Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Science

Hypnosis Gets Positive Recognition 353

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the you-are-getting-very-sleepy-now-donate-money dept.
An anonymous reader writes to tell us the New York Times is reporting that, despite its negative history, hypnosis is now getting some favorable attention from neuroscientists. From the article: "These extensive feedback circuits mean that consciousness, what people see, hear, feel and believe, is based on what neuroscientists call "top down processing." What you see is not always what you get, because what you see depends on a framework built by experience that stands ready to interpret the raw information - as a flower or a hammer or a face."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hypnosis Gets Positive Recognition More

Hypnosis Gets Positive Recognition

Comments Filter:
  • You are very sleeeepy...

    • Re:It works! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JediLow ( 831100 )
      Actually... thats sort of how hypnosis works - its considered a lowered state of conciousness (though not quite sleeping) where the subject is extremely succeptible to suggestions, and thus acts outs those suggestions (which is why hypnosis is not considered valid legal evidence)

      • Hey! You! (Score:4, Funny)

        by StarKruzr ( 74642 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:44PM (#14096759) Journal
        Don't think about polar bears!
    • Hypnosis indeed works.

      Primarily, I use an open source (GPL) program called "Virtual Hypnotist [sf.net]. It took time to get it to work for me (close to a year using it daily), but now I can under when I want to.

      I've primarily used it so far to help overcome my shyness, especially around women. So far it's been working. I've also been using it assist with lucid dreams.

  • *rubs temples* (Score:4, Funny)

    by Chickenofbristol55 ( 884806 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:26PM (#14096632) Homepage
    You will believe in Hypnosis...... you will believe in Hypnosis.

    Guy: It didn't work, i still think its a crock.

    Oh, well I tried

  • I am getting sleepy... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Aidski ( 875851 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:29PM (#14096651)
    ...Open source is the best solution for everything. I will use open source, O great slashdot ...
    • I don't have mod points, so I can't voice my opinion that way, but this is the kind of predictable drivel that makes Slashdot comments more stale than network sitcoms. I know we can do better than this...

  • In other words... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) <shadow.wrought@g ... minus herbivore> on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:32PM (#14096670) Homepage Journal
    What you see is not always what you get, because what you see depends on a framework built by experience that stands ready to interpret the raw information - as a flower or a hammer or a face.

    Perception is reality. Which is why two people can look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions. Change the perception, change the reality. A marketer's dream.

    • In other words...Powered by Imagination (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Perception is reality. Which is why two people can look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions. Change the perception, change the reality. A marketer's dream."

      *Geeks are getting laid!*

      Sorry chief, it doesn't work.

    • Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:38PM (#14097096)

      Perception is reality. Which is why two people can look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions.

      Not by any conventional definition of reality [answers.com]. What is real doesn't change depending on perception. Reality by definition is objective, not subjective.

      I've noticed pseudoscience types and religious people use "reality" as a synonym for "belief". That's not the accepted definition for reality, and pretty much anything can be considered "real" by that definition, which makes it useless. Don't use "reality" as a synonym for "belief".

      Change the perception, change the reality.

      No, change the perception, change the belief. Change the perception, change the conclusion. You cannot change reality by perceiving it a different way.

      • Reality by definition is objective, not subjective.

        Problem is that there is no objective, only group consciousness, which is based on individual consciousness which is based on perception.

        It used to be a fact that nothing but birds and other flying animals could fly in a heavier than air body.

        Our perception has changed, and so have the facts.

        • Not true. To use your example, heavier than air flight was possible long before anybody believed it was possible. Everybody believing that it was impossible didn't change reality so that it was impossible. When the first heavier than air flights were being conducted, lots of people surely believed that it was still impossible then. A few people thought that it was possible. Neither had any influence on what is really possible, because reality isn't affected by belief. Try jumping off a tall building

          • Not true. To use your example, heavier than air flight was possible long before anybody believed it was possible

            Only if you believe that the laws of physics were the same. By your definition reality = truth, which can never be truly known. So at best we can have a strong confidence of reality, but never truly know it.
            • Yes, that is the best we can have. That is the ultimate goal of working through the scientific method.. to have a strong confidence in reality matching what we think we know about it. The laws of physics are unchanging. If there were changes due to people's changing beliefs that would be an as of yet unknown variable in how we _understand_ the laws of physics. The physical reality itself is as it is. If belief affects it, that's part of the laws of physics. It's only our limited understanding of those laws

            • It's true that our knowledge of reality is limited by the fallibility of our perception. However that doesn't mean that our perception defines reality, merely that it limits our knowledge of it.

              For instance, an optical illusion can exploit defects in human perception to make us believe that an image has certain properties. Yet we can augment our perception in various ways to determine that this belief does not correspond to reality. In truth, the image never had such properties, despite our belief th

          • Try jumping off a tall building and believing you can fly by flapping your arms if you doubt it.

            Not being familiar with the knowledge of the past 100 years of flight, I would believe that I could fly by flapping my arms beyond a shadow of a doubt over using 10 tons of steel and some hot air.

      • Re:In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @10:54PM (#14097501) Homepage
        Well if you want to get really picky about it, the "objective" characteristic of reality is usually one of the last definitions listed, meaning the least relevant or least often used. In one of the definitions at answers.com, reality is defined as "Meaning #1: all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you Synonym: world." So your own source conflicts with your assertion.

        Further, it's impossible to make an objective observation since the act of observing requires perception. So for all practical purposes reality is perception, and vice versa, since we are incapable of deliberately interacting with things we cannot perceive. (Not to be confused with intangibles such as electricity or happiness, which are observed indirectly by their effects). Objective reality may arguably be a goal, but it is never achievable and our subjective realities are often a good enough substitute.

        • Regarding the dictionary definition, it's true, I didn't scroll down past three entries, each of which did not include that definition, to find the one that did. It seems the new meaning has gained enough traction to be listed in WordNet. For what it's worth, I read the first definition as also excluding the idea of reality as perception; it's worded slightly differently in the OED [askoxford.com], which explicitly excludes "notional ideas".

          it's impossible to make an objective observation

          No, but it's possible to

          • I'm not saying that perception isn't a good enough substitute for practical purposes, I'm just saying that perception and reality are two very different things.

            Sure, they can be two different things, but how does that help us? Grandparent poster said, "So for all practical purposes reality is perception, and vice versa" and you disagreed and then said the exact same thing, with quibbles. Yes is is a strong word, but I think you guys are arguing in circles.

            Let me just add this: In new age circles, the

      • Not by any conventional definition of reality. What is real doesn't change depending on perception. Reality by definition is objective, not subjective.

        Then nothing is, really, red. There are no noises. Words don't mean anything. This website is just patterns without meaning (ok, that one's sort of a bad example, heh...).

        Reality is both objective and subjective. It's folly (and insanity) to believe otherwise.

        I've noticed pseudoscience types and religious people use "reality" as a synonym for "belief".

        Yes, su

        • Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @12:31AM (#14097963)

          Then nothing is, really, red.

          What? you are saying that a material absorbs electromagnetic radiation of particular frequencies only because it is being observed?

          It's true that if nobody was around to see it, nobody would be calling it "red". But the process would still be going on.

          There are no noises.

          Again, I don't see your point. Are you arguing that if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it, the laws of physics change so that it doesn't cause the air molecules nearby to vibrate?

          Words don't mean anything.

          Who cares about what words mean? The meaning of things is defined by interpretation - it's not reality in the slightest.

          • What? you are saying that a material absorbs electromagnetic radiation of particular frequencies only because it is being observed?

            I'm saying that whatever wavelength of light we call "red" is only red because that's how we perceive it. In other words, the color red is subjective. Even though it's completely subjective, the color red (not the wavelength, the color) actually does exist.

            Are you arguing that if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it, the laws of physics change so that it do

            • Re:In other words... (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Bogtha ( 906264 )

              I'm saying that whatever wavelength of light we call "red" is only red because that's how we perceive it. In other words, the color red is subjective.

              Okay, I think I see what you are saying. The colour red is a concept, and as such, only has meaning within the context of human perception.

              We're talking at cross-purposes. When I say "reality", I mean the physical world. I don't mean everything that can possibly be conceptualised.

              I can think of one person who cares.

              That was a bad way of phr

    • What you're talking about is a person's interpretation, which is based on their biases, preferences, interests and other such factors. Reality is reality.

      Take the recent invasion of Iraq, for instance. It is _fact_ that innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed by American soldiers and American bombs. That's reality. However, the interpretation of the situation by different people may differ. If you ask a neo-con or a redneck, chances are they'll justify the killing, for whatever reason. A conservative or a
      • So prove to me you are part of "reality" and not just a figment of my imagination (perception).

        "...And all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be." - Pink Floyd
      • What you're discussing is morals, which are tangential to reality. More specifically you're talking about ethics, which are the arbitrary rules people create regarding what is and is not moral. It's difficult to define reality without being circular, but as I posted above, it's definately subjective. Only the irrationals can claim to have direct knowledge of reality.

  • Preston and Steve believe in it... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It works. Really. [nyud.net]

  • DYI EEG and Poetic Genius (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Quirk ( 36086 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:35PM (#14096694) Homepage Journal
    What you see is not always what you get, because what you see depends on a framework built by experience that stands ready to interpret the raw information - as a flower or a hammer or a face.

    In light of the above, reading A Rimbaud [wikipedia.org] is illuminating [wikipedia.org]. Rimbaud forced himself to see what he thought of as his poetic vision. He would stare mercilessly into a pool until he saw a fabled city. William Blake is another who willed visions. Rimbaud gave up poetry at a very early age and turned to gun running, but also later spoke of science as the only worthwhile pursuit.

    My newest DYI project is an EEG machine to compliment my interest in neurobiology and slow wave sleep. For those who want an in to hypnosis, biofeedback and sleep "EEG.pl [eeg.pl] is an open repository for software, publications and datasets related to the analysis of brain potentials: electroencephalogram (EEG), local field potentials (LFPs) and event related potentials (ERP)"

  • Use in marketing? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by polv0 ( 596583 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:35PM (#14096696)
    Will there come a day where the study of hypnosis, or other forms of cognitive suggestion, is abused by firms for marketing? Perhaps some allready are. What kind of privacy law would restrict this?

    • Re:Use in marketing? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:45PM (#14096767)
      > Will there come a day where the study of hypnosis, or other forms of cognitive suggestion, is abused by firms for marketing? Perhaps some allready are. What kind of privacy law would restrict this?

      <jedi>
      There will not come a day when marketers abuse this.
      No marketers are abusing this.
      No privacy law is required.
      </jedi>

      Nothing for me to see here. I'll move along.

    • Re:Use in marketing? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Goonie ( 8651 ) *
      They've already tried it. Subliminal advertising doesn't work, but there was a report in Salon magazine a few years ago about hypnotizing people [salon.com] (note: obnoxious ad to get access) to get their unconscious reactions to various consumer products for marketing research.
      • I think we should look at the latest fashion magazines.. people have been told so much "This is cool, if you're like this people will like you" that they start to believe it. After this all they have to do is put these puppets in the right clothes and subconciously it says "I need this stuff to be cool!".

        It's already happenec.
      • But subliminal suggestion and posthypnotic suggestion are opposites -- one asserts that people are impressionable in their alert state below their level of consciousness, and the other asserts that people must be in a "trance." However, since only a small percent of the population is highly susceptible to hypnosis, and almost nobody is susceptible when unwilling, I don't think we have to worry about hypnotic advertising any time soon.
    • Perhaps the marketing hypnosis also makes people feel good about being hypnotized. Then nobody would care.

    • Re:Use in marketing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by D-Cypell ( 446534 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @10:05PM (#14097243)
      Not only is it being used today, but you might even say that 'cognitive suggestion' forms a definition of modern marketing.

      Discussing this with my company's experienced sales and marketing director was enlightening and shocking. Billions of US dollars are spent to harness our subconsious traits. Emotional reaction to certain colours or shapes are used convince us to part with our money.

      Next time you see an ad with an animated character, note the proportion of the characters eyes and head. Most of the time you will see that the eyes and head are proportionally larger than those of an adult human but closer to those of a baby/young child. Why? Because we are genetically tuned to respond in a positive way to children.

      Surf around a few corp websites that offer services to other companies. What percentage use blue as their main colour? Supposedly blue is a 'trustworthy' colour.

      The common misconception is that hypnosis is about swinging a pocket watch and chanting "You are feeling sleepy". The fact is, you are essentially hypnotised by marketing specialised many times (perhaps hundreds of times) daily. It is the reason why millions of people will go to the supermarket and pay double the price of the exact same shit in a different colour box.

      • Well.. there's limited evidence to suggest that all the subconscious techniques of advertising have an effect. From everything I've seen, the effectiveness is within the margin of error between a straightforward commercial, and a "tainted" commercial. The significant gap is between advertising or no advertising. Some studies suggest that the choices of one's parents has a far larger effect than advertising on a trip to the grocery store, but advertising was the second most frequent reason people chose a

  • Can you tell a green field... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:35PM (#14096697)
    From a cold steel rail..

  • Flawed experiment? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Captain Sensible ( 141639 ) <`ua.moc.deriwnu' `ta' `renkluafaj'> on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:36PM (#14096706) Homepage
    "The probe, called the Stroop test, presents words in block letters in the colors red, blue, green and yellow. The subject has to press a button identifying the color of the letters. The difficulty is that sometimes the word RED is colored green. Or the word YELLOW is colored blue. " Hypnotised subjects recognised the words more often than unhypnotised subjects.

    The Stroop test also differentiates between subjects with a thick corpus callosum and those with a thin corpus callosum - eg: left handers and right handers. Considering the small sample was this factor controlled for?

    Also psych experiments use very small samples and have to use the repeated measures statistical technique. This can identify significance but is restricted in other information it can provide.

    • Re:Flawed experiment? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by freshmkr ( 132808 )
      The Stroop test also differentiates between subjects with a thick corpus callosum and those with a thin corpus callosum - eg: left handers and right handers. Considering the small sample was this factor controlled for?

      I haven't looked at this study, but yes, it's routine to select only right handed subjects for MRI studies.

      Can you cite a reference that links corpus callosum thickness with handedness and Stroop task performance?
    • The Stroop test also differentiates between subjects with a thick corpus callosum and those with a thin corpus callosum - eg: left handers and right handers. Considering the small sample was this factor controlled for?

      Not sure what you're referring to here - there is an interhemispheric version of the Stroop task, but that's not what's being used here. And evidence for a difference in corpus callosum size between left and right handers is sketchy at best.

      Anyways, the Stroop is one of the oldest and be

  • Self hypnosis software? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:42PM (#14096747) Homepage Journal
    Okay...I'm intrigued by this hypnosis thing, especially having seen a couple of impressive onstage performances on campus.

    Anybody try any of the self hypnosis software like Virtual Hypnotist [sourceforge.net] successfully? I've tried a few opensource/free programs, and they don't seem to work.

    Note that I'm interested in self hypnosis purely from the scientific-curiosity/entertainment/skeptic point of view. Not looking for serious therapy stuff here (Office Space comes to mind).

    • It takes a while, but VH does in fact work. I recommend using the Spiral Induction for a while. Having something visual seemed to help me. After I got used to it, though, I can just use regular hypnosis mp3s, too.

      Also try the demo to NeuroProgrammer2. That program is good.

      If you want to try things that are a bit out there, there is a really good site. It's not worksafe and there are disturbing things here (slavery, etc), but there are some really good files (TrainMMO [multiple orgams], FemaleOrgasm (aw

  • Virtual Reality (Score:4, Interesting)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:45PM (#14096764) Homepage Journal
    I remember talking to a psychologist once who, once learning that I was a computer guy, suggested that combining a form of auto-entraining hypnosis with some creative input devices you could easily make an immersive environment with today's technology. The only problem is that by allowing yourself to be hypnotised you're putting yourself into a highly suggestive state (duh, that's how it works) and as such you really need to trust the creator of the experience that you are being fed. If, for example, you're experiencing an online environment, you're allowing random unknown people to have intimate access to your mind. Not exactly something I'd be interested in doing. But consider the fiction of Neuromancer [lib.ru]: "a consensual hallucination". That's what we're talking about here. The dangers experienced by Case were real and could lead to his death if he took on a system he couldn't control. Regardless, Case accepted the risks because the rewards were so great.. perhaps that kind of attitude is something we should strive towards. Our aversion to risk is limiting our sensory perception of our shared experiences. We're limited to screens and keyboards. Sure, our screens have gotten bigger and more colourful and we've got joysticks and mice, and surround sound, but the experience of cyberspace is so poor compared to meatspace. And that's not getting any better.
    • Interesting. I'm a computer guy who will (hopefully) soon have his master's degree and I'm applying to get into the PhD program in neuroscience. I wonder if I could somehow make this into my dissertation. :) If I do, I'll be sure to give "mad props to QuantumG for the initial idea" ;)

    • Re:Virtual Reality (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jerf ( 17166 )
      Our aversion to risk is limiting our sensory perception of our shared experiences.

      Uh, hello?

      Read your email inbox lately?

      Our aversion to that sort of risk is keeping us alive.

      Good luck with that "open source brain" thing.

      (Tone note: I'm completely serious.)

    • Hypnosis is not mind control or any shortcut to messing up someone's head. The human mind has very strong defense mechanisms. Saying that a hypnotized person is in a 'highly suggestive state' is a bit misleading. Any competent hypno-therapist (or even stage hypnotist) will tell you that you can't make people do anything they don't -- on some level -- want to do. So, a very shy man under hypnosis may be a smooth talker but only because, subconsciously that's what he wants to be and in the hypnotic state his

      • If you willingly let yourself be put into a hypnotic state and then get exposed to a traumatic simulation it's a lot more likely to have a dangerous effect on you than engaging in the same simulation when not under hypnosis.

        • Maybe? What kind of evidence do you have for this? It's purely speculative. Yeah, it's fun to imagine a Neuromancer scenario but, really, that's just fantasy. More likely, you'd wake up and be no more messed up than after watching a scary movie.

          In fact, many activities induce trance or trance-like states such as watching TV or a movie, playing a video game, exercising, or even programming. Ever watched a good movie and later felt like you had 'zoned out,' that time had passed quickly without you noticing

  • A testable theory (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kentrel ( 526003 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:48PM (#14096782) Journal
    The language of that posting presupposes that hypnosis was not accepted previously, which in effect is a form of hypnosis! The poster is poorly informed, its been around for a long time, has been accepted by many in the medical, sports and psychiatry fields, with fairly easily testable ideas.

    Hypnosis might have a negative reputation if you buy the movie "mind control" version, which has nothing to do with reality, and shame on anyone who even thought it was. It has long been a testable theory, and research has shown that every 90 minutes or so the brain goes into a slightly hypnotic state, daydreaming if you will. This is a natural process of the brain. It's still not known how or why this happens, but the effect has been known for a long time.

    It's a very weird thing to demonstrate to someone who's long held the negative "its' a crock of shit" view based on what they've seen on movies or in stage hypnosis.

    I'll give you an example of something that a psychotherapist (long story) did for me. When you get into that relaxed state, that's not quite as relaxed as sleeping, but its still a very numb relaxing pleasant feeling, the hypnotist "tests" your state in numerous ways. The most popular one is telling you your eyes are glued shut and no matter how hard you try you cannot open them... then a few minutes later asks you to try, but you will not be able. Every time this happens to me, I *KNOW* I can open my eyes, I'm fucking positive about it, I *KNOW* they're not glued shut, I *KNOW* the hypnotist is a lying bastard, full of shit.. but you know what... I don't wanna... I like them shut. It's difficult to explain, but you just find yourself wanting to go along with fun little things like that.

    That's a crude little insight into what a hypnotic state feels like and the level of "control" anyone has over you. Try it yourself, you dont have to believe in it. If anything, its just a great way of relaxation. I use it at night as a cure for insomnia. A guided session helps me get to sleep within about 10 minutes. You might argue that this is just the power of suggestion, or the placebo effect... but that's exactly what's its meant to be.

    I also make my own mp3's depending on what I'm looking for.. If preparing for a job interview I run through the interview over and over again in a hypnotic state. It's a great way of mental rehearsing something. Better than just doing it in front of a mirror....

    • The above poster describes the process of hypnosis EXACTLY.

      I had the fun experience of going to the Anthony Cools show in Vegas. My wife and the guy sitting beside me (also a hypnotist who was coming to watch) somehow convinced me to go along with it.

      While I knew that the end result would probably be embarassing, I just told myself to go along with it. Turns out that I was the star of the show.

      And yes, I f_cked a chair. But what happens in Vegas...

      Long story short, there is no way a hypnotist cou

      • I don't understand that common claim that "there is no way a hypnotist could get you to do anything you don't want to do."

        Feynmann and others note that their mind refused to resist the commands. Can you explain this distinction better?

    • Re:A testable theory (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Every time this happens to me, I *KNOW* I can open my eyes, I'm fucking positive about it, I *KNOW* they're not glued shut, I *KNOW* the hypnotist is a lying bastard, full of shit.. but you know what... I don't wanna... I like them shut.

      You have a great future as a slashdot editor...
    • Richard Feynman noted the same thing in his biography. He said you found yourself continually thinking "I could do that, but I won't" in reasponse to defying the hypnotist, which is just another way of saying you can't.

  • *yawn* and no, not from hypnosis... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wanax ( 46819 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @08:50PM (#14096800)
    The whole idea of 'top-down' or cognitive drive for the sensory systems is very addictive, since among other things, it allows you to explain perception as some type of baysian method. However it is simply untrue. The visual system is replete with examples, from the Craik-O'Brien-Cornsweet illusion, to stuff like Julesz' Random Dot stereograms (that CANNOT have top down effects), that defy a top-down framework.

    Even with effects that might be top-down modulated (like illusory contours) the physiological evidence is totally towards these things happening in the early nervous system. Although there is definitely some feedback present even in this area, one has to consider that RC constants for most neurons are about ~10ms, and much of our perception takes place in ~100ms. These timeframes are VERY well studied, and generally accepted.. and of that 100ms, about 50ms of the time is the signal travelling from the retina to the cortex (see Bullier & DeAngelis, among others). That doesn't leave much room for dramatic top down feedback for general sensory perception.... Your visual system, bottom up, manages to figure out edges, what colors to fill them in with, various levels of depth, what's moving (in relation to your eye movements.. no easy challenge.. how can you tell when your eye moves whether you're looking at a pen, or a moving streak?) and in relation to what else, all within 100-150ms of the stimulus. That just doesn't leave time for very dramatic 'high level' feedback like this article assumes.

    Although I've only mentioned vision, there are similar issues in all sensory modalities except audition, which is a special case, since audition is optimized for temporal accuity, but it has its own issues that make it look like much of your perception happens without much top-down activity.

    From our current understanding it appears that top-down activity does two things: 1) Equalize 'gain' in the sensory system.. if the amplification levels across you're visual field were different, you wouldn't be able to tell whether a line was something that had to do with the outside world or noise. And 2) Modulate acuity for attention.. which is very complicated in and of itself, but there is good evidence that most early perception occurs even in areas we aren't attending to.

    The main 'evidence' in this article is from a 'brain scanner' which is probably fMRI. As one of my professor's liked to say, "In fMRI we show people a picture of their ass, then a picture of a hole in the ground, and subract them." Most fMRI statistics include averaging across areas... which is nice, until you remember that our brain isn't on a sphere, but something with fissures in it, and so you just averaged two things that were (cortically speaking) in other worlds (since because of the fissure they might be centimeters apart! Remember the Cortex is a laminar archiecture around the surface)... so I'm highly skeptical, to say the least.
    • The main 'evidence' in this article is from a 'brain scanner' which is probably fMRI. As one of my professor's liked to say, "In fMRI we show people a picture of their ass, then a picture of a hole in the ground, and subract them." Most fMRI statistics include averaging across areas... which is nice, until you remember that our brain isn't on a sphere, but something with fissures in it, and so you just averaged two things that were (cortically speaking) in other worlds (since because of the fissure they mig
  • Vision is not like a literal pixel image. Rather the brain heavily processes retinal data to create more of a 3-D visual model (like a VRML file). It doesn't take much to accidentally or intentionally screw with the model (i.e., visual illusions, witness tampering, hallucinations, etc.).


    The point is that people see what they THINK they see, not what the retina records.

  • Me and my two sisters were delivered by a D.O. who was also a hypnotist. Our mother had no pain-relieving drugs, but felt no pain during any of the three births. The D.O. had been working with her during her pregnancies implanting the suggestion that she would feel no pain, and that it would be a "beautiful experience". This was back in the very late 50s to the early 60s (I'm 46).

  • I'm proof it works (Score:4, Interesting)

    by K8Fan ( 37875 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:02PM (#14096878) Journal

    I, and my two sisters, were delivered by an Ostopath/hypnotist. Our mother said she felt no pain but had no drugs during any of the three deliveries. He had worked with her during preganecies, implanting the suggestion that she would feel no pain and that "it would be a beautiful experience". Pretty effective, as my younger sister was a breach presentation, and the doctor was able to move the baby around so that a Cesarian was avoided.

  • Look into my eyes, don't look around the eyes, don't look around the eyes, look into my eyes, you're under.

    Right, mod this up. +1 insightful. +1 funny. +1 interesting. +1 i-want-to-have-your-babies

    3, 2, 1 ... you're back in the room

  • NLP and Richard Bandler... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Frogg ( 27033 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:15PM (#14096961)
    ...look them both up on Google, and your favourite peer-to-peer file sharing thingumy, and I'm sure you will find both quite enlightening to, um, "play with".

    There are some very interesting/good MP3s and AVis by Bandler -- and Milton Erickson's material is also worth spending some time over.

    Deep techies -- programmers in particular -- will likely find some of the NLP techniques quite interesting, especially if "O'Reilly's Mind Hacks" seemed like an interesting title.

    Enjoy!

    Nice to see this topic finally getting some more mainstream media coverage -- hypnosis is almost magickal, isn't it?

    Bon Voyage... /J
    • Mod the parent up - transformational grammar, neurolinguistic programming, and the like are all easily accessible to anyone with a programming languages background and the stuff just flat works, despite the trollish comments from nearly every single uninformed /.er

      You know, I read the articles on Slashdot because about one in three is something in which I am interested, but the value of comments is fast approaching zero - all of the sensible people must have jobs, leaving only the living under mom

  • Article Still Minimizes Hypnosis (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chromozone ( 847904 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:20PM (#14096982)
    That wasn't a very good article actually. Top down this...flashing lights/colors that - close to the same old hypnosis as gimmick POV. Hypnosis in one form or another is at the heart of what is called "mental Illness". Even healthy people struggle with mental tapes that play over and over in the mind. A kid getting upset after being yelled at by her parents and called "no good..lazy..a floosey etc" the parents is actually getting set up for hypnotic conditioning. Any shock suspends what hypnotists often call an individuals "critical factors" or the ability to maintain reason, focus, objectivity etc. When critical factors are suspended the door to the sub conscious is accessed and able to receive suggestions. A kid called "no good" while being stressed and upset will find those thoughts in the mind and struggling with them will make them worse since concentration is a function of hypnosis and all struggle deepend the psychic funk. One reason people can't break habits is because they worry, struggle and analyze the problem too much. Indeed, one reason therapy often backfires is because the client is asked to get deeper into focusing on what is wrong instead of becoming objective to it. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is essentially a hypnotic problem. People under severe stress react and the traumatic elements get inside a person's subconscious where they re-animate again and again. A persons conditioned reflex response mechanism which is like the body's memory can feel pain from an ordeal that they were not even aware of when the traumatic event was taking place. Many soldiers and others subjected to stresses that they are shocked by have a consciousness that is overwhelmed as if like a conductor falling into an orchestra. When people dont know how to handle their emotions, or are subject to extreme stresses,they lose some conscious awareness and fall into the gears of their own cognitive and emotional machinery. That's the root for a tremendous amount of mental suffering. Not surprisingly many of the original psychic ruptures take place at home and in the schools when people are kids and get upset by the cruelties, neglects, family problems etc. Media, marketers and politicians etc use these mechanisms (even if only indirectly aware of what principles they are using) by emotionalizing groups of people and then giving them ideas and suggestions. WHen adds play that energizing music and give people feelings and ideas they are trying to condition them hypnotically. People will accept such motivations as if it came from them. Hypnotic elements are all around us and yet it's hardly recognized for what it is. A lot more people can be hypnotized that that article states. One reason people can't be hypnotized is because they are hypnotized already by lifes events and stresses. The correct way to use hypnosis to get someone to stop smoking would be to "un-hypnotize" them. Thats why when a person tries hypnosis for smoke cessation it only works for a little while. Hypnotists don't hypnotize people as much as take over a pre existing state. A fact people don't realize about hypnosis is that intellectual people and people who use their imaginations a lot are the best subjects for hypnosis. People who study a lot are used to focusing their minds and they tend to be sensitive to authority ( a good hypnotists greatest asset is a authoritarian manner) - all good conditions for hypnotic manipulation. One reason artists and such suffer is because they are very open in their own minds to all sorts of forces taking their objectivity captive.

  • I hope so (Score:3, Informative)

    by 3ryon ( 415000 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:25PM (#14097015)
    I keep my books on hypnosis out of sight because I don't like the questions that follow when my friends see them. If you would like to learn more, start with some works by Milton Erickson [wikipedia.org]. Anything is possible once you realize that your brain *makes* your reality.

    • Uncle Milton (Score:3, Insightful)

      by UpnAtom ( 551727 )
      Erickson was one of the first people to discover and utilise covert hypnosis.

      Since he was an MD reportedly getting miracle results, the medical board assumed he was a crank and tried to remove his license. Twice.

      The meetings both went the same way. Erickson would start talking in his monotonous drawl, which would be the only thing board members would remember, apart from letting him keep his license.

      So much of what Milton did is mindblowing. One of his patients wanted to lose weight. Erickson hypnotised

  • What about... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SeaDour ( 704727 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:30PM (#14097042) Homepage

    ...the use of hypnosis to recover repressed memories?

    I think the validity of that is still in question.

    • Unless you can get the client's subconscious mind to accept the need to be 'honest' (and how would you know if this was the case?), you have to rely on traditional lie detection methods to determine whether the recovered memory is fake or real.

  • It does work... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by erasmus42 ( 35266 )
    I have personally experienced the medicinal effects of hypnosis.

    My doctor cured my migraines as a child through hypnosis. He has also cured
    asthma through the same techniques with other children. If the disease involves
    the mind, hypnosis is very effective.

    When you think that the placebo effect is quite effective, consider being able
    to influence the subconscious in order to clear symptoms that were artifically
    created by the patient. Consider psychosomatic illnesses, where it's all in
    the person's head. The

  • From a psychologist's perspective... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sigmund Dali ( 925077 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:44PM (#14097130)
    I'm a psychologist. Have the degree and everything to prove it. For full disclosure to any other psychologists out there, I'm a mixture of the neo-Freudian and sociocultural schools, with a dash of biogenetic. Personally, I view this as a good thing. There's been alot of bashing of hypnosis by both the scientific and the nonscientific communities for either it's 1) percieved goofiness (you're getting sleeppyyyyy...) or 2) the suggestability it causes. However, I find it to be a good tool if it's handled by somebody who is actually qualified to do it in a scientific manner. Most of the suggestability accounts are done by non professionals pretending to be professionals. They're mostly shame artists. But for a real hypnotist, the real value of hynopsis is not in recovering deep dark secrets, but for use as a tool of self-honesty, in bringing issues to light that people really know, but keep back by a thin layer of repression. If you dig any deeper than that, then you risk falling into the suggestability catagory.

    • Re:From a psychologist's perspective... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No offence, but you're a *clinical* psychologist - as opposed to an *experimental* psychologist. The former is not evidence based (read: can't be falsified), while the latter is. Big difference. Your opinion is just that... an opinion.

  • Finally (Score:2, Insightful)

    by olego ( 899338 )
    Took them long enough. Maybe in another decade they'll conclude that meditation is a good way to relieve stress. Seriously, I wish people would read about these things before adopting negative stereotypes about them. Of course, a stereotype, by definition, is an uninformed opinion.

  • Basically, (Score:4, Funny)

    by Council ( 514577 ) <rmunroe@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @09:51PM (#14097168) Homepage
    Experts: We don't believe in hypnosis.
    Hypnotists: Yes, you do.
    Experts: Okay.

  • I got hypnotized (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ilsie ( 227381 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @10:41PM (#14097430)
    Disclaimer: I did not RTFA. I did get hypnotized back in August for smoking cessation purposes. Was a 1-2 pack a day smoker for about 10 years. Tried the patch (didnt work), the gum (tasted like crap), wellbutrin (gave me hives and made me not care about anything). Finally I tried hypnosys. Granted, I went into it believing it was going to work, and it did. Two 40 minute sessions later and I havent had a smoke and best of all, I wasnt irritable at all.

  • Negative History? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Uzziel ( 148474 )
    If you're talking the age of Mesmer, then yes, hypnosis had a somewhat negative history. But in the past few decades it's become much better understood and it's used to good effect in several medical fields.

    Go to your favorite book search site and look for hypnosis in pain management. There's a lot of very well researched scientific literature out there. (Also a lot of crap, but that doesn't make the good stuff any less valid.)

    A couple of years ago I spent a lot of time studying hypnosis and I brought up
    • Give your stepfather a copy of "Hypnotherapy", by the late Dave Elman. (Amazon is your FRIEND.)

      Elman's primary focus was on hypnosis for medical applications. He went to some trouble to develop rapid induction techniques, on the principle that doctors and dentists couldn't AFFORD to spend hours hypnotizing patients; they HAD to be able to do it in minutes.

  • Dr Milton Erikson (Score:5, Informative)

    by gobbo ( 567674 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @02:34AM (#14098391) Journal
    This is interesting, but, as usual, an art in the hands of a highly skilled practitioner gets lost in the search for reproducibility. Dr Milton Erikson [google.com] kind of set things off for modern hypnotherapy, but he was extraordinarily perceptive, and generally only took on cases that would work for his methods, so had a resounding success rate.

    What was amazing about Erikson was that he noticed that life is rife with trance states, most of them shallow, temporary, and skilfully deployed for survival purposes. Think about this the next time you get home from a tense commute without really remembering exactly how you operated the car.

    He found somewhat more suggestible cases, and took advantage of what he saw as our natural facility with trances, and of our heavy reliance on metaphor to get through the day. (Of course, I oversimplify.) Plus he was a damn good psychiatrist. Basically, a prodigy. He would find ways of putting people into trances of various depths, for various lengths of time, using freaky techniques like the rhythm of his voice tuned to the listener's body responses, and barely noticeable emphasis on certain words, not unlike fictional characters in the Dune series. Not easy to reproduce.

    His ideas later led to NLP, or Neuro-Linguistic Programming... YMMV.

  • Original article from 2002 (Score:3, Informative)

    by XNormal ( 8617 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @04:11AM (#14098650) Homepage
    Here [sacklerinstitute.org] is the original article by Amit Raz et al, published in 2002.

  • Major Surgery with Hypnosis - it works! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tsu Dho Nimh ( 663417 ) <abacaxi.hotmail@com> on Wednesday November 23, 2005 @08:28AM (#14099302)
    I have seen major surgery - an aortic aneurism repair - done with only hypnosis as the anesthesia.

    After that, I sopped doubting that it works. The only question is, on whom and what % of the time.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close