Talk:Hypnosis/Archive 3

Information Theory

The paragraph on information theory is factually incorrect, this is not what information theory is about in general. Should be removed, IMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.84.159 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall quality

really miserable. should be flagged as poor quality article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nono1234 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

one possibility to explain forgetfullness which comes from sleep studies primarily but may apply to hyphosis as well. While we "sleep" we never actually lose consciousness entirely. What we do seem to lose is the ability to transfer memories from the short term buffer to the long term retrievable storage. I suspect that the transfer occurs, but the memory tag is so weak that it is extremely difficult to recall later. My theory is that all memories are tagged with an emotional charge value and this value determines the ease of retreival later... while sleeping, with the body often held tight, the emotional tags are very minimal other than nightmares which we remember quite well. The short term buffers seems to be anywhere from about 3 seconds or so and that is basically the only thing we remember all night long...we are waking with the last 3 seconds of dream or ideas. While dreaming the current 3 seconds being only loosely linked to the prior 3 seconds often leads to an associative chain of dream sequences rather than cause and effect, but since there is no ability to contrast and compare until a state of lucidity is acheived, this seems perfectly normal.Jiohdi

(talk) 16:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would n call it forgetting, but rather the focus on the here and now, becoming so strong, that the patient has no need or wish to go into his or hers past, unless instructed too. I fear this is not a stated fact though.

Article Lead should be stronger

I just dropped by this article as a reader seeking some information about hypnosis, not as a Wiki editor, and must say that the Lead could be much better. Instead of merely a dictionary definition, the Lead should provide an overview of the subject, outlining the most important points and controversies. I respectfully suggest reworking the Lead completely, per the guideline WP:LEAD JGHowes ^talk - 14:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think it looks ok, but I'll check it against WPLEAD anyhow Multivet (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's better than it was awhile back when I first tagged the article {{tooshort}}, because the Lead consisted solely of a one-sentence definition from Webster's dictionary! JGHowes ^talk - 03:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JG, I had a check and it does seem to comply pretty well now. Multivet (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have two suggestions: first, in what's currently section 5.2.2, "Suggestibility", the last paragraph seems at odds with most of the rest of the article. References to hypnosis and related words are put in quotes, and the existence of hypnosis is called into doubt. This strikes me as very odd outside of a section on skepticism.

Second, I'd like to suggest a section on erotic hypnosis be added by someone a bit better versed in it than I am. While it's not the most common application of hypnosis, there are nevertheless a fair number of practitioners around the world, as well as a few books dedicated to the subject. (See Look into my Eyes for one example.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

History

Seems to be some words missing in 'The therapeutic use of hypnosis in medicine finally came in 1955 from the British Medical Association...'. '/Recognition of/ the therapeutic use of hypnosis in medicine finally came in 1955 from the British Medical Association' maybe? Guyal of Sfere (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sober

Near the end of this article the following is written.

The subject

In a stage hypnosis situation the hypnotist chooses his participants carefully. First he gives the entire audience a few exercises to perform and plants ideas in their minds, such as, only intelligent people can be hypnotized and only those wanting to have fun will play along. These suggestions are designed to overcome the natural fear of trusting a stranger with the greater fear of being seen as unintelligent, unsociable, and joyless by the rest of the audience. Out of the crowd he will spot people who appear trusting, extroverted and willing to put on a show. Often these people are looking for an excuse to do something they otherwise would not do sober. The hypnotist starts them off by having them imagine ordinary situations that they have likely encountered, like being cold or hot, hungry or thirsty then gradually builds to giving them a suggestion that is totally out of character, such as sing like Elvis. The desire to be the center of attention, having an excuse to violate their own inner fear suppressors and the pressure to please, plus the expectation of the audience wanting them to provide some entertainment is usually enough to persuade an extrovert to do almost anything. In other words the participants are persuaded to 'play along'. This gives the impression that the hypnotist has total control over them.[38]

Would it loose any meaning if the sentence "Often these people are looking for an excuse to do something they they otherwise would not do sober" was shortened by removing sober, As I see it, sober is refering to only aclohol, but there is alot of other reasons "you would'end otherwise would not do." Sutch as drugs or mentel state. I'm not naive english speaking, so I could just have read it wrong, in that case I apoluguice. 83.93.254.90 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I put the word sober here to indicate that there are things people do when drunk or stoned--part of them wants to do these things, but is being stopped by what some call the inner parent or super ego... hypnosis allows those parts to have the excuse to shrug off the suppressing agents. all of this is lost if you remove that one word.Jiohdi (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think thats a reasonable explanation Multivet (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Template

The article had an inappropriate talk page template which I removed. This talk page already seems to have the template. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Overactive imagination

according to the overactive imagination section, imaginative people are less susceptible to hypnosis but going by the text book psychology by Saundra Ciccarelli and Glenn Meyer the opposite is true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.133.71 (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

contradiction

This article contradicts itself a lot. It says at the top that it has not been proven that unwilling hypnosis is impossible. It is later stated as a fact that is is impossible. It also states early on that imagination has been scientifically linked to hypnosis susceptibility. It later says that imagination has been proven to have nothing to do with it. Someone who knows more could clear these things up.

Olleicua (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Various theories of how hypnosis functions

The field of hypnosis has received significant support from the science-oriented psychology community because of research conducted by practitioners and theorists (Sala 1999). Heap and Dryden (1991) and Ambrose and Newbold (1980) consider that the theoretical debates on hypnotherapy have been productive, and that hypnosis has benefited from the attentions of those involved in the controversies, while conversely, that the developments of neurolinguistic programming and neo-Ericksonian hypnosis has been characterized by gullibility and fraudulence.

• Social constructionism and role-playing theory of hypnosis, discovered by Jun Zhou in the early 18th century, suggests that individuals are playing a role and that really there is no such thing as hypnosis. A relationship is built depending on how much rapport has been established between the "hypnotist" and the subject (see Hawthorne effect, Pygmalion effect, and placebo effect).

Some psychologists, such as Robert Baker and Graham Wagstaff, claim that what we call hypnosis is actually a form of learned social behaviour, a complex hybrid of social compliance, relaxation, and suggestibility that can account for many esoteric behavioral manifestations.

Nicholas Spanos states, "hypnotic procedures influence behaviour indirectly by altering subjects' motivations, expectations and interpretations."

• Pierre Janet originally developed the idea of dissociation of consciousness as a result of his work with hysterical patients. He believed that hypnosis was an example of dissociation, whereby areas of an individual's behavioural control are split off from ordinary awareness. Hypnosis would remove some control from the conscious mind, and the individual would respond with autonomic, reflexive behaviour. Weitzenhoffer describes hypnosis via this theory as "dissociation of awareness from the majority of sensory and even strictly neural events taking place."

• Anna Gosline says in a NewScientist.com article:

"Gruzelier and his colleagues studied brain activity using an fMRI while subjects completed a standard cognitive exercise, called the Stroop task.

The team screened subjects before the study and chose 12 that were highly susceptible to hypnosis and 12 with low susceptibility. They all completed the task in the fMRI under normal conditions and then again under hypnosis.

Throughout the study, both groups were consistent in their task results, achieving similar scores regardless of their mental state. During their first task session, before hypnosis, there were no significant differences in brain activity between the groups.

But under hypnosis, Gruzelier found that the highly susceptible subjects showed significantly more brain activity in the anterior cingulate gyrus than the weakly susceptible subjects. This area of the brain has been shown to respond to errors and evaluate emotional outcomes.

The highly susceptible group also showed much greater brain activity on the left side of the prefrontal cortex than the weakly susceptible group. This is an area involved with higher level cognitive processing and behaviour."

• Conditioned process

Ivan Pavlov believed that hypnosis was a "partial sleep". He observed that the various degrees of hypnosis did not significantly differ physiologically from the waking state and hypnosis depended on insignificant changes of environmental stimuli. Pavlov also suggested that lower-brain-stem mechanisms were involved in hypnotic conditioning.

• Hyper-suggestibility

Currently a more popular "hyper-suggestibility theory" states that the subject focuses attention by responding to the hypnotist's suggestion. As attention is focussed and magnified, the hypnotist's words are gradually accepted, without the subject conducting any conscious censorship of what is being said. This is not unlike the athlete listening to the coach's last pieces of advice minutes before an important sport event; concentration filters out all that is unimportant, and magnifies what is said about what really matters to the subject.

• Information

An approach loosely based on Information theory uses a brain-as-computer model. In adaptive systems, a system may use feedback to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, which may converge towards a steady state. Increasing the signal-to-noise ratio enables messages to be more clearly received from a source. The hypnotist's object is to use techniques to reduce the interference and increase the receptability of specific messages (suggestions).

• Systems

Systems theory, in this context, may be regarded as an extension of James Braid's original conceptualization of hypnosis as involving a process of enhancing or depressing the activity of the nervous system. Systems theory considers the nervous system's organization into interacting subsystems. Hypnotic phenomena thus involve not only increased or decreased activity of particular subsystems, but also their interaction. A central phenomenon in this regard is that of feedback loops, familiar to systems theory, which suggest a mechanism for creating the more extreme hypnotic phenomena.

A couple of things

One, I'm not good at archiving, but maybe it would be nice if most of this talk page was in an archive? If a more wiki-talented-than-me user could do that, it would be great.

Done. JD Lambert^(T|C) 08:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Two, I see from the edit history that Eyebrain feels I've been inserting unsubstantiated claims. If you point out what you mean, Eyebrain, I'd be happy to provide substantiation (and/or delete them). Katsam (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A point of Note

Quote: "...induced by an organized pattern of suggestions, usually verbal in nature, beginning with the suggestion of relaxation."

This is Not True

So please can someone edit it out. Thanks

This has been fixed. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

misconceptions and dangers section

I'm gonna put this stuff back in tomorrow, I think, together with a brief history (and link to the history of hypnosis page).

Popular misconceptions and potential dangers

Misconceptions

Hypnosis is often seen as a form of mind control and/or brainwashing that can control a person's behavior and judgment. These beliefs are not based on scientific evidence.

Scientists also say that personality traits such as gullibility, submissiveness and intelligence are not related to hypnotizability -- hypnotizability may in fact be hereditary or genetic in nature.

Dangers

Some other dangers were described by Pratt et al. in their 1988 book A Clinical Hypnosis Primer: "A hypnotized patient will respond to a suggestion literally. A suggestion that requires conscious interpretation can have undesirable effects." They give the following report taken from Hartland, 1971, p.37: "A patient who was terrified to go into the street because of the traffic was once told by a hypnotist that when she left his room, she would no longer bother about the traffic and would be able to cross the road without the slightest fear. She obeyed his instructions so literally that she ended up in a hospital." Other cited cases include a woman who suffered ten years of fatigue after participating in a stage show, a woman who developed an anxious reaction after receiving hypnotic suggestions to quit smoking from her dentist, and a man whose fingers became "stuck" to his forehead during a trance.

Katsam (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

These are not dangers of hypnosis per se but dangers due to the effects of specific suggestions, they could have experienced the same problems following any other non-hypnotic form of suggestion, if it were worded in a similarly inappropriate way. A basic distinction is therefore often made between inherent dangers of hypnotism and dangers due to the use of inappropriate suggestions. In fact, there are possibly no real inherent dangers whatsoever in hypnotism as it mainly consists of ordinary relaxation and concentration, etc. It might be unwise to do that with some psychotics, but then it would potentially be unwise to ask certain psychotics to attend a church sermon, a Buddhist meditation retreat, or take the role of Puss in Boots in a pantomime. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition

I have seen this on the web: Hypnosis, defined by the United States government reads as follows: The bypass of the critical factor of the conscious mind and the establishment of acceptable selective thinking. Anyone have sources for this? As108 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a great definition, and it's unlikely to come from the US Government. I've included James Braid's original definition of hypnosis because at least that can claim historical priority. I would suggest that the most authoratitive contemporary definition is that published by Division 30 of the American Psychological Association. The best account of the "definition" of hypnosis, I think, would simply juxtapose Braid's original definition with the current one endorsed by the American Psychological Association. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New Hypnosis Wiki

Hi there,

I thought that the editors of the hypnosis section may be interested in a new hypnosis wiki, that is dealing primarily with hypnosis. That could be a chance to have indepth articles. The link is hypnotize.wikispaces.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.214.106 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Eyebrain and Katsam's edits

I see that Eyebrain has reverted the article again.

Eyebrain, I don't believe it's against Wiki-policy for one person to edit the heck out of an article! So if you're going to revert me, could you do it for concrete reasons, please? If you can point out any unsubstantiated facts I would be happy to substantiate them and/or delete them. Similarly, I'd be happy to discuss or delete questionable "interpretations." And if there's stuff from the original article which you don't find in my version, we can talk about reinstating it.

As it stands, though, I'm not sure you're even READING the two versions of the article. The version you like is interminably long, is confusingly organized, has a million "page number needed" tags in it, and only has one picture. And it has gibberish in the intro paragraph! Do you really prefer fewer pictures, fewer citations, less concision, and more gibberish?

amicably yours, Katsam (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Katsam has made a very valuable set of contributions to this article, and they certainly should not be reverted. I agree that any specific complaints or reinstatements should be handled one at a time. JD Lambert^(T|C) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree any specific complaints Katsam or anyone else has should be handled one at a time, instead of removing large quantities of sourced information, and any specific reinstatements of Katsam's or anyone else's unsourced information should be handled one at a time.

A lot of sourced information is changed, while the source remains the same, with the "page number needed" tags, suggesting the new information is original research. 68.40.150.237 (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. My original complaint wasn't about a particular detail or idea. My complaint was that the article was hard to read -- full of extraneous detail, unstructured, self-contradicting and overlong. It read kind of like outtakes from a hypnosis manual.

By my lights, a good encyclopedia article is clear, concise, and answers the questions a layperson would be likely to ask. In this case, "what is hypnosis?" "what is hypnosis used for?" and "how does hypnosis work?"

So I wrote a new introduction with new references. I reorganized the existing information to fit that three-question structure. And I copyedited the bejeezus out of the existing text -- mostly with the aim of finding quicker ways of saying things.

So yeah. My complaint was that the article was "long and wandering" and my solution was to edit and copyedit. If you disagree, and think that comprehensive detail is more important than structure/concision, please explain. Katsam (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And to respond directly to anonymous' questions, I haven't included "original research," or new information without new references. I _have_, however, rewritten a lot of the copy, so you will find new sentences behind old footnotes. With respect to the information I removed, I cut a lot of details which I felt were confusing and/or irrelevant to laypeople. I don't think most people need to know about "pupillary reflex," for instance, or the hypnotherapy licensure procedures of Israel and India. Katsam (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Katsam's major revision for the same reasons he stated for making them. The previous version was *very* poorly written, *very* poorly structured, was not clear, was not concise, and did not answer common questions in a straightforward manner. Three cheers to Katsam for tremendous improvements, which does not include original research. JD Lambert^(T|C) 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR explains the consensus on original research.

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see WP:SYN below."

WP:DUE explains the consensus on significance and weight.

Before removing large quantities of sourced information, the removal is discussed here first (Template:Controversial; WP:CON). After a consensus is reached, or if no one discusses the change after a reasonable period of time (WP:SILENCE), the change can be made.

Of course, one person agreeing and one person disagreeing does not constitute a consensus, and regarding: "rv to last versrion by Katsam, to remove massive poor changes by an anonymous editor who did not explain the changes in the talk page before making them," obviously Template:Controversial does not apply to reversions of substantial changes made without consensus.

Let's improve the structure and make it more concise.

Personally, I would have no problem if you went ahead and cut details until the edit page no longer warns "this page is x kb long," while keeping the # of references close to 81 (preferably at 81, excepting only unreliable sources (WP:RS)). I'm not one for making up section titles, so I'll leave that up to other editors. Please consult the sources before rewording sourced statements. While I am sure many of the sourced statements in this article are in fact original research to begin with, offering your own take on someone else's original research doesn't help.

Stick to the sources.

68.40.150.237 (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and address your ideas point by point.

1. "Good information" is only as useful as it is comprehensible. The versions you're championing are largely unreadable.

2. With respect to the "original research" thing -- copy-editing is not the same thing as original research, and I don't believe anything in wiki-policy says that it is. If my edits led the text to new conclusions, that would be original research. Point out where I have done so and I will gladly remove it.

3. Regarding "undue weight," I believe that WP:DUE ("An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject") actually supports my decision to cut pupillary reflex et al.

4. More references do not automatically = better, and the 15 September version you're recommending is badly structured, quotation-heavy, repetitive, and hard to read.

(A few example complaints: why such an outsize intro? Why a new mention in the intro that "pain is controllable by hypnosis" when that's discussed both above and below? Why does the intro need to have four [very similar] definitions of hypnosis AND a definition of "hypnotherapist"? Why are some of the definitions of hypnosis poorly written? Why is Alex Lenkel's autohypnotic anaesthesia experience relevant to the introduction? Why is the long quote by David Kraft relevant, and who is he? Is that "Hidden Persuaders" thing really an example of hypnosis, and does it belong in the intro? ... and so forth.)

I do think that looking for greater consensus is a good idea. I'm going to make a straw poll; let's see what people besides you and me think. Katsam (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As above, WP:DUE does not give a consensus on the significance of nor the weight appropriate to sourced information. This needs to be determined by reaching consensus here before removing large amounts of sourced information.

Copy editing, such as fixing typos, spelling, punctuation, syntax errors, and formatting, is acceptable, but like you said, when your edits lead to new conclusions, that is original research. I don't want to turn this into a lesson on semantics, literary theory, and philosophy, so I'll just cite WP:OR.

No matter how good a writer you are, if your writing on hypnosis has not been published by a reputable publisher, it does not belong in Wikipedia.

Like I said above, I'm not one for making up section titles, so I stuck everything in after the intro. Feel free to reorganize the information as you see fit. If you do actually check the sources, and find they are not reliable or not about hypnosis, they can be removed.

68.40.150.237 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nipples ?

Why the picture with a naked silhoutted pregnant women for hypno-birthing? Would be good to make this completely PG instead of not safe for work or network TV. 68.163.64.197 (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why a picture with a pregnant women for hypno-birthing? Because pictures make for better articles, and a pregnant woman is appropriate to the topic. As for nipples, MPAA ratings apply to movies, not encyclopedia articles, but nudity can exist in PG movies. If you can find a licensable photo of a woman actually undergoing hypno-birthing, then use that instead. JD Lambert^(T|C) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That picture was not pornographic, eh. And I am personally underimpressed with the idea of "safe for work" Still, I found you a picture of a pregnant woman with clothes.Katsam (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

which version of this article do you prefer?

There's some debate about how this article should proceed.

I personally like this version (let's call it the "short" version):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypnosis&oldid=240604824

While 68.40.150.237 (Eyebrain?) prefers this version (let's call it the "detailed" version):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypnosis&oldid=238552595

Which one do you prefer?Katsam (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the short version. It is well structured, easy to read, and easy to add to in a logical manner. If anyone thinks "pupillary reflex" or the hypnotherapy licensure procedures of Israel and India are valuable content, let them add it back in a logical position, maintaining a good structure and sensible narrative, or perhaps creating separate articles on those topics with links from this article. The "detailed" version ruins the introduction with overkill and diminishes the narrative of the rest of the article. JD Lambert^(T|C) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When I did the compromise revert, I did my best to add the removed information back in a logical position, and maintain the structure and narrative by substituting the original research with the original research and adding what was completely removed in after the intro.

I'm hoping Katsam will apply his skills in narration, structure, and readability to the rest of the information that was lost in the shuffle, while sticking to the sources.

"It is unacceptable for one user to edit an entire subject, adding incorrect interpretations in the procress. For small specific changes, add them to discussion BEFORE any possible change."

We can't ignore the consensus of the dozens of editors who built this article up piece by piece over the past few years, carefully researching their additions.

I can no longer trust any information in the current article; it does not stick to the sources.

All I'm saying is: Please, don't delete sourced information from reliable sources, and don't change sourced information without consulting the sources.

Please, restructure at will:

Wikipedia's purpose is to collate what others have said.

68.40.150.237 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that making the article more concise is good in the long term, however, it is entirely unacceptable to remove large chunks of the original and put one individuals own interpretation as it is at present. Therefore I have compromised by incorporating segments of the original and combining it with the shorter version. In particular the section on theories was far better and more comprehensive in the original. There is still however much to do on this version but I would be happy to discuss any changes.

No images of Greek gods are necessary either as it is entirely false to claim the 'asklepios' was a god of 'hypnosis'. What exactly he was a god of is still subject to debate and speculation, but to try to tie him in with the term coined by James Braid is simply not true.

I also agree with the above poster- do not delete large chunks of cited material or ignore the consensus of editiors over the years. There is still much of value form the original but time permitting I will continue to work on making this page more comprehensive. Eyebrain (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I find it kind of weird that (both of?) you repeat this idea of "the consensus of editors over the years" when neither of you appears to have any wiki-history at all. Are you one of the old editors of this article? If you are, it would make things simpler if you said so.

It's my understanding that Wikipedia is a place where one shouldn't put their writing unless they're prepared to have it edited mercilessly (at least that's what I read every time I hit the "submit" button). Consensus is something to be built among the editors of the present.

With respect to Asklepios, he's mentioned in many, many histories of hypnosis. If you don't believe me, try Googling his name + hypnosis. (There are thousands of hits, and thousands more if you try the two other spellings of Asklepios' name.) If you want to take the position that hypnosis came into existence when James Braid coined the term, then Mesmer wouldn't count as a hypnotist either.

Here are some things which I think would improve the article as it stands. Tell me what you think. 1) The insertion of a very brief "history of hypnosis" section. The stuff about Mesmer and Braid would go there, along with a mention of Charcot, Paracelus, the Greeks and Egyptians, etc. 2) The reinsertion of the brainscan stuff. Why did you cut it out? I see that part of the brain-scan information is still there, in the form of a long quotation from a New Scientist article, but you cut a few citations. To me, that's some of the most interesting and relevant information in the article. It's the stuff which moves hypnosis onto hard scientific ground. 3)More pictures! Why did you take the PET scan picture out? Why did you remove old Pavlov? 4)Copyediting of the "theories" section. If you want it to be longer, fine, but it is clunky and list-like right now. Also I think that long quotations (like the paragraph-long New Scientist quotation) are poor stylistically and questionable from a copyright viewpoint. best, Katsam (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about Asklepios, you're right that he wasn't a "god of hypnosis." But the story of Asklepios' "sleep healing temples" comes up a LOT in reputable texts when discussing the history of hypnosis. So I'm going to replace the picture, with a caption saying that many histories cite Asklepios' healing methods as an early form of hypnosis. I hope this is amenable to you. Katsam (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the changes proposed by Katsam, and with the relevance of Asklepios. JD Lambert^(T|C) 10:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that Asklepios is at all relevent. Modern accounts of 'hypnosis' can indeed be linked to what Mesmer was doing as many of the effects he achieved were similar to what later hypnotitsts were doing. It is also well documented. However, linking it with someone from 2000 years ago is entirely different as the understanding of what the cult of Asklepios was if far less substantiated. Many have indeed tried to link him with the term hypnosis, or even ancient Egyption rites etc, but that is basically just speculation. Although the term was only used by Braid, the paradigm and scenario Mesmer was using, tho of course based on 'electromagnetic fluid' theries, was very similar in setting to modern hyopnosis in many ways and this is varifiable unlike whatever the ancient Egyptions and Greeks were doing.

I have left in a section on Neuropsychology. However, I removed the original becasue any research so far done on brain imaging and attempting to either discredit or validate hypnosis through science has thus far prved very controversial. Much is down to interpretation and how the studies are conducted plus the nature of the trial and subjects. Scientists are generally skeptical when it comes to any brain imaging studies purporting to demonstrate hypnosis, and I did not feel this was adaquetly expressed in the section.

Overall tho, I think that we are on the way to a more concise and well expressed article. Eyebrain (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we're talking.

That said, I disagree strongly with your ideas about what should be included in this article, particularly the brain science stuff. Brain scan studies of hypnotized people have been done at Stanford and Columbia University (among other places), and the results of those studies have been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, SEED, the New York Times, and more. (I haven't been able to find articles discussing why the brain scan studies are controversial -- please link me to some.)

Also, if the brain scan studies were controversial, that wouldn't mean they shouldn't be included. They should be mentioned and the controversy mentioned as well.

Similarly with Asklepios -- obviously the history surrounding the practices of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians is less documented than the history of Mesmer or Braid. But that doesn't mean it's not part of the traditional history of hypnosis. The Greek and Egyptian practices are mentioned in many reputable texts describing hypnosis' history, and that alone makes it worth mention in the article. It's like...we don't know if Homer even existed, but he'd still be mentioned in a history of epic poetry. Katsam (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Asklepios and the Egyptions and attempting to link them with hypnosis is extremely speculative. I'm not saying it hasn't been attempted before, but that doesn't mean that any attempts to link the two are credible or accurate. It is misleading to link it with a history of hypnosis when we are not sure exactly what Asklepios represented and what he was a god of. Unlike anything that has occured over the last few centuries which is far more well documented and which we can therfore directly compare with the modern hypnosis paradigm, anything from that long ago in history is far less substantiated. And whilst we can trace the development of what we would call hypnosis from the time of Mesmer, the same cannot be done from the time of Asklepios and there is no direct link. Hence I do not think it is accurate to link him with modern hypnosis. It may turn out that whatever Asklepios represented was utterly unrelated. He may as well be linked with 'dream reading' or interpreting dreams (which I believe he has been).

I agree that brain imaging studies are interesting which is why I kept the section on neuropsychology. However, the studies are controversial simply becasue what exactly hypnosis is , and what constitutes a 'hypnotized' subject is still the subject of debate and controversy itself. Not to mention the difficulty in interpreting the results. That is why the majority of scientists tend to not accept hypnosis as a valid phenomena. Eyebrain (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If we include Asklepios in this article, we can explain the doubt. If we leave Asklepios out, anyone might think the article is lacking on this point, rather than having considered and rejected it. Most history is tenuous, but many of the possibilities make history more interesting. Indeed, I venture to guess it is what drives most historians.JD Lambert^(T|C) 09:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I agree that the connection with Asklepios and ancient temples in general is tenuous, although it is often mentioned, usually only very briefly, in books on the history of the subject. I think perhaps a single sentence in this Wikipedia article saying something like, "Some authorities perceive a loose relationship between the practice of hypnotism and self-hypnosis and much older spiritual practices such as those of ancient Graeco-Roman and Egyptian temples, Christian spiritual exercises, Oriental yoga and meditation, and primitive shamanic rituals." I'm an expert on the early history of hypnotism, I've recently published an edited work by James Braid, so I agree that a little more explanation of the origins of hypnotism and its relationship with Mesmerism would be useful. I've made a start but when I get time, I'll try to add a few short quotes. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

i like to learn hypnosis

hey just like to say that i liked thi sbook which was in a topic of hypnosis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love345 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hypnosis versus hypnotism

What is the difference (if any) between the terms "hypnosis" and "hypnotism"? Is one or the other preferred in academic contexts (as opposed to entertainment shows), or are the words interchangeable? If this is the case then this should be stated at the start, with something like "Hypnosis or hypnotism is...", or if not then the difference should be outlined in the introduction. leevclarke (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster seems to weakly favor "hypnotism" as "the art of putting someone into hypnosis", while "hypnosis" is the trance state itself. --Syzygy (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some people reserve the term "hypnotism" for the subject in general and take "hypnosis" to refer to the state of the subject. I think this may be more of a connotation than a literal meaning, and may vary in differnt countries. Braid, who coined the term, actually used "hypnotism" to refer both to the state and to the process of inducing it, and "neuro-hypnology" to refer to the field of study; he never used the term "hypnosis" himself. Basically, the words are often used inter-changeably. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard

The way this part is worded implies that no science fiction writer has a medical basis. While being a science fiction writer does not preclude medical knowledge or qualification I'm sure there are at least a few science fiction writers who do know what they're talking about in this regard. I agree though, L. Ron Hubbard is a charlatan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.19.193 (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying that about L. Ron Hubbard maybe completely rational, or it may not, but on the other hand, saying "their opinions should be disregarded" is about as opinionated and unfair as you can get. - Moontoast —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moontoast (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing fringe and pseudoscientific views

I've recently made a few changes. (Apologies, I'm not very knowledgeable about editing Wikipedia pages properly!) I'd like to suggest, if nobody objects, that the references to Gurdjieff and Mary Baker Eddy are simply deleted. These are really scraping the barrel, are tenuously connected to the "mainstream" of literature and research on hypnotism, and are views that come from controversial figures outside of the mainstream of psychological research and clinical practice on hypnosis. I think what people probably want here is a brief history of hypnosis and some relatively mainstream definitions and scientific findings, etc., not the musings of obscure and controversial figures who researchers in the field never reference. Basically, these people's views on hypnotism are no more relevant to this Wikipedia page than their views on particle physics or social psychology would be to the ones on those subjects. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Having just noticed the posting above, I'd like to add L. Ron Hubbard to the list of people whose views on hypnosis are no more authoritative or relevant than their views on psychology or psychotherapy in general. I don't think this article should really contain any references to Hubbard or Scientology except perhaps to mention that Hubbard claimed to reject hypnosis while others have argued that his own methods were clearly derived from hypnosis. He certainly can't be considered an expert on the subject or an important figure in the history of hypnotism, though, and doesn't merit a place in this article any more than in those on articles on psychology or psychotherapy. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with respect to science fiction writer Hubbard and the Quimby plagiarizer Eddy.

However, must disagree in relation to Gurdjieff. Even though the article's current mention of Gurdjieff's view on the general state of human beings is irrelevant to this article (and, in fact, the piece strongly smacks of the strange view of Gurdjieff and his work promoted by the the serial anthologist, Ouspensky- and Collin-follower, Colin Wilson), it is a matter of fact that Gurdjieff was:

• A highly trained hypnotist,
• Someone who clearly understood the considerable difference between mesmerism and hypnosis (and was an expert user of both "modalities"),
• Someone who clearly understood precisely how to deliver efficacious direct and indirect suggestions, and
• Someone who was highly proficient in the application of "mental imagery".

It is a matter of record -- even verified by Ouspensky -- that Gurdjieff was able to economically support his entire entourage in Istanbul for more than 18 months from the fees that he received for his work getting the sons of rich Turkish families off heroin.

The only reason Gurdieff stopped publicly representing himself as a hypnotist, and actually stopped (officially) using hypnotism was that he thought that, if he were to be characterised as a "hypnotist", nobody would pay any attention to his internal and external spiritual exercises, and simply dismiss them as being a consequence of suggestion (rather than from the direct physiological consequences of the complex of internal and external practices he taught).

As a matter of fact, another expert hypnotist, Émile Coué also decided, around the same time (In France in the early 1920s) to terminate his hypnotic activities because he, too, was worried that people might attribute the success of his method (i.e., conscious autosuggestion) to his [Coué's] hypnotism.

Therefore, Gurdjieff certainly ought to be mentioned here; although the extent to which the distorted views of Gurdjieff promulgated by his (disgraced and expelled) former pupil Ouspensky, and by Colin Wilson, namely that Gurdjieff only statement in relation to hypnosis/hypnotism was

"...first of all, it must be realized that the sleep in which man exists is not normal but hypnotic sleep. Man is hypnotized and this hypnotic state is continually maintained and strengthened in him. One would think that there are forces for whom it would be useful and profitable to keep man in a hypnotic state",

is misleading nonsense and actively dangerous mis-information129.94.78.159 (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following content. I think perhaps a brief comment about Gurfdjieff could be included -I don't personally feel it's relevant- but I think it needs to be rewritten. I've also removed the reference to Freud as, again, I think some mention would be helpful but this particular reference is not very good because it doesn't explain the context of Freud's remark, etc. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, whose routine use of the term "animal magnetism" should not be confused with that of Mesmer and should be understood as denoting a case of one being led by one's baser instincts, once wrote of Mesmer's technique "...if animal magnetism seems to alleviate or to cure disease, this appearance is deceptive, since error cannot remove the effects of error. Discomfort under error is preferable to comfort. In no instance is the effect of animal magnetism, recently called hypnotism, other than the effect of illusion. Any seeming benefit derived from it is proportional to one's faith in esoteric magic." L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, follows suit and declares "...hypnotism, as such, does not work." Neither Eddy nor Hubbard had scientific or medical training.

Gurdjieff (1866–1949), himself a highly experienced, extremely talented hypnotist (especially in relation to heroin addiction), examines hypnotism from a wider perspective and declares "man is asleep". He goes on to say, "...first of all, it must be realized that the sleep in which man exists is not normal but hypnotic sleep. Man is hypnotized and this hypnotic state is continually maintained and strengthened in him. One would think that there are forces for whom it would be useful and profitable to keep man in a hypnotic state."

In 1910, in the second lecture of The Origin and Development of Psycho-Analysis, Freud said: "...Now hypnosis, as a fanciful, and so to speak, mystical, aid, I soon came to dislike; and when I discovered that in spite of all my efforts, I could not hypnotize by any means all of my patients, I resolved to give up hypnotism and to make the cathartic method independent of it."

Psychology Topic

Is this article classed as a psychology topic at present? Should it not carry the psychology sidebar? There is also an alternative therapy sidebar, which I think is currently carried by the "hypnotherapy" page. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to design a sidebar for navigation, based on the one used for NLP and other topics. The more I've worked on these pages, the more I keep coming across other, related ones, that aren't linked up. I think having a "hypnosis" navigation bar to link all the relevant topics will help a lot. Hopefully others agree. I would also suggest that,

1. The main "Hypnosis" section is renamed "Hypnosis/Hypnotism". 2. The hypnotherapy section is renamed "Hypnotherapy/Clinical Hypnosis". 3. Another major section is created entitled "Experimental Hypnosis" for discussion of research, etc.

I think the "History of hypnosis" article needs to be more visible, and "Mesmerism" needs to be better distinguished from hypnotism proper.

HypnoSynthesis (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Irritable bowel syndrome claim

The claim that hypnosis is a successful treatment for irritable bowel syndrome is based on a BBC news article . The article's only evidence is that

The therapy has proved highly effective, with a recent study showing it had helped 71% of patients for up to five years after their course of treatment.

and that 160 people are treated a year. There is no reference to how the study was conducted, for all we know they phoned the patients and asked them if they thought their condition had improved. There is no evidence of a control group.

Unless serious scientific evidence(from a medical journal) is used to back up this claim I vote it is removed, or at least the lack of evidence is made clear.Gobaskof (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a considerable amount of serious scientific research in this area, hypnotherapy for IBS, and I understand the UK Government's NICE guidance on evidence-based practice in medicine recommend hypnotherapy for IBS on the basis of the evidence reviewed. I don't have time to root out the references right away, but I'm sure more credible references can be added by myself or someone else in due course. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I had a deeper look and found a paper published in GUT (part of BMJ) by Whorwell et al. and I am absolutely disgusted with whoever reviewed this. The study has no control groups and was conducted by asking people if there condition had improved every 3 months for 18 months. Now as IBS is a disorder that fluctuates, and people are mostly likely to seek treatment when it is bad, it is expected that conditions will improve naturally. The point of this study should have been to see if hypnotherapy gave better results than a placebo, or no treatment at all. Unfortunately this study is completely useless, and I have managed to find no studies that are not by Whorewell. So I am still of the opinion that actual scientific evidence should be presented or the IBS claim should be removed. Gobaskof (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I read similar criticism of Whorwell's research somewhere else, I think. The Government's NICE guidance can be read at the link below,

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/IBSFullGuideline.pdf

They recommend hypnotherapy as a possible treatment option for certain IBS cases. The evidence summary states: Six parallel group design randomised trials were included (Forbes 2000; Galovski 1998; Harvey 1989; Palsson 2002; Roberts 2006; Whorwell 1984). They go into the research in considerable detail and find mixed evidence, but enough for them to conclude that hypnotherapy can be considered provisionally as an evidence-based treatment. For example, one of their overall conclusions, after reviewing the data in these studies was, "There is moderately good evidence to show a significant global improvement in symptoms after 12 weeks, for hypnotherapy compared with attention control or symptom monitoring or usual management, mainly in patients with refractory IBS, both in primary and secondary care." There are, I think, perhaps also some other recent studies worth considering. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, I shall read it when I have time. Would it be acceptable to delete the BBC citation and replace with a citation needed in the meantime? I suppose the other option is to use the above PDF as the citation. I shall let you decide.Gobaskof (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated it. Feel free to make your own changes. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Stage hypnotism nit-picking

Only a small thing, but where the article mentions that stage hypnotists use 'deception of the audience' as one of three main parts of their act, shouldn't there be a couple of examples (or even a reference) to back this up? Otherwise it kind of sounds like a sceptic's unsubstantiated point of view - even if it's (at least in my opinion) probably quite accurate.Charliedare (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a quotation from Ormond McGill's textbook on the subject as evidence. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hypnotherapy

At the moment, the leading paragraph says:

The use of hypnotism for therapeutic purposes is referred to as "hypnotherapy".

Surely, given that there is nothing therapeutic about either (a) the application of hypnotism or (b) the hypnotic state, this ought to read something rather like:

The utilization of the resources made available to an operator by the presence of an appropriate hypnotic state in a subject is widely referred to as "hypnotherapy".

129.94.78.159 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hypnotherapy

At the moment, the leading paragraph says:

The use of hypnotism for therapeutic purposes is referred to as "hypnotherapy".

Surely, given that there is nothing therapeutic about either (a) the application of hypnotism or (b) the hypnotic state, this ought to read something rather like:

The utilization of the resources made available to an operator by the presence of an appropriate hypnotic state in a subject is widely referred to as "hypnotherapy".

129.94.78.159 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hypnotherapy

At the moment, the leading paragraph says:

The use of hypnotism for therapeutic purposes is referred to as "hypnotherapy".

Surely, given that there is nothing therapeutic whatsoever about either (a) the application of hypnotism to a subject by an operator, or (b) the "being in the hypnotic state-ness" of the subject, this ought to read something rather like:

The utilization of the resources that have been made available to an operator by the presence of an appropriate hypnotic state in a subject is widely referred to as "hypnotherapy".

129.94.78.159 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? I think the current sentence is much clearer and should remain, IMHO. Why do you think there's nothing therapeutic about hypnosis? Most of the empirical research literature on the subject suggests that there is, at least when a relaxation induction is used, as it mimics the effects of other relaxation therapy techniques. In any case, the current phrase doesn't suggest that "hypnotism" itself has a therapeutic effect, it merely states that when hypnotism is used for the purposes of therapy it is usually called "hypnotherapy", that's pretty clear. That encompasses the role of hypnotism in facilitating the therapeutic effects of direct suggestion, imagery, etc., surely, without further elaboration required at this stage in the article. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also Related To

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.56.33 (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Stage Hypnotism Center Needs Cleanup

The stage hypnotism section is written from a completely skeptic point of view. The author uses one example from one source to say that all stage hypnotism is false, while there are plenty of manuals availible to stage performers about genuine group hypnotism. This part of the article needs severe help. It is not entirely factual and certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. Sevey13 (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I wrote most of the section in question and that's not what the article actually says: it's not claiming that "all stage hypnotism is false." In reality, stage hypnotists use a mixture of genuine hypnosis, waking suggestion, and trickery. The mix varies from one performer to another. The "one source" you mention is almost universally agreed to be the main textbook on stage hypnosis, Ormond McGill's New Encyclopedia of Stage Hypnotism. I'll add additional references from other well-known textbooks, though, to clarify the sources.HypnoSynthesis (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)