Covert hypnosis? How do you protect yourself from it?

[krisdude]

Hi guys,

I have heard of cases of crime using covert hypnosis. They control your body to make you do things of in their interest. If someone is trying to hypnotize you without knowledge, what can you do exactly to not get hypnotized.

 

[Phrak]

It's too late. You've already been conned.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Hi guys,

I have heard of cases of crime using covert hypnosis. They control your body to make you do things of in their interest. If someone is trying to hypnotize you without knowledge, what can you do exactly to not get hypnotized.

For starters, watch every Derren Brown Youtube you can find, identify and analyze all the techniques he uses to render people suggestible, and then be aware when people seem to be doing the same things to you.

Another thing to read up on is the NLP concept of "anchors".

As Tony Robbins says in the movie Shallow Hal, "Everyone's already hypnotized anyway". To the extent you can observe that going on all around you, you can pull back from it and increase your immunity.

It's highly doubtful anyone's ever going to try and hypnotize you to commit a crime but they absolutely WILL try and hypnotize you to part with your money for things that don't work as described, or that you really don't need, or particularly want. Being sales-pitch, and scam resistant is a good quality to have.

 

[krisdude]

It's too late. You've already been conned.

Ya I know they use conversational hypnosis everywhere in ads, sales, ect. Hence only option I think is to be aware(know) of what's happening.

For starters, watch every Derren Brown Youtube you can find, identify and analyze all the techniques he uses to render people suggestible, and then be aware when people seem to be doing the same things to you.

Another thing to read up on is the NLP concept of "anchors".

As Tony Robbins says in the movie Shallow Hal, "Everyone's already hypnotized anyway". To the extent you can observe that going on all around you, you can pull back from it and increase your immunity.

It's highly doubtful anyone's ever going to try and hypnotize you to commit a crime but they absolutely WILL try and hypnotize you to part with your money for things that don't work as described, or that you really don't need, or particularly want. Being sales-pitch, and scam resistant is a good quality to have.

Very informative reply. Thanks for the reference, I ll check them out.

 

[waht]

One of the top computer hackers Kevin Mitnic said that it's much easier to get passwords and information from people than actually go through all the trouble and hack into computers.

check out the "Art of Deception"

https://www.amazon.com/dp/076454280X/?tag=pfamazon01-20


The keyword is social engineering which basically refines what con artists have been doing.

It's pretty ridiculous and scary. There were cases of hackers walking into company building by pretending being someone else, and get employees to reveal crucial information, and get them to give access to computer terminals where the hacker installs key-loggers and other malicious software.

Here is a list of cognitive biases that con artists can exploit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here is a list of cognitive biases that con artists can exploit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

I'd like to add a less cerebral list of qualities that can make a person both highly suggestible to hypnosis and render them good prey for scam artists:

According to Kantor[3], the following are vulnerable to psychopathic manipulators:

* too trusting - people who are honest often assume that everyone else is honest. They commit themselves to people they hardly know without checking credentials etc. They rarely question so-called experts.

* too altruistic - the opposite of psychopathic, too honest, too fair, too empathetic

* too impressionable - overly seduced by charmers. For example they might vote for the phony politician who kisses babies.

* too naive - cannot believe there are dishonest people in the world or if there were they would be allowed to operate.

* too masochistic - lack of self-respect and unconsciously let psychopaths take advantage of them. They think they deserve it out of a sense of guilt.

* too permissive - excessively permissive parents can become victims of children with a conduct disorder.

* too narcissistic - narcissists are prone to falling for unmerited flattery.

* too greedy - the greedy and dishonest may fall prey to a psychopath who can easily entice them to act in an immoral way.

* too immature - has impaired judgment and believes the exaggerated advertising claims.

* too materialistic - easy prey for loan sharks or get-rich-quick schemes

* too dependent - dependent people need to be loved and are therefore gullible and liable to say yes to something they should say no to.

* too lonely - lonely people may accept any offer of human contact. A psychopathic stranger may offer human companionship for a price.

* too impulsive - make snap decisions about, for example, what to buy or who to marry without consulting others.

* too frugal - cannot say no to a bargain even if they know the reason why it is so cheap

* too rebellious - patronise counterfeiters, for example, as they have an anti-authority stance and like to break rules

* being elderly - the elderly can become fatigued and less capable of multi-tasking. When hearing a sales pitch they are less likely to consider that it could be a con. They are prone to giving money to someone with a hard-luck story. See elder abuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is interesting:

The first known usage of the term "confidence man" in English was in 1849; it was used by American press during the United States trial of William Thompson. Thompson chatted with strangers until he asked if they had the confidence to lend him their watches, whereupon he would walk off with the watch; he was captured when a victim recognized him on the street.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con_artist

Derren Brown recreates this very trick in one of his episodes. After politely asking a stranger for directions, and seeking assurances that he's not bothering them, he has quickly put them in a position where they like him, and want nothing more than to help him. Then he politely asks if he can see their wallet. They take it out and show it to him. He reaches for it, so apparently innocently, that they hand it to him. Then he walks away, with an air of purpose, as if they'll soon see what he's up to, but that it's all good. The thing seems to work by getting them to like him, then simply acting like it's all on the up and up: the request for the wallet is not betrayed to be any different than the request for directions. They're confused, to be sure, but since he's established himself as likable and polite, it's very hard for them to recast him in their mind as a thief. By the time they do, he's gone.

 

[waht]

The wallet trick is flawless:

There is so much going on here. Derren mirrors the victim's body posture to establish rapport. He then walks away from the victim to get him approach. Once the victim approached, Derren makes the killer move. He Holds the victim's hand, and hands him his bottled water. This is a very strong message. It quickly induces a sense of "I like you," and "you can trust me." It causes one to forget that you are interacting with a complete stranger.

The rest is easy: "Can I see your wallet please? ... Oh and your house keys too"

 

[zoobyshoe]

The wallet trick is flawless:




There is so much going on here. Derren mirrors the victim's body posture to establish rapport. He then walks away from the victim to get him approach. Once the victim approached, Derren makes the killer move. He Holds the victim's hand, and hands him his bottled water. This is a very strong message. It quickly induces a sense of "I like you," and "you can trust me." It causes one to forget that you are interacting with a complete stranger.

The rest is easy: "Can I see your wallet please? ... Oh and your house keys too"

This is weird: I see he never even takes the man's wallet. He takes his watch, his keys, then his phone. The title leaves you remembering him having taken the guy's wallet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The wallet trick is flawless:




There is so much going on here. Derren mirrors the victim's body posture to establish rapport. He then walks away from the victim to get him approach. Once the victim approached, Derren makes the killer move. He Holds the victim's hand, and hands him his bottled water. This is a very strong message. It quickly induces a sense of "I like you," and "you can trust me." It causes one to forget that you are interacting with a complete stranger.

The rest is easy: "Can I see your wallet please? ... Oh and your house keys too"

Bull. That is staged. You are the ones being duped, not the guy with the watch.

And I know exactly how he did it.

 

[Doc Al]

For starters, watch every Derren Brown Youtube you can find, identify and analyze all the techniques he uses to render people suggestible, and then be aware when people seem to be doing the same things to you.

Realize that Derren Brown is an entertainer and that he uses 'any means necessary' to achieve his goal--including standard magic gimmicks and plain old lying and cheating. Not just his powers of suggestion.

 

[waht]

Realize that Derren Brown is an entertainer and that he uses 'any means necessary' to achieve his goal--including standard magic gimmicks and plain old lying and cheating. Not just his powers of suggestion.

That's right. He's an entertainer. One of the arguments is that his tricks make people believe that a phenomena is purely psychological in nature. When in fact he just did a clever trick and wants us to believe that human mind is prone to deception. So I understand that Derren cannot be trusted. However, there are genuine cases where people are exploited similarly how Derren exploits subjects on his show.

There was a famous case of a psycho calling restaurants and getting employees strip themselves just by talking on the phone:




if people can do this with the power of words what else can people do?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is a little trick that I pull every now and then just to see if I get a bite. While at the checkstand at a store, I will pull out a five dollar bill and quickly ask the cashier if I can get two tens for a five. A few people have actually handed me the money before the problem occurred to them.

 

[waht]

Bull. That is staged. You are the ones being duped, not the guy with the watch.

And I know exactly how he did it.

How did he do it? How do real pick pocketers steal watches?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Waht, we need a published paper in order to support a claim like this. Youtube is not a source.

 

[Phyisab****]

The imperius curse

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How did he do it?

It was staged. The victim is in on the prank being played on you.

How do real pick pocketers steal watches?

That is a different matter. Pockets are picked through a combination of skilled removal, and a distraction, like bumping into the pigeon. It has nothing to do with hypnosis.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Bull. That is staged. You are the ones being duped, not the guy with the watch.

And I know exactly how he did it.

It was staged. The victim is in on the prank being played on you.

There is a little trick that I pull every now and then just to see if I get a bite. While at the checkstand at a store, I will pull out a five dollar bill and quickly ask the cashier if I can get two tens for a five. A few people have actually handed me the money before the problem occurred to them.

Which are you asserting about the video? That Brown pulled a version of the old change trick or that the whole thing was "staged": the man he got the watch from was an actor paid to follow a script?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Realize that Derren Brown is an entertainer and that he uses 'any means necessary' to achieve his goal--including standard magic gimmicks and plain old lying and cheating. Not just his powers of suggestion.

True, but I'm not sure what your point is. Standard magic gimmicks and plain old lying and cheating are among the tools he uses to render people suggestible. He claims: "I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Which are you asserting about the video? That Brown pulled a version of the old change trick or that the whole thing was "staged": the man he got the watch from was an actor paid to follow a script?

The guy with the watch was in on it.

True, but I'm not sure what your point is. Standard magic gimmicks and plain old lying and cheating are among the tools he uses to render people suggestible. He claims: "I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship".

Nonetheless, the claim that so-called covert hypnosis is possible, must be supported with scientific references. This is a claim that can be tested so there is no need for debate.

The thread can be reopened if valid references are provided.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Late edit

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Zooby has provided some information suggesting that we may be seeing an example of "alert hypnosis". I don't question the existence of alert hypnosis so much as the claim that this is what we see in the video. The thread is open for the sole purpose of exploring this possibility and any related information. What is on trial here, so to speak, is Derren Brown.

This is an excerpt from my response to Zooby. It was intended to be applied generally to this discussion.

What I read in your links is far too vague to argue that Brown is legitimate. It is not at all clear to me that alert hypnosis is the same thing that we see in the video - a person fully awake, walking on the street, who surrenders his watch and apparently has no idea what just happened. I have been hypnotized. There was no such lack of awareness. So even from a personal perspective, that seems like a real stretch. However, I didn't read the entire paper linked. If you have something more specific within that paper or another, please pass it along.

I will open the thread, but only to the extent that you and others can defend the claim. The first sign that this claim is being taken as fact without sufficient supporting material, will require that the thread is locked.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby has provided some information suggesting that we may be seeing an example of "alert hypnosis".

Actually, "alert hypnosis" was a secondary, but applicable, thing I explained. The more important phenomenon was Erickson's "Indirect Hypnosis.

Here is the PM I sent you:

Re: proof of "covert hypnosis":

The particular technique Brown uses in that segment was invented by a pretty well credentialed and well known psychiatrist and hypnotherapist named Milton Erickson. It's called a "handshake induction" and it's part of a larger body of stuff he called "confusion technique".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_H._Erickson

Erickson's explanation of the psychology behind it is there in detail.

Erickson called a lot of what he did "Indirect Hypnosis": the subject is not told he is being hypnotized or that he's about to receive any suggestions. "Covert Hypnosis" is apparently some second or third party's term for the same thing.

I called Erickson "well credentialed". That's an understatement. The American Journal of Psychiatry asserts he is considered "the father of modern clinical hypnosis":

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/ajp;162/7/1255

That constitutes, at least, implied peer reviewed endorsement of his "Indirect Hypnosis".

There is also a thing pertinent to some Derren Brown segments called "Alert Hypnosis", developed by various people, which is a phenomenon that requires no trance state:

This paper reviews a development in the understanding of hypnosis. A method of hypnotic induction is showing up in the literature, referred to by several different titles, usually including the term "alert" as in "hyperalert hypnosis" (Ludwig & Lyle, 1964), "activealert hypnosis" (Bínyai & Hilgard, 1976; Robazza & Bortoli, 1995; Cardena, E., Alarcon, A., Capafons, A., & Bayot, A., 1998), "alert hypnosis" (Wark, 1998), "awake-alert" (Iglesias & Iglesias, 2005) or "waking hypnosis" (Capafons, 2004). Regardless of the designation, the technique is distinct in two significant respects. First, a subject does it with open eyes. The operator does not use phrases like "You are getting more and more sleepy and drowsy. Your eyelids are becoming heavier, more and more tired and heavy." as found in classic inductions such as the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959). Second, the subject can be moderately to vigorously active. There is no need for catalepsy or even relaxation. (Ludwig & Lyle, 1964; Bínyai, É., Meszaros, I., & Greguss, A.C., 1983). In spite of these differences, the response to suggestions is practically the same as for more traditional techniques (Wark, 1998).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4087/is_200604/ai_n17188642/

The whole paper is at the link.

Derren Brown borrows techniques from Erickson and Alert Hypnosis, but in his book Tricks of he Mind, he says he feels the term "hypnosis", creates the expectation of a trance and other usual concommitants he doesn't use, and is not appropriate for what he does. "'Suggestive techniques', for example, could be a better term for what might be used in a situation where hypnosis is apparently happening but the obvious trappings of trance and so on are absent," he says. p.133

The suggestion you offered, but then abandoned, that the video demonstrated something like the money changing scam, was pretty close to the mark, because the operative dynamic is to confuse the victim. I was hoping you were going to stick to that one because then we might agree it is possible to simply talk someone out of their valuables if you confuse them in the right way. Erickson considered confused states a form of trance, and essentially hypnosis. Whether or not the money changing scam is hypnosis, is, therefore, semantics. It constitutes psychologically manipulating someone without their knowledge, which is the essence, I believe, of what the opening poster was worried about.

If you decide to claim it was a completely staged segment, that the alleged "victim" was in on it the whole time, without having anything to back that up, you're just making a bald assertion.


If you go to the wiki link and read, at the very least, the sections on "confusion technique" and "handshake induction" you will be able to recognize Brown doing a variation of this to the man in the video. Waht mentioned and noticed the business with the water bottle, but misinterpreted it as a means of creating trust.

We, watching the video, know Derren Brown is up to something, but you have to put yourself in the position of the man, whose never seen him before, is not anticipating anything in particular, and is walking around that area for the first time (he says: "I'm not from here," when Derren first asks directions).

It is not at all clear to me that alert hypnosis is the same thing that we see in the video - a person fully awake, walking on the street, who surrenders his watch and apparently has no idea what just happened. I have been hypnotized. There was no such lack of awareness.

This is not alert hypnosis, but Erickson's "Indirect Hypnosis", confusion technique, handshake induction.

The man is not "unaware" Brown is taking his stuff, he has been rendered unable to critically examine why he's taking it: he's extremely confused by the cognitive dissonance between the weird handshake and Brown's acting like everything is normal. Brown then gives him a definite task to perform: giving him the watch, which the man complies with because, according to Milton Erickson, when we're confused, any definite course of action seems like relief from the confusion.


When you ask a cashier if you can have two tens for a five, I surmise what happens is they suppose you have mispoken, reversing what you meant to say, but that it would be impolite to correct you, or interrupt the flow of good feeling. Preoccupied with maintaining goodwill, they might start to comply with your request, completely losing sight of the fact a five is not worth two tens. They're not unaware of giving you two tens, their ability to critically examine what that means has been briefly circumvented by their preoccupation with being nice. If you confused them even more, you could have walked out of the store with the tens.

 

[waht]

The man is not "unaware" Brown is taking his stuff, he has been rendered unable to critically examine why he's taking it: he's extremely confused by the cognitive dissonance between the weird handshake and Brown's acting like everything is normal. Brown then gives him a definite task to perform: giving him the watch, which the man complies with because, according to Milton Erickson, when we're confused, any definite course of action seems like relief from the confusion.

This is likely what Brown did. I suppose it's a more sophisticated attack that would require more honing to get right than the average con artist might be willing to do. What I was referring to, is the exploitation of emotions. By asking someone for directions, you put yourself in a position of knowing less, and the subject of knowing more. Some people may feel thrilled at the possibility of giving directions. It makes the subject feel important. But at times can impair their judgment.

Another aspect of the con is making an innocent body contact with the subject like handshake (I'm not referring to handshake hypnosis), and touching people on the shoulder or hand. Derren Brown taps many people on his show. If done right, it's a big complement. And makes a lasting impression. But Brown is doing it for hypnosis and confusion.

A good car salesmen for example will use some of these tricks to get you on their page. They do this by giving customers an opportunity to feel good about themselves and be appreciated.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I watch the video, I see no reason for any confusion. He just hands the stuff over. My BS meter is pegged. Why should we believe this man is confused? Brown only asked for directions. Just because we have certain techniques that can be claimed, that doesn't imply that this is what Brown is doing. What tells me that Brown isn't just feigning something that is in fact much more complicated; not so easy to do?

Has Brown ever been tested under controlled conditions, or do we only have youtube videos and tv shows?

 

[waht]

Has Brown ever been tested under controlled conditions, or do we only have youtube videos and tv shows?

According to the previous links, handshake hypnosis (something what Brown is doing) has been pioneered by Erickson, a respectable psychologist.

Here is a Scientific American take on hypnosis. An interesting read:

Using hypnosis, scientists have temporarily created hallucinations, compulsions, certain types of memory loss, false memories, and delusions in the laboratory so that these phenomena can be studied in a controlled environment.

Also Hypnotherapy is used often alleviate certain pains:

what are the medical benefits of hypnosis? A 1996 National Institutes of Health technology assessment panel judged hypnosis to be an effective intervention for alleviating pain from cancer and other chronic conditions. Voluminous clinical studies also indicate that hypnosis can reduce the acute pain experienced by patients undergoing burn-wound debridement, children enduring bone marrow aspirations and women in labor. A meta-analysis published in a recent special issue of the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, for example, found that hypnotic suggestions relieved the pain of 75 percent of 933 subjects participating in 27 different experiments. The pain-relieving effect of hypnosis is often substantial, and in a few cases the degree of relief matches or exceeds that provided by morphine.

Here is Steve G Jones, a hypnotherapist that uses these technique to help people overcome their fears. He explains how handshake hypnosis works:

Here is an actual demo:
you may think this the subject is faking it but this is a real effect.

 

[GeorginaS]

According to the previous links, handshake hypnosis (something what Brown is doing) has been pioneered by Erickson, a respectable psychologist.

I don't understand how Brown garners respectability because of Erickson's reputation.

Here is a Scientific American take on hypnosis. An interesting read:

Using hypnosis, scientists have temporarily created hallucinations, compulsions, certain types of memory loss, false memories, and delusions in the laboratory so that these phenomena can be studied in a controlled environment.

Also Hypnotherapy is used often alleviate certain pains:

what are the medical benefits of hypnosis? A 1996 National Institutes of Health technology assessment panel judged hypnosis to be an effective intervention for alleviating pain from cancer and other chronic conditions. Voluminous clinical studies also indicate that hypnosis can reduce the acute pain experienced by patients undergoing burn-wound debridement, children enduring bone marrow aspirations and women in labor. A meta-analysis published in a recent special issue of the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, for example, found that hypnotic suggestions relieved the pain of 75 percent of 933 subjects participating in 27 different experiments. The pain-relieving effect of hypnosis is often substantial, and in a few cases the degree of relief matches or exceeds that provided by morphine.

Here is a Scientific American take on hypnosis. An interesting read:

I think you're mashing ideas together, here, waht. Isn't the opening premise of this thread about "covert hypnosis". I'm not even sure I know what that is save the ability to lull someone into a sense of security and trust with you in short order.

I have no doubts about the effectiveness of hypnosis (not sure about hypnotherapy, but I don't know enough about it to comment) because I used it myself. While "under hypnosis", which I'd say is poor wording to describe it, but common, so I'll go with it, you are perfectly aware of everything that's going on around you. It actually takes a very willing participant to do it properly and/or well and someone who knows how to focus their thoughts and concentrate well. And I never once lost sight of what was going on and actively evaluated all of the suggestions I was being given because I recall dismissing a few out of hand thinking, "No, I don't believe that". It didn't disrupt the hypnosis session, it just meant that my core beliefs weren't shaken in the process.

Having had tremendous success with hypnosis twice, I understand how it works and how the state feels and how much of my co-operation it took. Someone walking up to me on the street and using social and physical cues to quickly gain my trust I wouldn't qualify as "hypnosis" per se. Some other technique, to be certain, but not hypnosis.

Now, I realize that anecdotal evidence doesn't really play, but that's what I've got. Hypnosis itself already has a body of research behind it.

 

[waht]

I don't understand how Brown garners respectability because of Erickson's reputation.

His confusion techniques and derivatives of handshake hypnosis are backed up by Erickson's research.

This is in response to Ivan or anyone who thinks that Derren Brown, and dozens of other street hypnotists use stooges. Where in fact, they could be really approaching someone and hypnotizing them in just few seconds.

Also, I understand that youtube may seem like a not respectable outlet in the sense that people post whatever. However, how does one explain hundreds or so videos of different people (amateurs and professionals) performing handshake hypnosis? Did they all band together and agreed to fake it?

I think you're mashing ideas together, here, waht. Isn't the[ opening premise of this thread about "covert hypnosis". I'm not even sure I know what that is save the ability to lull someone into a sense of security and trust with you in short order.

That's right, lulling someone is not the actual way of inducing a hypnotic trance, but I mentioned it because this also a way of getting people to comply.

I have no doubts about the effectiveness of hypnosis (not sure about hypnotherapy, but I don't know enough about it to comment) because I used it myself. While "under hypnosis", which I'd say is poor wording to describe it, but common, so I'll go with it, you are perfectly aware of everything that's going on around you. It actually takes a very willing participant to do it properly and/or well and someone who knows how to focus their thoughts and concentrate well. And I never once lost sight of what was going on and actively evaluated all of the suggestions I was being given because I recall dismissing a few out of hand thinking, "No, I don't believe that". It didn't disrupt the hypnosis session, it just meant that my core beliefs weren't shaken in the process.

Some people are just more suggestible than others. Stage hypnotists use different suggestibility tests to find the most prone individual in the audience. Those less suggestible need more work to get hypnotized.

Having had tremendous success with hypnosis twice, I understand how it works and how the state feels and how much of my co-operation it took. Someone walking up to me on the street and using social and physical cues to quickly gain my trust I wouldn't qualify as "hypnosis" per se. Some other technique, to be certain, but not hypnosis.

In my previous posts I didn't mean to imply gaining "trust" as a way to hypnosis, but as an alternate explanation of getting to people.

 

[zoobyshoe]

When I watch the video, I see no reason for any confusion. He just hands the stuff over. My BS meter is pegged. Why should we believe this man is confused? Brown only asked for directions. Just because we have certain techniques that can be claimed, that doesn't imply that this is what Brown is doing. What tells me that Brown isn't just feigning something that is in fact much more complicated; not so easy to do?

Has Brown ever been tested under controlled conditions, or do we only have youtube videos and tv shows?

I think all of this information about non-standard forms of hypnosis is completely new to you, and you're so eager to push forward with your original reaction to the video that you haven't given the new material it's proper due. The stuff about Erickson's confusion technique and handshake induction is necessary to understand. Try watching the handshake part of the video again and write down the sequence of events up to the taking of the watch. I just did this for myself. Had to play it over quite a few times to catch and describe each element of the handshake. It's really not a normal, straighforward handshake.

Then, if you would, read the section on handshake induction in the Wiki article about Erickson I linked you to.

Sorry to ask this of you, but I don't think you're going to grasp the paradigm of confusion hypnosis that was developed by Erickson otherwise. Once you grasp it you'll see how Derren's handshake fits perfectly neatly into it, and there's no reason to suppose he's feigning it. If it's any consolation, I once asked Fz+ a question in a thread and his answer caused me to have to read a whole book to understand the point he made in his reply.

 

[zoobyshoe]

While "under hypnosis", which I'd say is poor wording to describe it, but common, so I'll go with it, you are perfectly aware of everything that's going on around you. It actually takes a very willing participant to do it properly and/or well and someone who knows how to focus their thoughts and concentrate well. And I never once lost sight of what was going on and actively evaluated all of the suggestions I was being given because I recall dismissing a few out of hand thinking, "No, I don't believe that". It didn't disrupt the hypnosis session, it just meant that my core beliefs weren't shaken in the process.

I'm curious: did they administer a suggestibility assessment at any point? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotic_susceptibility

Form A

Based upon the scale developed by Joseph Friedlander and Theodore Sarbin (1938), this form was developed to measure susceptibility to hypnosis with items increasing in difficulty in order to yield a score. The higher the score, the more responsive one is to hypnosis. Following a standardized hypnotic induction, the hypnotized individual is given suggestions pertaining to the list below.
Item Number Test Suggestion and Responses
1 Postural Sway
2 Eye Closure
3 Hand Lowering (left)
4 Immobilization (right arm)
5 Finger Lock
6 Arm Rigidity (left arm)
7 Hands Moving Together
8 Verbal Inhibition (name)
9 Hallucination (fly)
10 Eye catalepsy
11 Post-hypnotic (changes chairs)
12 Amnesia

 

[GeorginaS]

That's an interesting test list, zooby, because it sounds similar to the check-list run through by every stage magician I've ever seen perform. We had a stage hypnotist perform at one of our corporate Christmas parties, and the people from my office who participated were a) hams and uninhibited to begin with and b) reported afterwards that they were in a light trance state at the beginning of the performance but it didn't sustain throughout, even though they continued to participate. Again, all anecdotal.

The private sessions I attended that had a definitive purpose, no, didn't feature any of that "responsiveness" chart testing. I've watched documentaries discussing more modern testing involving hypnosis that's applied for practical purposes. It strikes me, though, that beliefs about hypnosis in 1938 may be out of date and fairly antiquated.

But a straight answer to your question: no, there was no suggestibility assessment administered.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But a straight answer to your question: no, there was no suggestibility assessment administered.

How do you think you'd rate, say on #9? If the hypnotist directed you to hear the sound of a fly buzzing, would you be able to hear that so vividly it would be indistinguishable from a real fly?

 

[GeorginaS]

How do you think you'd rate, say on #9? If the hypnotist directed you to hear the sound of a fly buzzing, would you be able to hear that so vividly it would be indistinguishable from a real fly?

I can't answer that because he didn't make any attempts at redirecting my attention or calling my attention to external stimulus.

The best way that I can describe the hypnosis that I participated in was him aiding me in relaxing to the point of achieving a meditative state (now, please, I'm not being literal, here, I'm simply using words that I think can illustrate the situation) and, once I achieved that state, he then had a discussion with my "subconscious mind" to help me with behaviour modification. Once we were finished, I haven't ever experienced such an intense feeling of internal warmth and satisfaction and comfort and general sense of well being. And the behaviour modification worked, too.