Hypnosis

[Jeff Corey]

Re: Re: Re: i really dont see why hypnotherapy is seen as questionable to begin with.

So how would you define processes in the mind that aren't currently in conscious awareness. Would not a nice simple word like "subconscious" be a useful way of describing it? Or are you saying that there's no such thing as things outside of conscious awareness?

According to you I'm (fookin) deluding myself whenever I perform an automatic mental function, such as a habit.

Why don't people get that the term "subconscious" is just a useful model or metaphor about the mind rather than a literal thing that has to be "proven"?

And "the mind" is just a useless metaphor when trying to understand behavior, whether that mind is conscious, preconscious, subconscious or any other unobservable fiction.
"Never mind, it ain't matter."
Mulla Nasruden

 

[Jono]

If hypnosis is as it is called in this forum, as woo woo, then Derren Brown might be the only woo woo with the appreciation and perhaps slight admiration from James Randi.

 

[Jeff Corey]

If hypnosis is as it is called in this forum, as woo woo, then Derren Brown might be the only woo woo with the appreciation and perhaps slight admiration from James Randi.

My babelfish seems to be a bit off. What was that again?

 

[tonyb]

Re: Re: Re: Re: i really dont see why hypnotherapy is seen as questionable to begin w

And "the mind" is just a useless metaphor when trying to understand behavior, whether that mind is conscious, preconscious, subconscious or any other unobservable fiction.
"Never mind, it ain't matter."
Mulla Nasruden

Strange that this "useless" metaphor is found so useful by so many then.

The world of psychology has moved on since the limitations of the behaviourist school of a few decades ago that tried to disregard internal mental processes.

 

[tonyb]

To me, Hypnosis seems "woo-woo". I doubt that I could ever be hypnotized.

There is nothing woo-woo about hypnosis. If you have the ability to imagine something then you can do it. If you actually knew what hypnosis was rather than the mythical idea that's spread around then you'd know that whether or not you become hypnotised is completely within your own power.

However, does work for some people. My mom used it to quit drinking back in the 80's, and she hasn't touched alcohol since. (It was not overnight, it took several sessions)

Hypnosis works for many people.

I think that hypnosis works like a lie detector. If you believe in the lie the hypnotist is telling you (i.e. I can make you stop drinking) it may very well work on you.

What specifically is the "lie" that the hypnotist is telling somebody?

However, for every success, I'm sure there are many more failures.

On what basis do you make this assertion?

 

[tonyb]

Nothing that DB does uses any powers of suggestion, body language, NLP or hypnotism.

Quotes from DB from the very article you linked to:

"When I say at the beginning it's a mixture of psychological techniques and magic, I do hold by that. Because some of the stuff I do is magic based and some of it is genuinely suggestion based..."

"The automatic writing thing, I love, and I use a lot of hypnotic inductions on stage..."

 

[Jeff Corey]

There is nothing woo-woo about hypnosis. If you have the ability to imagine something then you can do it...

Right.
If I have the ability to imagine I can fly to Fort Lauderdale right now without benefit of tickets to Jet Blue or any other airline, then I can do it?
What planet are you from?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i really dont see why hypnotherapy is seen as questionable to begin w

Strange that this "useless" metaphor is found so useful by so many then....

Not so strange. Look at the number of people who use the useless metaphor "god" to explain everything
And argumentum ad populum never swayed me at all.

 

[tonyb]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i really dont see why hypnotherapy is seen as questionable to

Not so strange. Look at the number of people who use the useless metaphor "god" to explain everything
And argumentum ad populum never swayed me at all.

I understand your points, but I'm drawing a distinction between what science requires as proof of something and what people may find useful in their lives.

So, to use your example, whilst many of us (myself included) have no personal belief in any god, it is true to say that the concept of one is found useful by many other people, regardless of whether it can be scientifically proven.

Likewise, you're quite correct that proof isn't determined by a show of hands, but that doesn't stop certain metaphors being useful for people.

Another example that's kind of related to hypnosis is the practice of NLP. I accept that there's little (if any) of it that's scientifically validated, and as a result it takes a lot of flak from skeptics. But this misses the point, because NLP isn't about whether things are actually true of false, rather what might be useful to help people manage aspects of their lives. And NLP does contain many things that many peolple find useful.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i really dont see why hypnotherapy is seen as questionable to

... And NLP does contain many things that many peolple find useful.

Claus! Help me out here.
I don't believe you can provide any evidence supporting that statement.

 

[pjh]

quote:Originally posted by pjh
Nothing that DB does uses any powers of suggestion, body language, NLP or hypnotism.


Quotes from DB from the very article you linked to:

"When I say at the beginning it's a mixture of psychological techniques and magic, I do hold by that. Because some of the stuff I do is magic based and some of it is genuinely suggestion based..."

"The automatic writing thing, I love, and I use a lot of hypnotic inductions on stage..."

Last edited by tonyb on 02-12-2005 at 11:48 AM

Yep - and Uri Geller claims he bends spoons with his mind!

Derren is a mentalist - this is a best misdirection, at worse he's deliberately misleading gulible people.

I totaly agree - he should be far more honest about how he achieves his tricks, this interview is a good start.

 

[tonyb]

Yep - and Uri Geller claims he bends spoons with his mind!

Derren is a mentalist - this is a best misdirection, at worse he's deliberately misleading gulible people.

I totaly agree - he should be far more honest about how he achieves his tricks, this interview is a good start.

Hang on pjh, you provided the DB interview link yourself as his most candid one, given that it was with a fellow magician and for magicians. This interview clearly states that he does incorporate suggestion, and since I also own a couple of his magician's only lecture videos that explain certain effects I know FOR A FACT that some of the routines are very suggestion oriented. There's one in particular that is entirely based on both suggestion and reading of body clues.

Obviously much or most of what he does is pure 'trickery', but for you to claim point blank that he never uses any form of suggestion, body language, etc. is just plain wrong.

 

[tonyb]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i really dont see why hypnotherapy is seen as questio

Claus! Help me out here.
I don't believe you can provide any evidence supporting that statement.

Okay, here's my supporting evidence: I personally have found some of the things NLP to be beneficial in my life.

Ancedotal? Yes, admittedly, but I've already said that scienfitic "proof" is not a prerequisite of something being useful to somebody.

Simple example: All of us do dumb things from time to time and might then feel bad about ourselves thinking how stupid we were, etc. NLP contains a technique that some others have found helpful in changing that negative feeling state into a positive one. I have tried that technique and found it helps. Would it help everyone? Maybe not, but that's not what NLP claims (or if someone does then they've missunderstood the purpose of NLP).

Am I supposed to wait for scientific proof that this technique might be helpful for some people before trying it or believing that it might work?

I'm a big supporter of science and in education against superstition, etc., but I frankly don't care much if a technique that I personally find useful in my life lacks a double-blind peer-reviewed journal published study. What matters more is that my life is that tiny bit better through having tried something and found it useful.

Is that really so unreasonable?

 

[pjh]

Obviously much or most of what he does is pure 'trickery', but for you to claim point blank that he never uses any form of suggestion, body language, etc. is just plain wrong.

This is way OT for this thread - how about returning to Hypnotism - how about a trick that you are absolutely sure Derren uses Hypnotism to achieve - describe the effects and how you believe it is done.

 

[tonyb]

This is way OT for this thread - how about returning to Hypnotism - how about a trick that you are absolutely sure Derren uses Hypnotism to achieve - describe the effects and how you believe it is done.

Effect where he uses purely a combination of suggestion and body reading (ie. no "tricks" as such): "Invisible Deal". DB is able to tell a spectator the name of a card which that spectator merely thought about, after dealing cards from an imaginary deck. If you want to know how this is done then you can track down his explanation video. It's not my place to reveal methods in this forum.

Effect where the use of hypnosis is probably the method: DB makes passengers on the London Underground forget the name of the station that is their destination. (I admit I cannot be certain that hypnosis is his actual method, but will state that such a technique is feasible with certain people. If you want to learn how, take a course on hypnotism).

 

[The Mighty Thor]

You are totally wrong about the first one. The "invisible Deal", as you call it, is a well-known trick that many magicians, even amateurs like me, can do. It requires no skill but for a simple calculation.

It is very clever -- so, I'm not surprised you were fooled. Indeed, you probably (by your explanation) have mis-remembered what actually happened.

Think about it. Describe exactly what Derren did, and then compare with your original description.

With magic, the trick is in the detail.

 

[Jeff Corey]

You are totally wrong about the first one. The "invisible Deal", as you call it, is a well-known trick that many magicians, even amateurs like me, can do. It requires no skill but for a simple calculation.

I had an invisible deck around here, but I lost it.

 

[pjh]

Effect where the use of hypnosis is probably the method: DB makes passengers on the London Underground forget the name of the station that is their destination. (I admit I cannot be certain that hypnosis is his actual method, but will state that such a technique is feasible with certain people. If you want to learn how, take a course on hypnotism).

I'm not sure I understand you - for this to be hypnosis, is there a bit before (close your eyes ... you're feeling sleepy etc.) we don't see or are you saying that it is possible to hypnotise someone into forgetting their station in just what we see?

How about the much more plausible explanation - that in this 'Reality TV' world, some people when a TV camera is stuck in their face will play along for their 5 minutes of fame?

 

[tonyb]

You are totally wrong about the first one. The "invisible Deal", as you call it, is a well-known trick that many magicians, even amateurs like me, can do. It requires no skill but for a simple calculation.

It is very clever -- so, I'm not surprised you were fooled. Indeed, you probably (by your explanation) have mis-remembered what actually happened.

Think about it. Describe exactly what Derren did, and then compare with your original description.

With magic, the trick is in the detail.

Sorry Mr. Thor (or may I call you Mighty), but I think you're referring to the "Invisible Deck", which is a totally different effect. The effect I referred to is "Invisible Deal" which as I stated in my post uses an imaginary deck of cards, and not the actual (special) deck used in Invisible Deck.

Bear in mind I actually have DB on tape explaining the methodology of the effect I described, and it is DEFINITELY suggestion and body reading based! If you want, PM me and I'll give you a reference to where to find the video, then you'll see for yourself.

 

[tonyb]

I'm not sure I understand you - for this to be hypnosis, is there a bit before (close your eyes ... you're feeling sleepy etc.) we don't see or are you saying that it is possible to hypnotise someone into forgetting their station in just what we see?

How about the much more plausible explanation - that in this 'Reality TV' world, some people when a TV camera is stuck in their face will play along for their 5 minutes of fame?

It is a common fallacy (among many other falacies) that people have to close their eyes and be told "you are sleepy..." etc. Obviously on the show we only get to see an edited version of what happens, so it's quite likely that more work was done that we don't see. But with the right people this needn't take long, ie. a few minutes.

Of course there is the possibility that the people were just "pretending" and going along with it for their proverbial 5 minutes, but my claim is only that based on my own knowledge and experience of the subject that, with the right people it is possible for them to genuinely temporarily forget something you wouldn't expect them to.

Let me reiterate that there's no special power or force that DB (or anybody else) is exerting over somebody. It's only a question of psychological techniques which I'm quite sure are perfectly explainable using rational and understood processes. The subjects that "forget" are voluntarily "buying in" to the techniques as they are applied, and it certainly wouldn't work on everybody.

Many hypnotists claim that somewhere between 10 - 20% of the population are what is know as "hyper-suggestible", the kind of people that stage hypnotists look for in their act. This doesn't mean they are gullible or stupid, just more suggestible.

So what it comes down to is that either some people can be "caused" to temporarily forget things, or they are all just pretending for whatever motives. I choose to believe the former (although there are bound to be some pretenders, obviously). I don't really know how it can be proven either way, unless there existed some foolproof way of knowing when someone is lying (like a polygraph machine - only kidding ).