Talk:Hypnosis/Archive 1

2005

February

very bad article

I just made some changes that I'm sure will bother some people. I cleaned up and removed some biases from a few sections and even removed a couple paragraphs. I didn't want to, but the article is so incredibly biased. It sounds like it came from 1960s academia rather than modern hypnosis or even 1960 hypnotherapy. Claims like "anyone could be hypnotised except perhaps the very young." What is that about? Modern hypnotherapy knows that young children are amongst the easiest to hypnotise. Also the suggestibility studies need to be better referenced and discussed. They did some real harm to the field of hypnosis. The main criticisim is that they had a single induction tried on many people and then drew all sorts of conclusions about hypnotizability that are just plain wrong. There is no single induction in hypnosis. It's a dynamic experience with constant two web feedback going on. I hope someone will rewrite this whole article. I thnk it needs to be written in a way that covers all the major views without bias, have proper formatting structure, and definitely stops taking the 1960s academic views for granted. Another thing, definitely include some discussions about the AMA in the article and the phases they went through on trying to deal with hypnosis. And you can't have a hypnosis article without a few sentences on what stage hypnotists do and a couple paragraphs on the effects milton erickson and then NLP had on the field.

This is fine except that you went about the cleanup in the wrong way. You simply replaced what you believed was the inaccurate view with what you believed was your more accurate view -- without explaining how we should know that your side of the disagreement is the accurate one. Please don't take this is "they won't let me make changes to this highly inaccurate article!" But try to make your changes more slowly, so that you can show at each step why your new version is better-referenced than the old one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"However, some controlled scientific experiments seem to suggest that hypnosis may change conscious experience in a way not possible when people are not under hypnosis, at least in "highly hypnotizable" people. For example, according to one of these experiments, color perception was changed by hypnosis in "highly hypnotizable" people as determined by positron emission tomography (PET) scans. Other claims that hypnosis has been used with variable success for hundreds of applications, including entertainment, analgesia and psychoanalysis are widespread and well-documented.

for this to remain, it should be referrenced. it has no reference and therefore should not remain. Please add. Kabads 21:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From the external links section of the article:

• Hypnotic Visual Illusion Alters Color Processing in the Brain, Am J Psychiatry 157:1279-1284, August 2000.

How does this not count as a reference? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This does count as a reference, but is not linked in any way to the text. The text claims that experiments suggest something, but do not say what experiments, and so they are not referenced. To say "some controlled scientific experiments" is vague. Don't say "some" - explicitly reference the experiments (authors and year published and journal). Kabads 22:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

in fact, reading that journal entry (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/8/1279), I'm surprised it was published as it doesn't compare with a control group, instead only measuring highly hypnotisables - not very good practice at all. How can you compare the dependent variable when you only have one group? Kabads 22:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you claim I just removed what I thought was biased and replaced it with my view? Care to give an example before you reintroduce the bias? This article is very flawed. Making statements about children, eldery, intoxicated and people unable to concentrate being difficult hypnotizable is just rediculous. As a practicioner and someone who has studied many years I am almost offended by an article that makes such blatently incorrect and misleading statements. This article looks like it needs to be rewritten to be salvaged, but for the time being all this nonsense about concentration and the will of the hypnotist over their patient has be removed. If you are going to make any claims about the state of hypnosis please refer to it as being the view of an individual or a group, and not modern psychology. They are greatly divided over their views, so allowing any one author or school of hypnosis to rule the article is huge a mistake. It would be best if we cited many opposing views in a clear fashion, but definitely don't allow any one viewpoint to rule, because even amongst the great PHDs there are few things that are taken for granted in hypnosis. I do not believe I have now or ever added a bias into an article. If I have made a mistake and did so please explain where and how. Thank you.

I added "Hypnotic Visual Illusion Alters Color Processing in the Brain" as an example of a scientific reference which seems to suggest that hypnosis is a real neurological phenomenon/state, at least in the highly hipnotizable. I am not an expert in this field, so I ignore the actual scientific importance/relevance of this article, but it reflects the views of, for example, David Spiegel (from Stanford), MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and senior author on the study. Please see the section above "Scientific evidence that hypnosis is "real" and its reference for more information. (By the way, "Hypnotic ... Brain" does not contain the words children, elderly, intoxicated, concentration, nor will (the substantive) if that's what the previous author was mentioning.) My intention is not to provide the ultimate reference, in fact if there are better or more well-known references, the ones I have provided should be replaced. My intention is to provide actual examples of scientific references supporting the view that hypnosis is a neurological phenomenon/state. The debate is open, (it is definitively not closed in the opposite direction). Scientific evidence that hypnosis affects the brain can be questioned, its reach and seriousness can be contended, but it should not be ignored, -and it should be commonplace (encyclopedic) knowledge. I understand that many of these studies are very recent, so many people might still ignore them. I have just added a new reference which includes a control group, with "participants of low and high hypnotic susceptibility, at baseline and after hypnotic induction". The article is still in press, but it should be published (in a peer reviewed magazine) by the end of the year according to one of its authors (Gruzelier, from the Imperial College, UK). Gruzelier was so kind as to offer me an uncorrected proof of the paper when I asked for one, so if anyone wants this proof, just mention it in my discussion wikipedia page. As soon as the paper is published, I will change the reference to an appropiate one. And again, I'm no expert, I'm just trying to be neutral with both views, without ignoring some of the current evidence.Another Wikipedian 04:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

April

"Definitions"

The very first sentence of the article states "Hypnosis does not have a single definition that is universally applicable," but this does not seem to me to be a useful way to explain the debate. There are arguments about whether it exists; there are arguments about what it can and cannot affect; but the basic definition seems to me to be fairly universal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May

Skeptic society of USA

A new subheader was added to give the views of "the Skeptic Society of USA". There's a problem with this: "Skeptic Society of USA" gets no hits. Neither does "Skeptic Society of the USA"; "Skeptic Society of America" only gets two hits. Either this is a non-notable group or someone misremembered the name, in which case we have to ask whether they're misremembering the group's position as well. I've reverted until we get more clarification. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I did add that subheader. And what search engine did u use? If u google it then u will get nearly 100,000 results. The very FIRST one for "Skeptic society of us" or "skeptic society of usa" or anything is the official site of http://www.skeptic.com And in the home page is the link "What is the Skeptics Society?" which lists their manifesto and includes the sentence I added here culled from them.

As a matter of fact, I also saw a TV programme where such paranormal things are investigated and generally dismissed by a skeptic (maybe this group in question?). but the one on hypnosis was one where the "skeptic" himself is reported to have said that he has to admit that he was "forced" to do what he thought was impossible under hypnosis.

Moreover another programme on discovery channel really showed people with phobias like arachnophobia and ophidiophobia being hypnotised and handling the said animals after the therapy. Under quacks anything can be misused, but under the right person hypnotism can be a useful tool.

Hope, you will revert it back.--Idleguy 15:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Google is in fact exactly what I used, searching on the names you were giving for the group. If you were getting 100,000 results, I believe you must have been searching without the quotes -- in which case any page with the words "skeptic", "society", "of", and "us" would show up as a hit. However, since you've given the homepage, it appears you mean The Skeptics Society (no "of US" or similar in the title.

As I said above, not being able to correctly give the name of the group casts doubt about correctly giving the position of the group. I think it's an excellent idea to add the positions of the Skeptics Society to the article, but I hope you'll give URLs or other references to where you're finding the information so that we can verify that it's what the Skeptics Society is saying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I've given the address in the previous reply. Anyway it's http://www.skeptic.com And in the home page is the link "What is the Skeptics Society?" which lists their manifesto and includes the sentence I added here on hypnosis which I culled from them. Hope now it's ok to reinclude the paragraph with the reference? Idleguy 02:47, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

June

Fictional portrayal

Rebroad changed the second paragraph of the introduction to remove the prefix "In popular culture and fiction, ...". I'd like to revert this; I feel it is important to distinguish between the fictional portrayal of hypnotism and actual phenomenon. The popular culture version of hypnotism consistently portrays hypnotism in a certain way. On the other hand, there is great disagreement even inside the hypnosis community regarding what hypnosis is; with some groups denying that the practices of another group even constitute hypnosis. As a result, it is easy to fall into a semantic quagmire that while superficially appearing to be an argument about the nature of hypnosis is instead an argument over the definition of the word. In addition, from a strictly stylistic perspective, the introduction to the next paragraph ("While hypnosis in the real world is often ascribed these characteristics to varying degrees ...") does not make sense without a contrasting introduction to the first paragraph. Lauciusa 04:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know of a case where in an unusual move the police used a hypnosis to help a witness recall part a license plate of an arson suspect, which the witness had originally noted but could not remember at the time of questioning. Under hypnosis, she was able to remember the partial plate number, which turned out to be correct.

"The recollection of knowledge has inspired use in detective fiction, as a tool for witnesses to examine details (such as license plate numbers) that could not be recalled while fully conscious" -- BMIComp (talk) 4 July 2005 04:59 (UTC)

On the other hand, witnesses under hypnosis have been induced to "remember" license plate numbers, and confidently declared license plate numbers that proved to be incorrect. Caution is called for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 4 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Stage Hypnosis?

So what about this topic? Is it all bull? Or is it real?

Exactly, it's most likely bull and I was surprised nothing was even said about that in the section. :p Are people seriously believing a hypnotist can basically just snap his fingers and they'll immediately enter hypnosis? That's what they use to do -- a two second process of him saying "Sleep" and snapping his fingers. Anyone can do that. And then it's not even known if and how it exists among scientists. How gullible are people really -- it's obviously for the show, or else hypnotism would be far more commonly used in society and not just on TV shows and questionable experiments to treat e.g. phobias. Even a channel airing one of these shows had to have a disclaimer at the start of the program telling it was only entertainment and nothing guaranteed about the realism. What does that tell you? - Jugalator 03:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jugalator appears to know nothing about this topic otherwise he would not have made his comments.

It is real: however the circumstances that created this "realness" need to be understood. Firstly, look at the environment - maybe hall full of excitement: this creates a trance like state in many. The hypnotist will have a choice a many suitable, highly suggestable individuals. Secondly this trance state is enhanced when the suggestable subject gets on the stage. Third, there is an expectation - the subject expects to be placed into a hypnosis. Next, there is an unwritten contract between the subject - that hypnosis is to be performed, and that the subject agrees to this contract, by going into trance - there will be no conscious resistance. The combination of these steps in a suggestable subject are such that the induction, when performed, will appear instantaneous.

A interesting point to note is that the longest running hypnosis show is in Hollywood. Lots of suggestable people with creative minds in the locality. TJMonaghan

I agree that Jugalator does not appear knowledgable on the topic. Yes, it is true that a hypnotist can say a trigger word or action and a subject will enter into hypnosis. Personally I have used this device many times. This is known commonly in the field of neuro-linguistics programming as an "anchor." The fact is, while a subject is in trance, you can just tell them what the anchor will be and their mind will respond to it.

That said, the suggestion is not always in effect because the mind understands context. For example if I give a trigger of "sleep" to an individual, and they are driving a car and their wife says, "we have to put the baby to sleep tonight," maybe if they are strongly conditioned to that word then they will feel themselves drifting into a slightly different (non-harmful) state, but it is _not_ the same effect as if the hypnotist who placed the suggestion (with the same vocal tone and *intent* to hypnotize them) were to trigger that anchor.

YuriASF 22:36, Aug 13, 2005 (EST)

July

Scientific evidence that hypnosis is "real"

I added the following paragraph: "However, some controlled scientific experiments seem to suggest that hypnosis may change conscious experience in a way not possible when people are not under hypnosis, at least in "highly hypnotizable" people. For example, according to one of these experiments, color perception was changed by hypnosis in "highly hypnotizable" people as determined by positron emission tomography (PET) scans." I also added a link to that study. I ignore if the study is representative, but it seems to have been at least interesting. My intention is to add to the neutrality of the discussion. The first impression I got from the article is that there were no serious evidence that hypnosis could be a real neurological phenomenon. This seems not to be the case for some experts, (see for instance [1]), although it is clear that this is still the subject of debate.

Critics who doubt that hypnosis is real are really looking for observable phenomenon. However as a practicing hypnotist I can tell you that hypnosis both exists and doesn't exist all at the same time. This is because, yes, you can document many effects that people will experience while under the influence of "hypnosis" but in fact the pro will realize that ALL communication that is done with congruency and perhaps dominance could be considered hypnosis. Neuro-linguistic programming is considered by many to be a form of hypnosis. The media is a form of hypnosis. Yes, even Wikipedia is a huge form of cultural hypnosis.

The only thing that "hypnosis" does as it is commonly referred to is provide a SYSTEM for inducing this phenomenon that is reliable and repeatable. For example one common effect of hypnosis is pain control. You could induce reliable pain control in someone if only you were dominant and congruent in what you say to someone. That is a form of hypnosis and it is a form of suggestibility. There is ZERO difference between this type of hypnosis and the type of hypnosis that is done in a controlled environment. It is all the same thing. However to an extent many hypnotists know that if you believe there is a special and significant effect, you are more likely to induce the phenomenon, because otherwise you are simply fighting people's versions of reality. - YuriASF 12:18, Jul 20, 2005 (EST)

removed from intro

I removed the following sentence that had been added to the end of the introductory paragraph:

However this view fails to explain the countless documented cases of hypnosis being used successfully as an anesthetic during surgery, among other effects hypnosis had been shown to produce that cannot be mere pretending.

The fact that hypnosis is believed by its supporters to not feel pain even under painful stimuli is already mentioned in the intro paragraph. It could use more fleshing out in the article, so it'd be a good thing if those "countless documented cases" got documented in the article -- on a quick look, I can't see which section would be best, but we can find or make one.

The rest of the sentence seems to be trying to extrapolate from this one fact into the conclusion that the debate is over. Which it isn't... even if it should be, it isn't, and Wikipedia shouldn't be taking sides and stating "Because of X fact, anyone still arguing the other side has been proven wrong." -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

August

removed another section

Hypnosis, Scientology and Neuro-linguistic Programming

The New Age notions of Scientology and neuro-linguistic programming have both been associated with a covert command type of hypnosis. The hypnotic commands of NLP are said to be an unethical use of hypnosis as the written code of ethics of most psychologist associations state that openness is important with practitioner/client relations.

According to the Australian Report, Scientology's auditing is also said to result in command hypnosis, which under certain circumstances may lead to potentially damaging dissociative states. Both NLP and Scientology use these kind of command hypnosis techniques for clearing or re-programming, and past life regression therapy, in accordance with the New Age belief in reincarnation.

I don't know if anything is salvageable from this. I think that if salvage is to happen, it would probably start with finding out what "the Australian Report" is, determining if it's a credible/important source, and if so finding out what it says first-hand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The NPOV way to introduce a subject is to give it a fair hearing in the introduction, and present the sort of intense criticism I found in a later and appropriate section. There are a variety of opinions, and they all will be heard, but the former introduction was not neutral or encyclopedic. Please help me in further proofreading the article, its very long and needs alot of work. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with your idea that the way to present a controversial subject in an NPOV fashion is to disclose one and only one POV in the introduction, and wait until the body of the article to disclose that major portions of what has been presented to the reader as established uncontroversial fact is in fact the subject of much debate. Nor do I see what is "not neutral or encyclopedic" about the previous introduction, which did not presume the truth of one view or the other. Accordingly, I am reverting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree w that too, because its not what I said. I said we give it a fair hearing in the intro, and leave the smear job for its own section ;) Tasks you can do 00:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other; you're still saying that only one POV should get a fair hearing in the intro, and the other one, the one you dismiss as a "smear job", should be isolated in its own section. If anything, we should do the reverse of what you're proposing: disclose right up front in the intro that there is a substantial body of opinion that hypnosis doesn't actually exist -- and then in the article, discuss hypnosis as what it is if it exists, with no need for constant reminders that "then again, some people think it's all BS and doesn't exist." There will no artificial ghettoization of such references, but they will need to actually say something beyond just proposing that hypnosis doesn't exist: i.e., detailing exactly what the alternative theory is to explain a particular observed effect, etc. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your talking about, but if you have a psychologist you can cite who agrees w this "hypnosis doesn't exist" stuff, that would help alot. Tasks you can do 15:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And now you're blithely adding references to "brainwashing" and "mind control" as if those had any scientific consensus on their existence. One editor alone is not enough to deal with your bad faith, Sam. You make extensive unsupported claims about what hypnosis is and what it does and at the same time you demand massive citations for just the fact that your view of hypnosis isn't the only one? You're acting in shockingly bad faith, Sam. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I know you are but what am I? And where are those cites I asked for 2 weeks ago? Sam Spade 00:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Changing the subject and deliberately juvenile mockery are neither of them adequate defenses, Sam. If you are seriously arguing that because you are too lazy to type "Hypnosis does not exist" into a Google search box and verify that yes this is a POV on the matter then there is no point in digging up any citation for you; you would just discover new endless bullshit hoops to be jumped through. "Oh, but it doesn't count because your citation is from 2003; you haven't proved that anyone still believes that in 2005!" Meanwhile, the proof that you are demanding citations not out of any good-faith attempt to edit according to Wikipedia standards, but just to harass, is shown by your additions of the above-cited material casually claiming that "there are examples of brainwashing or mind control where [resisting hypnosis] is far more difficult." To read your version of the material one would never suspect that the American Psychological Association has specifically stated that no theory of mind control so far has been scientifically verified. Yet did you cite this claim? No, you did not. If you think you have the right to demand that I jump through hoops that you are passing by, you are far mistaken. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Read Ewan Cameron (MKULTRA), and stop being so abrasive. When you make claims they are expected to be backed up w cites, its not my job to verify your claims for you. Practice rigour. Sam Spade 16:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Your job is to demand that others verify their claims only to the degree that you verify your own. That is to say, your job is to act in good faith. Claiming "here's a link that shows that the MKULTRA program tried to find methods of mind control and that's all I need in order to state that mind control does exist" is bad faith. Claiming that "you have to cite sources just in order to show that there is any dispute that this exists" when the article history alone shows that there is dispute is bad faith. Combining the two into a double standard is manifestly bad faith. Is it your job to verify claims for me? No. But it is your job to verify your own claims when the burden of proof falls upon you; if you are going to claim that there is no dispute that hypnosis exists, the burden of proof for that extraordinary claim falls on you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I never suggested there is no dispute, rather I asked you to cite some examples for the benefit of the article. Sam Spade 21:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The original article is extremely unprofessional in its non-neutrality. If someone wants to learn about hypnosis from this encyclopedia, they are obviously not primarily interested in the arguments against it; they are interested in it itself. It's like creating an article on Judaism that begins with an argument supporting Christianity over it. The fact is, there is very little information in this article (original edit, I mean). Hopefully a real hypnotherapist will eventually rewrite it. -- CGameProgrammer 17:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, let's see, is that a valid chain of logic? Let's try something out. "This article is extremely unprofessional in its non-neutrality. If someone wants to learn about white supremacy, they are obviously not primarily interested in the arguments against it; they are interested in white supremacy itself. Hopefully a real white supremacist will eventually rewrite the article." Somehow that fails to convince me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

September 2005

Cite sources

Regarding somnambulism. As far as "stating the effect of hypnosis on memory as undisputed", I'm not doing that (of course its disputed, everybody knows bad therapists instill false memories sometimes, particularly regarding past lives, alien abduction, and satanic ritual abuse), so I don't see how a cite is necessary. Sam Spade 17:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What is disputed isn't just that some some hynotists create false memories - what is claimed by the skeptics is that all hypnotic memory recollection is false, and that if ever there is success, this is just by chance or prior knowledge from the hypnotist. See: [2] --Fangz 00:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

recent edit

This state can be induced by placing tension on binds, the client is receptive and suggestable, normally experiences memory loss, while becoming very aware of themselves and not their surroundings. James Braid (physician) referred to this as being a state of "nervous sleep". Ivan Pavlov demonstrated this behavior in Pidgeons by taking away the reinforcement, sleep resulted in the animals and it was referred to as "Cortical Inhibition".

Hypnosis can effect a persons judgement and therefore could potentially cause them harm. In the hand of a "Professional" seeking to promote their welfare it can produce profound effects and be a compliment to treatment. One can always resist Hypnosis if one so desires.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that very well... Can you please rephrase, and maybe ad this info somewhere other than the intro? Sam Spade 13:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Fangz's reversion

I reverted Spade's edit because I do not think it is appropiate to state categorically as a fact that Hypnosis is a trance state in the introduction. Not when associations like the APA themselves express such reservations - there is simply no clear mainstream scientific view that we can focus on. Nor do I consider it right to refer to the claims of hypnotists with vested interests as factual, instead of claims.

Any criticism we have here needs to be inline - not in its own section. Why? Because depending on how we start our interpretation of the phenomenon, this is going to inform every statement that is made. Criticism here isn't that about peripheral issues, but about everything, and so for everything we talk about, we need to be adopting the form: {What is objectively agreed}{What the proponents say it means}{What the critics say it means} The only appropiate way to treat this subject is to start with where the two viewpoints diverge, and then to go along the list of known facts and represent each side.

Remember our rule of thumb for judging NPOV - read through the article, and ask yourself: Which side is this on? If it is on any side, then we are in trouble.--Fangz 13:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If you have one subtle difference of opinion don't revert. Thats totally unreasonable. Instead make the needed corrections. That said, where is your source? Who are these critics? And furthermore, your premise regarding NPOV is inherantly flawed.

"The only appropiate way to treat this subject is to start with where the two viewpoints diverge, and then to go along the list of known facts and represent each side"

I think not. The appropriate way to handle the subject is first to describe what is being talked about, and then later address verifiable criticisms within the body. Critique and debate has no place in the intro. Have a look at some feautured articles. And regarding the trance state tie in, according to Houghton Mifflin's medical dictionary, Hypnosis is:

A trancelike state resembling somnambulism, usually induced by another person, in which the subject may experience forgotten or suppressed memories, hallucinations, and heightened suggestibility.

Sam Spade 16:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

These critics are the APA, the AMA, links like [3], and all the articles listed by [4], such as [5], [6] and so on.

The answers link you gave had three definitions, all under 'medical':

1. A trancelike state resembling somnambulism, usually induced by another person, in which the subject may experience forgotten or suppressed memories, hallucinations, and heightened suggestibility.
2. A sleeplike state or condition.
3. Hypnotism.

Number 1 is the proponents definition, number 2/3 is the skeptic's definition. Everything makes it clear - there is no absolute mainstream opinion here, so NPOV should be essential. Note additionally in 1 the use of the words 'trancelike' (as opposed to direct statement of trance state, which you used), and the cautious use of 'may'.

Furthermore, we have things like [7]: "the presence and nature of this process we label as hypnosis is defined by the associated phenomena that are present or elicited".

This should be the guideline we follow here - direct objective phenomena, followed by analysis. It's the only intellectually honest path to follow. I don't have a subtle difference of opinion here. I'm making a fundamental disagreement about how you are trying to structure the article.--Fangz 16:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Woah.

I think that you should start with what is not disputed, which is that the theoretical base has come afterwards. The observed effects form the basis for the model that is only a "best fit" to the observations you make.

The fact that people can produce the effect, doesn't mean that they know the actual workings of it.

If you find the time, look up the historical perspective of hypnosis. I find that Tad James has a good description of a time line stretching from some ancient healers who used props and found them to be unnecessary.

Fundamental to the term hypnosis is the concept of a subconscious mind, trance and rapport.

A subconscious mind is a descriptive model of some other-than-rational traits that seem to govern how a person responds to and learns from exposure to different impressions.

A trance is an altered state of consciousness where your critical faculties are bypassed. You have different set of resources in different states, and a persons' state governs behavior. There is a common misconception that a trance is a relaxed state. A phobic reation to a spider is also a trance.

The idea of rapport is to establish a reflection in the other persons mind. Since all human states can be considered a trance with different qualities, the objective of an induction is to help the subject to produce a trance that includes rapport with the hypnotist.

Edit war?

It would be better to discuss edits here instead of hitting the revert button.... If reverts continue I will place this page on WP:RPP ≈ jossi ≈ 23:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The reverts are happening without discussion because the edits have already been discussed and one contributor continues to insist that the only "NPOV" way to discuss hypnosis is to "give it a fair hearing in the introduction", by which he means air his theories that the phenomenon exists and is closely connected to mind control, which is also presumed to exist -- and then, only later in the article, after much reluctance, admit the fact that there is no scientific consensus for anything that was just stated as "this is what you need to know about hypnosis," and that there are other POVs on the existence and extent of the phenomenon.

If you feel that the existence of an edit war means the issues haven't been discussed enough, feel free to join the discussion. It will be interesting to see what you have to say on the subject, and especially whether it represents any consistency with your own behavior in the revert wars you've been a full participant in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I also would welcome your participation jossi. Sam Spade 12:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Amateurish and out of step with current thought

This article is so poorly constructed and out of step with research and theory that it is not worth editing. I would suggest scrapping it and wait for a more expert writer to take an interest rather than present this as an authoritative entry. It certainly makes Wik look bad! -- unsigned comment by Hyp (talk • contribs)

I agree the article sucks, but please help, rather than simply complain. Sam Spade 12:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I submitted an RfC, and am asking editers who are familiar w the subject to lend a hand in overhauling the article. Sam Spade 12:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Please also see the RfC submitted two weeks before Sam's, in the correct section. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Things to do

I added a list of things to do with its first item. If consensus can be reached on what should be on the list, then that's a good thing! :-) Agreeing how to go about doing what's on the list would be even better! There have been plenty of substantive and process proposals made here. Although I have some experience with hypnosis, I don't consider myself to be an expert. However, I do know a resolvable issue when I see one. My main proposal at this point is to use this list as a tool to find and document the "highest common ground" for what should be included in this article. Then just go out and do it! ;-) — RDF ^talk 14:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

October 2005

What were discussing

Hypnosis is a trance state similar in appearance to sonambulism, wherein a client is in touch with their subconscious. In this state the client is receptive and suggestable, as well as possessed of acute recall of memories, often even those not remembered consciously.

There has always been a certain amount of controversy regarding hypnotism, particularly in its precise definition. Among psychologists that practise hypnosis, some view hypnosis as an altered state of consciousness, others as a type of focused attention. The states invoked by clinical practitioners of these methods are very similar, implying that they are, in fact, describing the same phenomenon. The methods employed and the underlying methodologies have still not converged to the point where there is consensus on a single definition of hypnosis.

---

Hypnosis is a psychological state whose existence and effects are strongly debated. Some believe that it is a state under which the subject's mind becomes so suggestible that the hypnotist, the one who induces the state, can command behavior that the subject would not choose to perform in a conscious state (even behavior to be performed after the subject has left the hypnotic state, through post-hypnotic suggestion,) or even behavior the subject would be incapable of in a conscious state, such as not feeling pain, manifesting skin blisters as if the subject had been burned, or recalling things the subject's conscious memory does not retain. However, there is strong dispute and skepticism about what behavior and effects hypnosis can induce; some believe that the state does not actually exist, and that all effects of 'hypnotism' that have been observed are in actuality a combination of subjects' expectations (based on their beliefs of hypnotism's effects) and their desire to please the hypnotist (see Hawthorne Effect).

Not surprisingly, given the disagreements described above, there is also wide disagreement about whether it has uses in fields such as mental health, medicine and law enforcement. Some promote hypnotism as a powerful tool for therapists to treat patients, claiming that it can bring up to consciousness painful repressed memories. Some even claim that it can retrieve repressed memories of alien abductions, Satanic ritual abuse, or memories from past lives. Others point to this very fact, that subjects under hypnosis can develop and come to wholly believe in "memories" that are implausible (or even proven false by existing evidence), as proof that hypnosis is, if it even exists, a tool proved too unreliable to be safely used in any important undertaking.

---

The second of these two introductions ("Hypnosis is a psychological state whose existence and effects are strongly debated.") seems much more balanced in its presentation of the facts as we are able to determine them regarding hypnosis. It makes the point up front that the phenomenon is highly debated (very important), and then goes through and presents various sides of that debate as they concern specific aspects of the phenomenon, with relevant links to other Wikipedia articles. It's really quite well done, actually. I would be hard pressed to do as well. I wish the author had signed it. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 05:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It's mostly my work, actually; Sam didn't mark them well, but these are the introductions (minus some changes made in the meantime) to the two versions currently under contention. Out of the two, of course, I favor this introduction, but I'm not stuck on it as the final form; I think it's a bit long and I suspect there must be some way we can keep it well-balanced but move some of the detail it now contains into well-organized sections of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

64.136.26.235's contribution

The following text was added to the "Hypnotism as a social construct" section. It has been removed, since it violates NPOV by stating only one POV as fact and provides nothing in the way of verifiable evidence for that POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hypnosis is not about strong social expectations. It is a trance state. This state has been know for thousands of years. No one in their right mind would endure painful and agonizing medical proceedures while under hypnosis, simply to play a part or please their hypnotist. And yet, under hypnosis thousands of surgical prceedures have been preformed over many years. The patients typically reporting little to no discomfort, even from exceedingly painful operations, and often no recallections while under hypnosis either. Consciousness does not corrisponed to any particular location or mechanism of the brain either, and yet we all have an experience of being observing and conscious. Hypnosis is an altered or differing aspect of that consciousness. Hypnosis is a real thing, it does exist, as a part of our consciousness, our subconsciousness, and until science can point to the brain and say " there is the seat of consciousness, right there in such and such lobe." They will not be able to find the seat of hypnosis either.

Simplifying introduction, while keeping it NPOV

One of the problems I think the article has in its current state is that the introduction is rather too long. The current version is still an improvement over the previous version, which stated that hypnosis "does not have a single definition that is universally applicable," because some people when they said "hypnosis" meant a scientific concept and some meant a fictional construct. Of course, they were both describing the same thing, but differing on whether it actually exists and what its actual effects were.

I have always believed that Wikipedia articles, like newspaper articles, have to be constructed with special attention to their introductions; the question that has to be asked is "if the reader quit reading after X sentences, what knowledge about the subject would they take away?" This is why it is absolutely an unacceptable proposition to rewrite the article so that the introduction actually hides the fact that the existence of hypnosis is disputed. However, the introduction is currently very large in size, trying to capture a) the whole cluster of beliefs about the effects of hypnotic states and post-hypnotic suggestions, b) the fact that various POVs exist about whether hypnosis exists at all and if it does, how much of its effects are real/exaggeration, c) what hypnosis is used for (i.e., why it's an important subject, always important for an introduction) and how these uses are affected by the strong debate over its existence and reliability. It's going to take a real careful eye, and discussion, to figure out how to move some of the detail from the introduction into the body of the article without removing important information that really should be imparted to anyone who starts reading the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The alternate intro does not hide that the concept is disputed. Indeed it accentuates that by providing a balanced introduction, first describing what everyone agrees with (the external, visable results and behaviors) and then describing the dispute over what occurs within the client during the hypnosis. Sam Spade 15:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The alternate intro relies heavily on weasel wordings to create a particular impression while giving lip service to NPOV. Let's go through it point by point:

• Hypnosis is generally described as a trancelike state, similar in appearance to somnambulism.

Generally described by whom? Would those who believe that hypnotism is a social construct "generally describe" it as a state at all, or as people attempting to emulate the social construct?

• In this state is often believed that the client is receptive and suggestable, and has increased ability to recall memories, often even those not remembered consciously.

Obviously there's a word missing; it should be "It is often believed that in this state, etc." Another weasel wording.

• There has always been a certain amount of controversy regarding hypnosis, particularly in its precise definition.

Oh, this is a masterpiece. "Particularly in its precise definition." This suggests that the main points about hypnosis are all settled, so that the real debate is over the precise details and niceties. One would never suspect that there is no consensus that hypnosis exists.

• Among psychologists who practise hypnosis, some view it as an altered state of consciousness, others as a type of focused attention.

See above. This suggests that the only disputes of note are among those who fully buy into the existence of hypnosis and practice it themselves.

• The states invoked by clinical practitioners of these methods are very similar, suggesting that they are, in fact, describing the same phenomenon.

Hmmmm, is that the aroma of fresh-brewed original research I smell? Why, yes it is! Tell me, who examined "the states invoked by clinical practitioners", decided that they were "very similar", and decided that this meant they were "describing the same phenomenon"?

• The methods employed and the underlying methodologies have still not converged to the point where there is consensus on a single definition of hypnosis.

Or, in fact, consensus that it exists.

No, the "alternate intro" is not an acceptable base to work from. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Generally described by books of reference, see [8][9][10]. I've never seen anything about this "social construct" fluff in any reputable source. You'll have to go to skeptics.com for such foolishness.
2. Thank you, I've made the correction.
3. You have some strong and contentious opinions about this, to such extent that I'd like an outside view.
4. Again, review some books of reference. This might help.
5. I find it aamusing that you accuse me of original research. I am happy to cite sources, but you have so far been unwilling. So far one guy cited some skeptics dictionary, which is valid for the criticism section, but obviously unacceptable as asource for the intro.
6. Please provide a citation for that claim.

Btw, we actually agree more than you think. We both think the article (in both forms) sucks and needs a rewrite. How about you and I engage in some mediation, and allow others to edit the article? Sam Spade 09:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

And now you see why the edit war has come about. Sam promotes any idea which he holds to 'so widely known that I don't have to source it' and dismisses any idea he disagrees with as "fluff", "foolishness" and "smear job" that cannot come from "any reputable source". Sam claims his intro is NPOV, but then doubles back and explains that he means it explains the POVs he thinks readers should be exposed to. I will do many things in the name of cooperative editing, but jumping fruitlessly through hoops to meet a blatant double standard from an editor who keeps reverting to his version when no one but himself has favored it is not one of them.

So the question comes back to: how do we fix the current intro so that it clearly conveys the major points that need to be known about hypnosis? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

When have you cited your sources? and when have I not? Sam Spade 17:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

A Novel About Hypnotism

Is Hypnosis a significant fictional treatment of hypnotism? If it is, wouldn't a link to it be useful (especially since it can be read online)?

--Vibritannia 11:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Four Tags?!

I dont mean to butt in in an editing dispute (so i'll refrain from editing), but the four tags on this articles page is REALLY too much. If the tag really MUST include more information, perhaps a custom tag to say what is absolutely necessary would be more appropriate. This just looks plain silly. --The Minister of War 15:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Please help. Sam Spade 16:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Reading around, i'd be happy to. First of all, i'd suggest replacing the four tags with just one, {{tl|merge}}. It looks a lot better, and refocuses the discussion towards a goal: making one good article. --The Minister of War 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually {{tl|twoversions}} may be better suited to stay on. But reading around, i am becoming more and more curious of what the exact disagreement is all about. Can you summarize in, say, three sentences what forms the core of the dispute? --The Minister of War 17:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Now thats a good idea! See below:

What this tossup is about

I began to edit the article, and first thing I cut most of the intro out, and created a criticisms section from it. Almost immediately, the edit war began, and little has been done since then. I therefore propose that we resolve the intro, and the criticism sections. Sam Spade 19:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright. So what points would you dispute in the article right now? --The Minister of War 20:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's how the problem looks from the other side: Sam "cut most of the intro out" because it's a POV he doesn't agree with. You can see on this talk page where he's called it a "smear job", "fluff", and "foolishness". He claims that the only "NPOV" way to handle the article is to give the "subject", by which he means his POV on the subject, "a fair hearing", by which he means supressing mention of differing POVs until later in the article, and writing the introduction as if the existence of hypnosis was agreed on by all significant POVs.

Does he claim, from time to time, that he is justified in excluding this POV because not enough citation has been made to show that this POV exists? Yes, indeed, he does make that claim. Is it shown to be a false claim? Yes it is; it is shown as a false claim by his own refusal to abide by the same standard. Note the following sentence which Sam introduced to the article: "In most cases one can resist hypnosis if one is aware of it, but there are examples of brainwashing or mind control where this is far more difficult." If you follow the links to those two articles you will find that there is even less consensus on the existence of brainwashing or mind control than of hypnosis; you will find that the American Psychological Association, when asked to consider the theories of mind control, specifically stated that no research as yet that met scientific standards had verified the existence of mind control. Sam is acting abusively as an editor, demanding a standard of citation he will not himself abide by.

The reason little progress has been made in improving this article is that the editors who actually care about making it an NPOV article that presents the various POVs and lets the reader decide from there have been kept busy fighting POV-pushers who want it to be a platform for their unverified opinions about mind control. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

/*grin/* did I say three paragraphs?

Seirously though, in every dispute things get out of hand. I'm sure that User:Sam Spade would characterize your views equally as POV, leaving us no step further. What i'm trying to do here is listing, specifically, and without the frustration (probably on either side), what exactly constitutes the dispute.

Again, taking the current version as a frame of reference, i am curious to hear what points User:Sam Spade exactly disputes. --The Minister of War 20:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes. Sam would characterize my views equally as POV. The difference is that he would be wrong, since my goal is to create an article that fairly treats all POVs, both for and against, and explains for the reader why the adherents of those POVs believe them. Sam has made it clear, however, that his vision is for 'separate but equal' treatment of POVs, where the viewpoints of "professionals" (that is, those who believe in the existence of hypnosis and practice it themselves) are found everywhere in the article, but anything which discloses the existence of the other POV (the one he calls "fluff", "foolishness" and a "smear job") is only represented in the section reserved for their kind. I'm a great believer in EMDR but you don't see me running over to that article and trying to stuff every reference to any questioning of EMDR's existence into a "Criticisms" ghetto. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The intro is the criticisms section + a crappy intro combined. My idea is to carve citable portions of the criticisms section out, and rewrite the intro. Then, we should promptly proceed to overhaul/rewrite this article, which, while containing a dash of good content here and there, is a complete mess and disservice to the reader. Sam Spade 22:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but an intro needs uncontestable claims, and on hypnosis there seem to be few.

How about, for a start:

Hypnosis is a psychological state induced by a hypnotist, often by using repetetive and slow talking, though other methods are also used. The subject of the hypnosis often becomes highly susceptible to suggestions made by the hypnotist. This susceptibility is used in a variety of ways, from amusing performances to recollecting subconscious memories.

After that the controversy starts about the nature of the state. Does this look promising? --The Minister of War 10:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds ok, how about:

Hypnosis is generally described as a trancelike state, similar in appearance to somnambulism. In this state it is often believed that the client is receptive and suggestable, and has increased ability to recall memories, often even those not remembered consciously.

There has always been a certain amount of controversy regarding hypnosis, particularly in its precise definition. Among psychologists who practise hypnosis, some view it as an altered state of consciousness, others as a type of focused attention. The states invoked by clinical practitioners of these methods are very similar, suggesting that they are, in fact, describing the same phenomenon. The methods employed and the underlying methodologies have still not converged to the point where there is consensus on a single definition of hypnosis.

Sam Spade 11:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Euhmmm that sound like just about exactly the disputed intro. Let's not. And dont put it online without consultation please, thats bad form. Let me clarify the way i think this should work.

1. I try to find a common ground intro
2. You guys add or criticize points (preferably in one sentence + argument)
3. I try to figure them in there
4. go back to point 2 until we're there.

So my question would be: what points should be added or substracted from my little dabbling up there? --The Minister of War 08:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is Sam's disputed intro, verbatim.

I had an idea regarding the intro: we have two definitions of hypnosis from the APA, the one from 1993 and the one from March, 2005. What would you think of putting those two definitions right up front in the intro? That goes a long way towards showing that, while there are some very detailed POVs about what hypnosis is, there is very little expert consensus about what it is and whether it exists as a state. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, i noticed...

Sounds good, what is the definition? It seems to me the APA might focus on clinical hypnosis mainly though, but as an unambiguous source i concur theyre pretty neutral. --The Minister of War 11:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's the two definitions:

In 1993, the American Psychological Association defined hypnosis as "a procedure during which a health professional or researcher suggests that a client, patient, or experimental participant experience changes in sensations, perceptions, thoughts, or behavior." (Executive Committee of the American Psychological Association Division of Psychological Hypnosis [1993, Fall]. Psychological Hypnosis: A Bulletin of Division 30, 2, p. 7.), citation culled from [11].

This definition has been revised, and as of March, 2005, it reads "Hypnosis typically involves an introduction to the procedure during which the subject is told that suggestions for imaginative experiences will be presented" [12].

I believe we can use reference templates to endnote the quotations, so as not to frontload the intro with lengthy citations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, something that I notice is that in both definitions, the APA describes it as a process rather than a state; this strikes me as a good choice to follow. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Geez Sam, stop doing that!

I dont like the first definition that much, since it limits itself to clinical hypnosis, but if you cut out the health professional it works nicely. The second one is much better; i like "imaginative experiences"! Much better than "changes in perceptions".

I think its a good idea to focus on a process; i tried to do so in my proposal as well, but didnt succeed half as nicely. As far as i'm concerned, you can try to put it in. --The Minister of War 08:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop doing what? Restoring the better version? I certainly won't stop doing that, until the article has been overhauled. I have repeatedly offered the olive branch to Antaeus, and he is well aware I am willing to engage in mediation and a mutual truce regarding this page. He, assumably, is not. Why you think his version is the default version is beyond me, but we clearly need an expert to overhaul the page w/o Antaeus discouraging them. Sam Spade 11:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Listen Sam, you asked me to come aboard. I am entirely impartial on the topic, and in the dispute. And i'm just saying, lets not edit until we agree on some version here. Why bother asking me to mediate when all you do is revert to your side of the story? Then when i do come in to help, at the very least you owe me some respect in my call for a cease-fire.

Now, I dont think his version is better, it was just the one on when i came in. While mediating, we cant remove the entire article. One of the two versions simply has to stay on. It would show great character if you could swallow your rejections for the time being and leave his article on.

I am going to revert to his version, if only not to restart the revert war. I suggest you put forth some critical points on the definition above. --The Minister of War 12:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I won't agree to a false page protection. If you think the page needs protected, request as much @ WP:RfPP. What I have (repeatedly) proposed is that Antaeus and I agree to stop editing the article until we come to some agreement, or one of us leaves. Its bad for the article to be stuck in either version, both of which suck.

My best case scenario is that both Antaeus and I step back while someone else rewrites the article. If I recall correctly i never asked you to mediate, but generally requested your assistance w the article. Mediation requires consent, and Antaeus has yet to accept an offer of mediation. Sam Spade 16:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sam's idea of a compromise version shows why mediation with him would be a waste of time. Mediation would be appropriate if this was a personal issue, but Sam's attempts to portray it as one are false and self-serving as his claims that the article is more NPOV when the introduction deliberately neglects to acknowledge the "fluff" and "foolishness" of a POV he doesn't agree with, in order to give a "fair hearing" to his POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Qualifications?

I don't want to step on toes, but I'm wondering what qualifications people might have in writing this hypnosis information. I've found this article interesting, but controversial in some areas. I'm willing to add my two cents as a person knowledgeable and experienced in this area (PhD Clinical Hypnotherapy, MA Counseling Psych (Dec., 2005), MA Education, and 8+ years of clinical work). DrMattGomes 21:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do, it would be much appreciated. I, for my part, am a psyche undergrad. Sam Spade 22:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

However, please make sure you understand WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:verifiability. The fact that the article is "controversial in some areas" does not mean it is incomplete or incorrect from Wikipedia's point of view; when multiple POVs exist on a matter Wikipedia does not try to declare one POV correct and the others incorrect, but rather describes the POVs and describes the reasons why those who hold those POVs hold them. Very often, people get frustrated because they have "improved" an article by applying their "expert knowledge" to remove what they "know" (believe) to be incorrect or assert what they "know" (again, believe) to be correct, only to see these changes reverted because, by applying their "expert" knowledge to declare as settled a matter which is not in fact accepted as settled by the relevant professional community, they are in fact committing original research. This is not even getting into the fact that, ahem, we rarely if ever have a way of checking whether someone who shows up claiming to have expert credentials that settle the matter actually has those credentials or is just claiming them. But if you can provide us well-referenced contributions that help us accurately describe what is known and what is debated in the field, they'll be more than welcome. Hope to see second and third edits from you soon! -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that the article is a disgrace. Your lack of expertise is self evident Antaeus, we need no further proof of that, and I must say it is imperative that you avoid this and related articles until you are willing to stop playing guard dog and allow improvements. This is a wiki, not some dictatorial nightmare w you playing the role of our Ministry of Truth. Sam Spade 11:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that you are trying every means fair and foul to turn the article into more of a disgrace. I am 100% for improvements to this article but your proposed changes are not improvements. This article needs to be streamlined. It needs to be better-balanced. It needs to be better-organized. What it doesn't need is your proposed changes, which include inserting dubious unreferenced statements about hypnosis in cases of brainwashing and "mind control" (a concept that the American Psychological Association has never affirmed, I repeat again; exactly where are you getting the standing to declare that someone else's "lack of expertise is self evident"?) and surpressing a significant POV on the subject. When you have improvements to make that will actually improve the article instead of just pushing your POV, please contribute; I'm sure we'd love to see you being constructive instead of just obstructive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I will read the appropriate documentation of NPOVs vs POVs. I understand the difficulty in claims of expertise, so I will be sure to cite sources. I also understand that hypnosis in itself is controversial and I try to talk about it in a balanced way. I look forward to my relative improvements. DrMattGomes 23:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to them too. One thing which could really help make this article shine, IMHO? The effect that I think is most commonly cited as proof that the hypnotic state is "real" (that is, it produces actual effects which are not available to someone merely compliantly playing out a role, even if unaware they are doing so) is pain suppression. We have all heard the stories of surgeries undergone without anesthesia thanks to hypnosis, but the problem is that sometimes the story that gets around isn't quite accurate, or isn't the whole story (see for instance the memory RNA experiments of James V. McConnell). Any citation of sources for the experiments best considered to show this effect, and of course any criticism of those experiments, will be quite helpful. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Last try

Well guys, its back to the old dispute again apparently. Sam, you are right Antaeus didnt agree to any mediation. However, when i offered my help, he did suggest the APA definition, actively engaging in making a compromise. I suggest you do the same, and we end this silly reverting! I am sure that starting the revert war all over again without making an active contribution on the talk pages will hurt your chances on any other mediation as well. --The Minister of War 08:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can get Antaeus to stop editing the page, I will do likewise. Alternately, we can request page protection. I won't agree to having the page artificially locked in his version, or to discuss with him in the manner he has been conducting himself however. Sam Spade 10:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we can get that promise. Lets talk here, and I'll be the only one doing some editing after reaching consensus. Agreed Antaeus? --The Minister of War 10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Minister. I can fully agree to refrain from editing the article (save for minor things like typo-fixing) until we have consensus on the changes here on the talk page. However, I can't go along with what Sam is proposing, because what it amounts to is that the article be locked on his version -- a version which I have to point out has so far been favored by no one except Sam. I am beginning to think that those of us who are willing to work together on a version to eventually replace the current article will have to request page protection against Sam's repeated attempts to force his personal version on everyone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No, he's proposing that he stop work on it. As before, it is currently loaded into your version and I for one intend to keep it that way, if only not start the discussion on that again. This means your version stays on for the duration of the discussion, as before. Can you agree to it then? --The Minister of War 19:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't even agree to that. I've been clear thru-out, forcing the page to stay locked in either of our versions is unacceptable, particularly without page protection. What I will agree to is that Antaeus and i step back and allow others (understand clearly, by others I do not mean only you, TMoW) to edit the page. The page needs a complete rewrite, not some sort of incremental point by point debate between Antaeus and I. Its been suffering from too much of the latter, and not enough of the former. Sam Spade 21:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. This is going nowhere. I have re-edited the entire thing, putting the introduction in some kind of logical order with the main points by both of you included. It shouldnt be controversial to either of you, and can serve nicely as a template to play around with. I suggest we take this as our working version then. Its not intended as a final version, but its unavoidable that some version stays on - we cant just delete the whole thing!

Can you both agree not to edit this version until we reach some consensus? --The Minister of War 09:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Good edit. Sam Spade 12:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a step forward. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I aimed to make an inclusion of all relevant points by both of you. Are there any points unclear, absent or too present in this? --The Minister of War 15:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as you know, one of the things I was less than satisfied with even in the better of the two intros is the length. One of the things that I was considering is, can we pare down the list of supposed effects possible through hypnosis? I think I explained above my belief that the intro should focus on giving the reader the information they should have if they walked away at that point; for that reason, I think it would be best to say "Among the effects that can allegedly be achieved through hypnosis are," and then just shortly give one or two examples, and leave the rest and details for the main article. My "short list" is:

• Making it possible to recall memories with accuracy and precision unavailable to conscious recall. This one I think has to be in there, as it's easily the most controversial aspect of modern hypnosis.
• Altering pain perceptions such that surgery can be undergone without anesthesia. As I suggested above to Matt, this is perhaps the phenomenon that convinces people most that something must be going on beyond compliance to a social construct.
• Altering the hypnotized person's behavior to the point where they will follow suggestions made during hypnosis after the hypnotic state has ended (post-hypnotic suggestion) possibly without being aware that they will do so, or that they have done so. This would be my candidate to leave out of the intro, as it's the most difficult to describe and the meme that people can't be hypnotized to do what they really don't want to do makes it less controversial.

I think this will be an acceptable way to shorten the intro while still giving a good impression of the general subject. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversial strawman claims should not be present in the intro. Instead, lets stick to what everyone agrees to, and put the more contentious accusations in the criticism section. Sam Spade 18:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I think we should stick to the Wikipedia way of doing things instead, Sam. The Wikipedian way is to describe controversies, not bury them, and "more contentious" controversies deserve more prominence, not less. What you are asking for is for your original research -- your personal belief that any questioning of hypnosis's existence must be "fluff", "foolishness", a "smear job", a "strawman" -- to dictate the structure and content of the article. "The intro should contain only what everyone agrees to, so if I'm just really stubborn and refuse to agree that other points of view exist, they can't be covered." Isn't that what you have in mind? That won't happen. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what I have in mind is that you will become an editor colaboratively editing this page, will lose interest, or will be removed from editing this page by an arbom ruling. You blocking progress here indefinitely is not an option I have considered. Sam Spade 21:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Come on guys, lets not descend into this again. We all know what you think of each other already.

We have several paragraphs for the intro, say four. Now i agree that the very first paragraph should be made uncontroversial, but the following ones not so. Currently, the first paragraph covers the definition of hypsnosis, which i think is a good idea to keep. We have to questions following that, and should be resolved in order

1. What would be a logical way to structure the following paragraphs?
2. What should we include in each of these paragraphs?

We shouldnt be afraid of controversy, but i think it will suffice to say they are alleged effects, and then sum up several fundamental objections in the end.

As for Antaeus' shortlist, i agree on all three counts. The post-hypnotic suggestion is also my suggestion to scrap. How about you Sam?

oh, and btw, i LOVE that Ananova link! :-) Good fun to include imho.

The Minister of War 08:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am an editor collaboratively editing this page, Sam. If you want to see someone who's not, you might try looking at the guy who, when he heard the words "compromise version", said "Here's my idea of a compromise version" and presented his preferred version with not a single word changed.[13] As for your further threats, I thank you for them; they illustrate excellently which one of us is the one working in good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I want that expert anon (or somebody who's not antaeus) to overhaul the article completely. How about you do what you feel is best, TMoW, and I'll keep an eye. This excuciating step by step discussion is the source of the articles woes, not the solution to them. Sam Spade 21:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The "expert anon" is neither an anon nor verified to be an expert, since we have nothing but his claims of what degrees he possesses. Whatever information he brings to us and whatever input he gives on changing the article will be evaluated on its own merits, not on the presumption that the "Dr" in his username must refer to real-life degrees granted by accredited institutions of higher learning. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about these statements. Do I need to "prove" my educational background expertise to Mr. Feldspar... to everyone who asks... to the keepers of Wikipedia? How do experts "prove" their educational background? Will Mr. Feldspar make the calls to the universities themselves? (Should I PDF copies of my diplomas?) My concern is that the work that I do will be discarded. Just stating my concern... DrMattGomes 17:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No you most certainly dont. In fact, your qualifications mean little - the quality of your additions mean everything. Feel free to jump in. However, it will be important that every addition to this article is corroborated with external evidence. Doubly so because this is a controversial article.

Also, because of the controversiality of the topic, we are trying to work things out on this page before putting it online. If you have suggestions on how to move forward, it would probably be best to post them beforehand on this page, or else make small incremental changes so that the risk of having a lot of work reverted is decreased.

I must say, you've certainly chosen a lively topic to enter into Wikipedia!! Dont worry, others arent half as bad (usually) :-). If you have any questions, dont hesitate to ask me on my own talk page. The Minister of War 18:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, guys, lets not. We all know that this type of discussion can only descend into name-calling, edit wars and, frankly, a loss of dignity. Lets stick to the facts.

Sam, because of the difficulty of the issue, i prefer to edit with shortlists. Maybe we dont need to adher to very strict bureaucratisation of the process, but a few handholds will hopefully keep the discussion pointed towards what counts: a decent article. Do you have any wishes as to content to change or not? --The Minister of War 18:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of anything to say that doesn't involve repeating myself, or asking you to reread what I've already said. Sam Spade 01:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. But i dont think its a very good idea for me to edit with you keeping an eye out. Wiki has a good tradition for consensus-seeking and i'd rather follow that. See below. The Minister of War 10:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be lacking consensus on how best to proceed. A RfC has already been filed, and 2 attempts at mediation have been rejected by antaeus. Perhaps we should request a survey, and then perhaps AMA advocates. I do not agree that point by point discussion will be fruitful either in resolving the interpersonal dispute, nor in producing a quality article. Both situation need a complete overhaul. Sam Spade 14:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protection will always result in the wrong version being protected. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:-) --The Minister of War 18:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Article structure

I have edited the to-do list above, to include how we want to structure the article further. A complete overhaul will only be succesful if we can agree on it, rather before than after the edits.

• For one, the intro already is about done.
• Any logical splits for the history? Seems a bit strange now. Early and modern perhaps?
• I suggest we attempt to merge effects and application, because they so clearly belong together. Effects are dependent on what you intend to use it for. I think a subdivision accoring to application is logical.
• I think there should be a seperate section for criticisms, as not to bog down the pieces on the methods themselves.
• Pop culture is a good one to end with

How does this look? The Minister of War 10:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone agree w TMoW about the intro? Otherwise I have no objection to TMoW's bulleted points. My feelings about his thesis "A complete overhaul will only be succesful if we can agree on it, rather before than after the edits." are probably obvious, but suffice to say I entirely disagree. Sam Spade 14:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Considering the contentious nature of the edit process here, I support the suggestion to work specific issues using the To Do list before making related substantive edits to the article. How else is a consensus process going to work here? — RDF ^talk 17:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus can occur any number of ways, the most likely of which is an agreement after the fact regarding an excellent contribution. The least likely circumstance I can concieve of is unanimity prior to a given edit, given the demographics of this talk page. If you look into it, the only recent edit roundly agreed to has been an instance of TMoW being bold, prior to talk page consensus. Sam Spade 19:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay then. Go for it. — RDF ^talk 19:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for trying RDF...

RDF has a point: go for it! I implemented my suggestions for a structure into the to-do list. As you seem to have the most preference around here as to what this article should contain: go forth, be bold! :-) --The Minister of War 20:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, no. This is not acceptable. The only reason I agreed to stop editing the page was on the condition of Sam not editing it, either. For Sam to obstinately stonewall and refuse to make any constructive participation towards this article and then say "Well, we haven't come to any consensus, so that means I should get the freedom to 'be bold'" is not acceptable. I hate to point out the obvious, but "consensus" on Wikipedia doesn't mean "unanimous agreement". If it did it would make the system vulnerable to exactly the sort of gaming Sam is attempting now, where he paints his own obstinacy as proof that the consensus-building process going on -- which everyone except him is engaged in, and which he has constantly interrupted -- can never work. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The above underscores why I see no point in attempting to discuss with antaeus. I have not been editing the article. I've been making clear all along I am willing to avoid editing the article (despite how badly it needs rewritten) so long as it is overhauled by others, without the interferance of anteaus. If he attempts to watchdog the article, reverting improvements and so forth, I will of course step in. If he allows progress, I am willing to avoid editing the article. What I will not do is engage in these endless fallacious discussions. Sam Spade 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Bank robbing hypnotist

• [14]

Sam Spade 21:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

"Would you like a toaster with that?" >;-o) — RDF ^talk 20:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"I am not the bank robber you are looking for. Move along." --The Minister of War 20:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Professional associations and governmental authorities

This might take a while to compile, but a section like this certainly is verifyable!!! :-)

Here's an example of a professional association.

• American Psychotherapy and Medical Hypnosis Association

Here's one example for a certification/licensure list.

• Indiana Hypnotist Committee

— RDF ^talk 00:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I started a draft here: /Pagacl draft. — RDF ^talk 04:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

trance behavioral states

Each individual accumulates a great deal of information and absorbs sensory input from the environment, which is assimilated as a neurological process of review and merging activity in the brain. During trance, it can be observed that other people demonstrate an interest in the subject's memory content, including the professional interest of healers or litigants.

Hypnosis is the result of a query method which seeks to elicit and extract specific content from an individual's memory, and the trance state which results from a professional trajectory of attention has as its primal purpose the retention of all memory content which might be otherwise lost during query sessions. Hypnosis and other query-related mental states are also the result of methods which challenge an individual's self-concept and perceptions stored as past memories.

It is possible that hypnosis seeks out the engrams embedded within the individual's psychological make-up, without aim to disperse such memories but also with the will and compehension that some thought and memory patterns are not easily maintained within mental mindset. Beadtot 10/19/2005 01:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actual improvement to the article

Note: this section is reserved strictly for discussion of proposed changes to the article. All edits falling outside that purview may be refactored out of the section.

Minister, a comment about the proposed structure of the intro: Currently, the fact that there is debate about whether hypnosis exists or not is listed as the last bullet point in the intro. Obviously, the possibility that hypnosis doesn't exist affects everything said about hypnosis (as does, of course, the failure to disclose that possibility) so I would suggest instead that the APA definition of hypnosis as a procedure be followed by a statement that the intent of the procedure is to induce a "hypnotic state", but that there is still debate about whether such a state actually exists.

After that is disclosed, the description of the appearance and effects claimed for the hypnotic state can continue, and the only other mention I think necessary for the intro of the belief that hypnosis may not exist is where the memory effects claimed for hypnosis are mentioned, since that is where hypnosis is most controversial.

With those two mentions, I don't think it's necessary to give it its own bullet point in the intro; as long as the casual reader is aware that there is debate, a fuller discussion of what those who don't believe in an objective hypnotic state believe is happening can wait for its own section in the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure i agree. Nobody denies that hypnosis exists (bear with me on this one), they just deny that hypnosis is anything more than self-deception. They disagree on the nature of hypnosis. Secondly, this is the hypnosis article, so I think it is fitting to first give the specs on hypnosis, then, secundo, the discussion about the nature thereof. The Minister of War 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, addressing your first point, it's a matter of semantics more than anything else. Take the placebo effect, where patients are told that a particular treatment, whether a pill or even a surgery, is going to cause them to feel better. (There is debate on the existence of the placebo effect itself, but it's the concept that matters for this example.) If we took someone who doesn't know about the placebo effect, we could show them the doctor telling the patient "this pill will reduce your pain", then the patient swallowing the sugar pill, then the patient saying "oh, I do feel better." If we just tell the person we've shown this to "this is an example of the placebo effect at work" without explaining what the placebo effect is, they may well conclude that there must be some powerful analgesic agent in the pill the doctor gave and the scientific name for the chemical action of the pill is called "the placebo effect".

In the same way, to claim that "nobody denies that hypnosis exists" is to induce confusion. Nobody denies that hypnosis, the process, exists. Nobody denies that there is a body of cultural lore about what it means to be "hypnotized", what you do under its influence and how you act; nobody denies that hypnosis, the social construct, exists. But those who "believe in hypnosis" believe that the process is inducing an actual different state of consciousness, and that is the disputed belief. To say that no one disputes the existence of hypnosis because no one disputes the existence of the process or the social construct invites the reader to misunderstand the crux of the debate, just as showing them the doctor giving the patient the pill and saying "now the patient feels better because of the placebo effect" invites them to assume exactly the same false conclusion that the patient did, that the pill has some powerful objective effect.

To address your second point, I must respectfully disagree. Because Wikipedia tries whenever possible to create united articles that contain all POVs on the subject rather than multiple articles reflecting separate POVs, this is just as much the "hypnosis might not exist" article as it is the "hypnosis, as it might exist" article. Neither is privileged above the other just by nature of the article. The question is then, which is more functional? Which better serves Wikipedia's aims? Well, I've already stated my belief that an article's intro should try to give up-front the information that would be most useful to a reader who reads only the intro and then goes off somewhere else -- especially since increasingly, the opinion non-Wikipedians express about Wikipedia is "Well, you can't fully trust what you read there, but it's a good place to start one's research and get an overview of the subject." An overview of a subject which omits the fact that the key component may not have actual objective existence is severely lacking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Its not entirely semantics. Would you want o put creationism into the first sentence on evolution? I think not. But let me be clear (because i dont really think this point is worth debating, as we kind of agree): i dont mean NOT to put it in, just not the first sentence. But this really is a detail imho. The Minister of War 18:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

2004

May

no one can really be hypnotized against their will

What I've read is that under normal circumstances this is true, but that hypnosis has been successfully used to brainwash prisoners of war. In this case, it is used in conjunction with sleep deprivation, etc. Does anyone know more authoritatively if this is true? CyborgTosser 11:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Hypnotism is just a state of suggestibility and there is a correlation (although not causal) between someone's suggestibility and their likelihood of being hypnotised. If we take this premise to the situation that you mention, it might be that someone who is not suggestible would be able to be 'hypnotised' against their will. Even in a stage setting a hypnotist will have to select those who will be used for the show. Not everyone will be 'hypnotised'. However, someone's suggestibility may be 'enhanced' through other factors, such as sleep or food deprivation. If someone has other stronger motives, they may be willing to become open to suggestions. It makes things much easier if you always think of suggestibility, instead of a different-state. Kabads

As a psyche major and amateur hypnotist/psychoanalyst, I can tell you authoritatively that much (prob most) of what you hear about hypnosis is probably false, and that myths abound. In fact, as best as I can tell, myths are encouraged, as they help to reduce public aprehension, stigma and so forth in regards to hypnosis. And if you want to know more about making people do whatever you want, no matter who they are, check out The Manchurian Candidate, Brainwashing, MKULTRA and particularly the work of Dr. Ewan Cameron. I warn you, it might scare the #*!! outta ya ;) Sam Spade 19:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

• • I have practised Hypnotism for about fifteen years and have frequently seen instances where people cannot, will not accept hypnotic suggestions against their wishes. Even someone who is in a deep hypnotic trance will bounce out of hypnosis very quickly if an unwanted or inappropriate suggestion is made. It is important to distinguish between "being Hypnotized", i.e put in a hypnotic trance and "accepting Hypnotic suggestions". A good hypnotic subject can be put into a trance whilst attempting to resist the state. This is possibly because a hypnotic trance is not very different from sleep. However such a person is no more suggestible than any other sleeping person.

It is possible that maltreatment such as sleep deprivation may increase a person's suggestibility but that is not hypnosis. Large sums of money can have the same effect and would probably be more reliable. ping 07:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I have to say, I think Dr. Cameron could convince anybody of anything. Of course his method includes erasing their memories so completely the patient I heard about had to be taught to walk and speak again ;) As to whether this involved hypnotism or not is debatable, but obvious it involved ALOT of other techniques as well. Sam Spade 06:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Sleep?

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that hypnosis is not very different to sleep. Brainwave analysis shows that they are extremely different.

• • A person who is hypnotized and not brought out of the trance drifts into a state indistinguishable from sleep. My own experience of being hypnotized suggests a mental state bordering on sleep without actually surrendering consciousness. The brainwaves may be different but observation which is also a valid scientific tool does suggest that hypnosis is not very different from sleep.ping 08:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't think good science is built on your own experiences, and I think most scientists would agree here. Hypnosis is not like sleep.

• • On the contrary: all science is based on observation and experience. It is thinking of rationalal explanations for the observations that gets difficult especially with something as nebulous as hypnosis. I still think it is valid to say that hypnosis is like sleep but also it is very different in someways ie brainwaves. ping 08:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

However having written that I am aware that the difficulty may lie in the definition. i have never seen a really good definition of hypnosis and I am not sure it is possible in English. Practically every definition have seen is really just a summary of observations. "You are hypnotized when you show the signs of being a hypnotized person" Not a good definition.

ping 08:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

One thing I have to clear up, however. It is possible(if you try) to shift a subject from sleep into hypnosis if done properly. Don't rely on it as it's hard to do and you might wake the subject up if they sleep too lightly.

CFSworks 10:19, 4 July 2005 (MDT)

September

article needs reformat

This page needs more organisation with more headings. This will probably mean an upheaval of the content (although little deletion). However, the content will need to be moved. This does not mean that content is less important than other content just because it does not appear at the beginning of the article.

Good job Lauciusa. The major reformat is looking much better now.

Suggestion from TJMonaghan Subheading required for Benefits to Clients for the clinical application of Clincial Hypnosis.

British article that I found, that could be incorporated into the main body of text. Note: for american readers The primary care NHS GP sugery clinic described below is a health clinical funded by the british govt's Health Dept.

Dobbin, A. et al (2004) Impact on health status of a hypnosis clinic in general practice. Contemporary Hypnosis Vol 21 (4): 153-160

The impact on health status of hypnosis was investigated in a primary care NHS GP surgery clinic, with referrals from a Local Health Care Cooperative (LHCC) with 85,000 patients. The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF36) pre and post treatment was completed by patients referred with mental health problems, medical problems and for smoking cessation. One hundred and fifteen patients successfully completed SF36 questionnaires before and six weeks after the intervention. Categories of treatment were smoking cessation, mental health, and medical. In the case of referrals for smoking cessation there were no significant changes in mental, social or physical function six weeks after the intervention. In the case of mental health referrals, which were predominantly anxiety related, there was a large and significant effect on the SF-36 in emotional role and mental role and a moderate effect on social role and mental health. Self-hypnosis was in widespread use after treatment, even in those whose perceived problem appeared not to have improved. The results suggest that simple hypnosis techniques could have a significant impact on mental health. This could have implications for promoting mental health as well as for treating mental illness, and needs to be tested further by a randomized, controlled trial.

TJMonaghan

Freud's gums

I agree with Golbez that too much was removed, but the explanation that Freud's disenchantment with hypnosis came about only because his gums were bad and therefore he couldn't lead people into hypnotic trance seems frankly preposterous. Can anyone lend support to the claim, or should it really be removed? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

popular culture

A paragraph needs to be added about hypnosis as portrait in popular culture, along with refrences to films for example.

Excellent idea. Such a section should probably include the infamous Svengali and the way that hypnosis has often been used (for instance, in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and the Dr. Mabuse films) as a political allegory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

November

Movie reference

The Japanese thriller Cure strongly involves hypnosis too. Junkyardprince | Talk 21:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

December

material removed from article

Removed the following material as it is factually dubious only in those places where it is not completely wrong. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hypnosis is just another word for mind control. In hypnosis a person, mind, is talked into doing things or into perceiving or not-perceiving things that the mind is usually told to either remember or forget in any imaginable combination. Thus a hypnotized mind can be told to remember or not remember that it is hypnotized. Hypnosis, words, can also tell a mind to remember or not remember a hypnotized event after the event occurs. Or the hypnosis can tell a mind to remember something a little different or even something totally different from the hypnotized event that did, or did not happen depending on the hypnosis and its events. Hypnosis thus works like a computer connected to a mind that we also call a brain.

Like a computer connected to a mind, brain, the mind’s hypnotist can make the mind do or not do, remember, or not remember, perceive or hallucinate anything; and then create everything in the imaginary outside universe that the mind could ever want to imagine and thus hallucinate to feel, taste, hear, sense, see and smell without the mind ever being aware that it is hypnotized. Perhaps the best example of hypnosis comes to us in the once banned 1962 movie Manchurian Candidate. The subject of mind control goes back to the dawn of history. The leaders of the assassins perfected this mind control, which was one form of hynosis or another, before the crusades.

what about the clean up notice?

Who took out the clean-up notice? This is still unmitigated academic garbage that skirts the issue that hypnosis is verbal mind control. "Hypnosis, as defined by the American Psychological Association Division of Psychological Hypnosis, " AND how does the CIA define hypnosis? Is hypnosis that much different from from cult or religious indoctrination? .. -geepee 00:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that all sections under State vs non-state be split into a separate page called Theories of Hypnosis. These sections are large enough to make their own page, and this article badly needs shortening. Vizjim (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @Myrvin, Miistermagico, Epinoia, DolyaIskrina, Lindsay658, and ...: Would welcome input from engaged editors. Vizjim (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My first question for my own education is: is there such a thing as an article being too long? I'm reading at WP:NOT but not seeing anything specifically about length. Is it a MOS consideration? Having asked that, I agree that the article rambles with a haphazard heading structure. The article suffers from a confusion of "Definition" and "State vs non-state" and "History." Much of what comes under "State Vs..." seems to be in the wrong category. Much of what is under "definition" would be better under your proposed heading of "theories". I think a more parsimonious (though an equal amount of shovel work) strategy would be to clean up this page as it is, and then see if it needs to be split. I'd start with making a heading as you suggest, "Theories of Hypnosis" and incorporating much of what comes under "Definition" under that (Nash says there are 8!). If anything, I think the new split-off page should be not "theories of hypnosis" but "History of hypnosis". DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

- the relevant guidelines are WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:LENGTH - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Entirely setting aside the central issue of the marginalization of the "hypnotism" of Braid for a moment, the entire issue of "length" of the article is a direct consequence of the orientation of the article itself -- something that is immediately telegraphed by the article's title of "hypnosis". This deliberately chosen orientation has the entire article, as written
(a) centred on the "hypnosis" of Bernheim and Liébeault (rather than the "hypnotism" of Braid),
and from this
(b) it is compelled to provide details of the theories and practices of every modern hybrid of the "hypnosis" of Bernheim and Liébeault,
and, as well,
(c) it completely side-steps the simple and non-complex fact that the term "hypnosis" is equivocal, wherein entirely different entities are being named by the same word (e.g., "ear" of corn, and "ear" on the side of your head),
which is compounded by the fact that,
(d) much of the article seems to (mistakenly and implicitly) suggest that the term "hypnosis" is an essentially contested concept, wherein the argument is over the best instantiation of an (otherwise) in-the-abstract, universally-agreed-upon technical term,
and, of course, the modern consequence of legislative and other regulatory restrictions,
(e) tending to take the position that "hypnosis" is whatever an individual designated "hypnotist" does -- rather than recognizing the fact that, in the same way that "a stimulus" can only be such, if it produces a "response", a "hypnotist" can only be such if he/she can successfully perform an act of "hypnotization".
So, in essence, my response is that the "length" issues are caused by the current article's (mistaken) need to deal with five entirely (historically and practically) different aspects all in the one piece:
(i) The discovery and clinical applications of James Braid's (1841) "hypnotism" (induced by an upwards and inwards squint) and, in particular, his use of "suggestion" with those he had hypnotized, à la the "dominant ideas" of Thomas Brown,
(ii) The (c.1890) promotion of Bernheim's "hypnosis" (induced by verbal suggestions of sleep),
(iii) The modern "hypnosis"-centred practices, as derived from Bernheim's "hypnosis",
(iv) The various theoretical positions offered to support these various practices, and
(v) The issue, in each case, of whether a specific application is, simply, doing-some-other-thing that is already-in-use-in-non-"hypnosis"-situations (e.g. the "affect bridge") to a hypnotized subject or is, in fact, using some unique aspect of "hypnosis" as the central therapeutic tool.
Whatever needs to be done will certainly need a lot of work to untangle all of these (unfortunately) conflated issues; and in my view, it seems that the first step to take is to create separate articles. Lindsay658 (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was rather my impression: this page seems to try to encompass all aspects of hypnosis in depth, which becomes very difficult for the lay reader to follow. So, in another instance, the section on History has a link at the top that says "Main article: History of hypnosis," but in fact there is far more detail on this page than there is on the History of hypnosis page.Vizjim (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh thanks for the link on LONG. And also thanks for pointing out that a hypnosis history page already exists. I think that should be task one, move most of the history to that page. And on that history page is where the discussion about Braid should take place. On this page, however, I think we should focus on the modern practice and understanding of Hypnosis. State Vs non-state and Nash's 8 definitions seem very germane to the modern understanding of hypnosis. And there are plenty of RS to back that up. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Satanic Brainwashing section had serious NPOV and clarity issues.

First, the section describe the work of several theologians who have claimed that satanic brainwashing in rock music is real but who's views are heavily disputed by the scientific community. Reputable scientists who have studied the whole claim about rock music/heavy metal music containing satanic imagery/themes being able to brainwash teenagers and considered it bunk. As it was written the section presented views from controversial Theologian Carl Raschke that are as written in a way couldn't make sense of as written (did some poorly quote the guy or is that exactly how he wrote it in the book which would be plagiarism since the quotes are not properly attributed to him. It also presented this guy's views in a way that implied he was a non-controversial recognized expert/reliable source on the subject when he is considered so within scientific community that has studied this issue. Thus if we are going to quote his views on the issue then we must also make it clear his views are very contested by relevant scientists and present their counterargument, at least in summery. While it's true that some rock and heavy metal bands did indeed intentionally include satanic images and such, it's not ever been proven that this leads to any brainwashing of teenagers or others who listened to said music or that any violence committed by certain heavy metal fans can be traced back to the satanic content in certain the heavy metal/rock songs they've listened too (correlation not causation). Also, one should not describe controversial views as "so and so stated...." as the word "stated" should be reserved only for non-controversial statements IMO whereas words like claimed. argued, alleged, etc are better in this sort of context.--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)