence as the field of hypnosis. Therefore, I suggest that it's counterproductive to say that something is/isn't possible unless one can show that there's substantial evidence of a consensus among psychology experts. If you CAN note such evidence, then please post it! I gather that Wikipedia is good for that sort of thing. :-)
Also, the comment in the beginning of the article about (self-)hypnosis "(not) being of demons" belongs in a section for public criticism of the practice, rather than in the summary. Also, speaking from a purely logical standpoint, we can't prove that it is or is not "of evil," so let's make sure to state it as an opinion. (Regardless of how absurd or concrete the claims may be, this isn't an article about theology!)
2 cents, paid in full. :-D
Agree it needs some work. I think Braid's anecdote is unhelpful. It does not describe what self-hypnosis is or how it was achieved and I feel sure that Mr Braid would know that his painful attack of "rheumatism" was not actually cured by his nine minute intervention. It is more likely that his perception of the pain was reduced but the casual reader might be misled into assuming that this example of a near- instantaneous cure is indeed possible with hypnosis.
After studying the main Hypnosis article (which appears to need some good therapy) I am not convinced that this self-hypnosis article should exist (in its present form). If the underlying hypothesis is the same then there is bound to be a lot of overlap. For instance, there could be some mention here of the use of a post-hypnotic suggestion to help bring about a state of hypnosis. The hypnotist might suggest to the hypnotized patient that whenever they carry out some particular action or use a trigger word or phrase, this will rapidly bring about the same degree of physical and mental relaxation as they are now experiencing, and this will become easier on each occasion. This enables the patient to concentrate on their own affirmations or self-suggestions and dispenses with the need for regular visits to the hypnotist. The dangers should be clearly explained to anyone undertaking this approach since a patient who can effectively self-hypnotize might notice symptoms of a serious underlying disease and try to 'auto-suggest it better' without seeking a proper clinical diagnosis or life-saving treatment.
Perhaps the biggest issue with this article is that it assumes that hypnosis is a real and testable phenomenon. A quick look at the Hypnosis article will highlight the debate about the underlying mechanisms and efficacy, although later research showing that some effects are now better-understood, are rarely cited. For balance, I'll try to correct that.