Talk:Hypnosis/Archive 5

Why I cut 'Memory" from the lede

The use of hypnosis to recover memories is a very contentions and potentially harmful thing to do. It shouldn't be casually added to the lede, but fleshed out in a sub-section and on another page. It'd be like casually adding "lobotomy" as a treatment in the lede for "anxiety." Okay, maybe not quite that bad but close. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Help! The first sentence is misleading and not supported by its own source or the rest of the page

I've made two attempts to indicate that the current "statist" definition of hypnosis is disputed. Both times it's been reverted in the name of having a concise, unbiased, definition. The problem is that there really is no such definition available. By pretending that there is, you are de facto taking a side in the debate. It's a mere pretense of objectivity and it does the readers, especially those who read only the lede (ie most) a disservice.

You don't have to read very deep into the literature to see that there are camps. From the first citation in the article:

In fact, the recently adopted definition is neither based on any apparent empirical foundation, nor is it “new.” Moreover, it has the potential to sow the seeds of conceptual and pragmatic confusion to an area sorely in need of greater clarification..... The most recent definition is arguably more biased than previous Division 30 definitions in declaring hypnosis to be a “state” linked with enhanced response to suggestion. Clearly, notwithstanding the authors’ caveats that the definition allows for “inquiry as to whether the ‘state of consciousness’ is in fact altered” (Elkins et al., 2015, p. 6),the integral role that “state” plays in the new definition, and the clear implication of an altered or distinct state in the description slants the depiction of hypnosis toward state theories, which for decades have kindled controversy and continue to provoke scientific debate. Furthermore, the HDC definition is perhaps as problematic for what it excludes as well as what it includes.

What's more, this definition is not very useful to the lay community. If I'm looking up hypnosis and see that it is a "state of human consciousness" what does that tell me about what it is? If the first sentence instead said something to the fact that it is a term that is disputed and has many manifestations, at least now the reader knows they must read further to get a fuller picture. I'd love some help in making this first sentence reflect the actual matter of fact. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

- Hi, start with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, especially the entry on the first sentence, MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The lead should express the generally accepted definition. If this definition is contested, alternative definitions, with citations and explanations, should be provided in a separate paragraph in the lead or, if the explanations are lengthy, in a separate section, such as the Definitions section or a new section on "Contemporary approaches to hypnosis" or "Contemporary views on hypnosis" or something like that. Avoid provocative or colorful words that introduce bias, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

Some dictionary definitions of hypnosis are (these cannot be directly copied to the article from the dictionaries due to copyright):

• Oxford: The induction of a state of consciousness in which a person apparently loses the power of voluntary action and is highly responsive to suggestion or direction.
• Mirriam-Webster: a trancelike state that resembles sleep but is induced by a person whose suggestions are readily accepted by the subject.
• Cambridge: a mental state like sleep, in which a person's thoughts can be easily influenced by someone else.
• Collins: a state in which a person seems to be asleep but can still see, hear, or respond to things said to them.

The current definition in the article, "a state of human consciousness involving focused attention, reduced peripheral awareness, and an enhanced capacity to respond to suggestion" appears to be in line with these accepted definitions. Also, check other discussions on this talk page to see if your concerns have already been addressed, such as Talk:Hypnosis#Changes to lead and Talk:Hypnosis#More changes to lead - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time Epinoia. I have read the talk page and your response carefully. Using dictionaries to justify a psychological term that is being researched can't be sufficient, can it? I mean wikipedia doesn't strive to be just a dictionary (not only for copyright reasons but relevance reasons). Dictionaries don't keep up with research and the APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis changes roughly every ten years. From what I can tell it's far from a settled issue: "The new definition explicitly takes on a “state stance,” which is far from theoretically neutral, and neglects to incorporate the diversity of reasoned positions that populate the hypnosis scientific and clinical literature."

So while you may be technically right, the resulting page reads like a tug-of-war, not an article. I'm resisting the urge to go into the second sentence and bolster it to offset the first sentence. Per your description that would be kosher. But it wouldn't make the article any better. I think a much better approach would be to let the first sentence be an honest description of what's actually happening. "Hypnosis is an umbrella term that can refer to..." "Hypnosis is a term that covers diverse phenomena, but the APA has defined it as... " Something like that. And then the second sentence could be less of a breathless rebuttal to the first sentence, something more nuanced like, "there continues to be debate in the literature." Then the nitty gritty about state v non-state could be saved for that sub section. Because, by the way, those are not the only two camps on the topic. DolyaIskrina (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If these issues are contentious within the hypnosis community it may be better to post your proposed changes here on the Talk page before making changes. I know Wikipedia says "Be Bold" WP:BOLD, but sometimes it is better to consult with other editors to avoid reverts and edit wars. Changing definitions is a particularly sensitive area and seeking consensus for definition changes is a good idea. (I have a diploma in hypnosis but I haven't practiced in years and I am not up on the current research). - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I have removed the new section Criticisms added by Christinaelizabeth. I have no objection to a section on Criticisms of hypnosis or hypnotherapy, but I do not believe this addition meets Wikipedia standards. Here is the section:

=== Criticisms ===

Within the scientific community, the opinions surrounding hypnotherapy have repeatedly been negative. Although there are a handful of studies suggesting support for hypnotherapy, the vast majority of research suggests the practice does not actually hold any significant results. Many of the research suggesting that hypnoses works as a form of therapy are not supported by proper scientific hypothesis or testing procedures. This makes it difficult for scientists to refute the claims that hypnotherapy provides positive experiences, however rigorous testing is needed to prove a psychological measure is properly working.  Claims suggest hypnotherapy is effective do not stand up to these rigorous Scientific tests. Again and again when true scientists attempt to replicate these “scientific” studies suggesting positive benefits of hypnotherapy, the result do not hold. For a theory to hold scientifically, it must withstand replication research. Hypnotherapy repeatedly does not show any credibility when considering the replication studies attempted in this area.

Hypnotherapy has again and again not held up testing in the scientific community. The mixed reviews and conclusions regarding the vigor of hypnotherapy suggest that hypnotherapy does not work successfully. Due to the inconsistency there may be third variables and confounds may be contributing to the results of hypnotherapy. Due to this, further research must be done before a conclusion can be made regarding the effectiveness of hypnotherapy.

I removed the section for the following reasons:

1. it reads more like a rant against hypnotherapy than an encylopedia article.
2. poor grammar - "Many of the research suggesting that hypnoses works as a form of therapy are not supported"
3. it doesn't appear that the claims made are supported by the two references (one of which is from 1963)
4. improperly formatted citation for the Weitzenhoffer article
5. excessive and pejorative language - "Again and again" - "true scientists" - "vast majority"
6. repetative
7. the concluding paragraph reads like original research
8. scare quotes - “scientific”

I could go on with the problems, but that's a start. This section could be rewritten and readded to the article. Can anyone provide any reliable sources WP:RS for criticisms of hypnosis and hypnotherapy? - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Epinoia: Also contradictory sentences, such as the last sentence and the one two sentences before it. Importantly, it addresses the criticism of hypnotherapy, which has nothing to do with the validity of hypnosis. In fact, a critisicm section already exists on the hypnotherapy article.^Ol^Ja 21:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the section as written needs work. However a criticism or "debate" section is needed. There is more than just a "state v non state" debate. Reading the article, you would get the impression that hypnosis works as advertised, it's just not clear how it works. That is misleading. There is real and substantive debate within the APA as to the epistemic and ontological status of hypnosis and it's use as a tool in therapy. I will volunteer to try to write such a section, but I might not be able to get to it for a week. If anyone else is interested let me know. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolyaIskrina (talk • contribs) 17:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Epinoia: Hello! For future reference, if you want to notify a user that you've replied to one of their comments, it is useful to add a ping or reply to tag, which you can do using the format {{ping|username}} or {{reply to|username}} (you can find more information here and here); otherwise, we will have no way of knowing that you've replied, and your replies will often be ignored. Secondly, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) - that will add your username and talk page automatically.

As to your idea, I've already stated that hypnotherapy isn't supported by evidence and is instead regarded as pseudoscience by various medical organisations, so I don't think there is a need for a supplementary criticism section for that as well - especially that hypnotherapy isn't the main focus of this article. As far as hypnosis, most sources seem to agree that it is a real phenomenon; however, if you manage to find some resources which suggest otherwise, you are more than welcome to summarise them in the article.^Ol^Ja 21:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that WP manual of style discourages 'Criticism' sections. Any "criticism" of hypnosis is better placed in appropriate neutral sections. For example, efficacy, involuntary hypnosis, relationship to suggestion etc. Depending on what form the criticism takes. Ashmoo (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mass hypnosis. Very Unlikely. Shared visual hallucinations more likely.

In looking at the article I was NOT surprised there was NO mention of MASS hypnosis, a very popular term. I suspect the phenomena is very unlikely. But folie à plusieurs the sharing of a visual hallucination (mass hallucination) among many is not. As the reported sharing of apparitions: Miracle of Fatima, the apparitions at Heroldsbach, Germany (1949). [Did the Giant Air Ship of 1897 really exist?] Does anyone have information on shared (visual) hallucinations in the Ancient World. The only works I am familiar with are: "Ghosts and Spirits in the Ancient World" by Eric Dingwall (1930), an old friend, and "The Greeks and the Irrational" by E.R Dodds (1951). Please reply if you have any knowledge of this topic. Miistermagico (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

- there is no evidence that mass hallucinations are the result of hypnosis, they could be some other altered state of consciousness - "mass hypnosis" is a common term for a group in an altered state of consciousness, but there is no evidence that the individuals in the group are in a hypnotic state, it could be some other form of altered state of consciousness - Epinoia (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Epinoial, May I suggest The Wonders of the Invisible World. Observations as Well Historical as Theological, upon the Nature, the Number, and the Operations of the Devils (1693) by Cotton Mather. It is doubtful that this classic eldritch work is the result of an altered state of consciousness. Miistermagico (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

- Mather's book is about witchcraft, not hypnosis - Epinoia (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear: Epinoial, Mather's book deals with human perception and behavior resulting from past harsh times. You will find the same distress also taken to extremes in Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. Only here the foreign environment is Europeans in the African jungle. Miistermagico (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

- not sure what you are getting at here - you seem to be confusing hypnosis, "a human condition involving focused attention, reduced peripheral awareness, and an enhanced capacity to respond to suggestion", with psychological and emotional trauma, "human perception and behavior resulting from past harsh times" - Mather's book Wonders of the Invisible World was written over 100 years before hypnosis was recognized so his work can have no bearing on the history or practice of hypnotism - there is no way to ascertain if a type of hypnotic induction was used by 17th century witches - and it is doubtful if any of the people accused and executed in the Salem witch trials were actually practitioners of witchcraft - Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness is a work of fiction and therefore not a reliable source (see WP:RS) - Heart of Darkness does not deal with the history of practice of hypnosis and is therefore irrelevant to this article - Epinoia (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Epinoia, What we have got here is a failure to communicate. I am only interested in the wild claims and accusations of witchcraft. Why do they exist? Where were the minds of these accusers and why? In 1890, at the age of 32, Conrad was appointed by a Belgian trading company to serve on one of its steamers. While sailing up the Congo River from one station to another, the captain became ill and Conrad assumed command. He guided the ship up the tributary,Lualaba River to the trading company's innermost station, Kindu, in Maniema,Eastern Kongo; Marlow has similar experiences to the author. Conrad's three-year association with a Belgian trading company included service as captain of a steamer on the Congo River. I would argue Conrad's Heart of Darkness is NOT ENTIRELY a work of fiction. Miistermagico (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

- this article is about hypnosis, not about witchcraft or fiction based on true events - your interests may be better suited to an article such as Mass psychogenic illness - Epinoia (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Epinoia, Thank you for the tip Mass psychogenic illness is new to me.Miistermagico (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Biologically-based warfare versus hypnosis

After this revert, Kwesi Yema responded elsewhere: Hypnosis does involve a trance and sleepy phase. What was described in the Nigerian warfare, was a psychological system of hypnotizing enemies. You will have to find a different source to support that claim, because the source you cited described "use of biological weapons in warfare in pre-colonial Africa", mentioned various biotoxins, and described the use of one "which was spread at the war front. If inhaled by the enemies it had the effect of taking the enemies into a stupor, becoming drowsy or sleepy" (Akinwumi 1995, p. 127—see the aforementioned edit for full citation). This describes a drug-induced stupor. There is no description of a psychological induction of hypnosis in the cited source. Biogeographist (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You must take into account that the drugs used by the Nigerians plundered their enemies into a drowsy and sleepy situation.This effects are clearly signs, symptoms or a synonymous with hypnosis. Thus, even if the word hypnosis itself wasn't mentioned, the effects are clearly hypnotizal. Is like how the Romans described the effects of malaria by alluding various synonyms; high temperature, loss of appetite etc., without even mentioning the disease itself. But they did describe malaria there. Kwesi Yema (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the source you cited describes a drug-induced stupor, which is not hypnosis as described in this article. Hypnosis, to quote the lead section of this article, involves "focused attention, reduced peripheral awareness, and an enhanced capacity to respond to suggestion" and "usually begins with a hypnotic induction involving a series of preliminary instructions and suggestion". Hypnosis as described in this article is not what is described in your cited source on biologically-based warfare. Biogeographist (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Question re a word

"The use of hypnosis in other contexts, such as a form of therapy to retrieve and integrate early trauma, is controversial within the medical or psychological mainstream."

I'm not sure about that innocent little word, 'or.' Read literally it says hypnotism is controversial within either the medical or the psychological mainstream. In that case, I'd like to know which one. And why is the other one included? As a guess (I'm not a subject matter expert) the word should be 'and.' If my guess is correct, could I ask for an expert to make that little change? TIA.

MartinRinehart (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

MartinRinehart – I made the change – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@MartinRinehart: Those are good questions that can be resolved by simply replacing "medical or psychological" with "scientific", which I have done. The relevant research is in psychology but is applicable to other fields such as medicine, which may be what the editor who wrote "medical or psychological" was thinking. Biogeographist (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)