Uncovering the Truth Behind Hypnotism: A Critical Analysis

  • Thread starter Frenemy90210
  • Start date
As for the knitting needle experiment, the needle is not actually being pushed into the skin. The hypnotic subject's mind is actively participating in the creation of an illusion. As @aufbauwerk2045 said, you are no doubt referring to a time when you were a young boy and you were not in a position to understand what was happening. What you saw was an illusion, and there is no room for pseudoscience in this discussion. Pseudoscience is nonsense.In summary, hypnosis is a well-studied and accepted psychological phenomenon that involves a focused state of consciousness. It is often used for therapeutic purposes and can also be used to create illusions or perform impressive feats under the guidance
  • #1
Frenemy90210
Is Hypnotism real ? I highly suspect it pseudoscience. Any comments ?

( I am talking about claims of super human abilities, cure addictions etc.)

[mod edit: changed "super natural" into "super human"]
 
  • Like
Likes ISamson
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think no one on this forum will accept the idea of "super natural abilties" since it's a physics forum.

On the other hand, when I was a boy I witnessed at close range some of my distant relatives who were interested in hypnotism. A man hypnotized a woman and then literally pushed a long metal knitting needle through her hand. I was just a few feet from her and it did not bother her at all. She seemed to be in a trance of some kind. I still don't know what to make of it. I decided then to stay far away from similar demonstrations. It was too disturbing. I would be curious, however, if there is peer-reviewed research confirming that hypnotism can truly shut off a person's pain awareness. I mean done in a legitimate controlled situation in a respected laboratory.

p.s. I suspect this thread will be closed any moment now ...
 
  • Like
Likes ISamson
  • #3
Frenemy90210 said:
Is Hypnotism real ? I highly suspect it pseudoscience. Any comments?
( I am talking about claims of supernatural abilities, cure addictions etc.)

A couple of points.

1) From your profile page, I see that you are a new member, having joined Sept. 9; so perhaps you haven't yet become familiar with forum guidelines on how to post & how to comment? I recommend using the Info menu at the top of the page; this gives you access to "Terms and Rules" and also "Help/How-To". If you click on "Terms and Rules" this will bring you to a thread on "Physics Forums Global Guidelines." The first topic in that thread gives tips and requirements for posting, including this one for starting new topics:

In general, one should attempt to flesh out questions and arguments adequately enough that readers will have a good understanding of the issue.​

Typically "fleshing out" means providing context and/or examples drawn from acceptable scientific sources, e.g. textbooks, science journals, etc. Basically, before you post on a topic, it's suggested that you learn enough about that topic that you can ask a targeted or specific question rather than an overly broad or clearly uninformed question, as you have done here ("I suspect," etc.). It's easy enough to go to Wikipedia, for example, and read their article on Hypnosis as a start; that might suggest further reading; etc. This goes for all topics - the more specific the question, the better. Typically persons who post, if they are not students or professionals, are at the least enthusiastic amateurs in a particular area, e.g. cosmology or what have you. Thus they ask highly focused questions, usually based on textbooks or journal articles or "popular science" books/TV shows, or on homework or previous discussions, etc.

2) As @Aufbauwerk 2045 hints when he says "I suspect this thread will be closed any moment now," the Global Guidelines also make clear that extended discussion of pseudo-science is discouraged on PF. In this case, for example, it may be tempting to initiate a thread condemning misleading uses of hypnotism; but lengthy debunking and/or denunciation of this sort isn't really part of the PF mission. The forums are for learning & sharing actual science only. Now & then a brief discussion of pseudoscience does turn up, I imagine; but if so it will be supported by one or more credible scientific sources and the purpose will generally be educational or scholarly. If you want to get a feel for why this is so, I suggest searching the "Feedback and Announcements" forum for the key word "pseudoscience"; you'll get many hits.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes I like Serena, Evo and MarkFL
  • #4
Hypnosis, an area of psychology, is best thought of as simply a focussed state of consciousness. Maybe it lends itself to entertainment in the form of stage hypnosis, but that is a lot of hype and involves a degree of trickery and sleight of hand. Stage hypnosis is not a serious study and should not be confused with the basic phenomenon of hypnosis.

The hypnotic state is nothing outside our daily experience, in fact. Everybody enters the hypnotic state of their own accord at least twice per day, first as you pass from wakefulness to sleep, and again some time later fleetingly as you rouse from light sleep into wakefulness. It is their understanding of the psychology of the mind that allows trained hypnotists to guide a willing subject into this state and hold them there for some time. Most people will enter a light hypnotic state a number of times throughout the day, and rarely be aware of doing so; though those around them might notice them seeming "distant", daydreaming, or preoccupied and in deep thought.

There are some impressive feats that can be demonstrated in the hypnotic state under guidance from the hypnotist, but nothing that could be categorised as "pseudoscience" or "supernatural", and I think you are probably misunderstanding the claims made. It's all explainable by the fact that one can become very highly focussed to the exclusion of most distractions. [Frenemy, I believe you probably meant "superhuman" where you wrote "supernatural"?]

Hypnosis is frequently used to help people give up smoking, or nail-biting, or manage anxiety, etc. It can be used for many helpful things, including anaesthesia to allow painless surgery. The invention of safe chemical anaesthetics saw hypnosis almost disappear from surgery just when it was about to blossom, but in rare cases hypnosis is still employed where other considerations can justify the lengthy amount of time needed beforehand by the patient to learn to be hypnotised. One doesn't just turn up out of the blue and at the snap of fingers drop into deep hypnosis. For each patient, there needs to be multiple sessions of prior training and practice in the weeks beforehand to achieve that feat. (It may be viewed as a worthwhile investment, because with only periodic refreshing, the ability to drop into the hypnotic state at the click of the hypnotist's fingers once learned can stay with you for life.) There is no magic here, nothing remotely supernatural. As to the question, is hypnosis real, yes, it's as real as falling asleep and waking up again.

I'll leave this thread open in case Frenemy has some specific point he wanted to discuss at length.
 
  • Like
Likes I like Serena, Asymptotic, Tom.G and 3 others
  • #5
Frenemy90210 said:
Is Hypnotism real ? I highly suspect it pseudoscience.
The susceptibility of some people to hypnotism is "real". But beliefs about is may not be.

Here is an article on pain management. Note that hypnosis is not the only non-medicinal therapy. Meditation is also suggested.
http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/hypnosis-meditation-and-relaxation-for-pain-treatment#1

Here is an article that addresses the pain issue more directly:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11916-008-0019-0
 
  • Like
Likes Aufbauwerk 2045
  • #6
Just a few questions, Aufbauwerk 2045, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or skeptical..... :oldsmile:
Aufbauwerk 2045 said:
A man hypnotized a woman and then literally pushed a long metal knitting needle through her hand.
Do you remember seeing the needle appear from the other side of her hand... ?
Was the woman one of your relatives... ?
 
  • #7
OCR said:
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or skeptical..... :oldsmile:

Not meaning to derail the thread, but I think skepticism is a very good trait to have. I don't accept anything without compelling evidence to back it. :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes davidge
  • #8
@NascentOxygen tried to keep this thread on target.

1. Yes a lot of hypnosis stuff out there is nonsense. Yes, we can shut the thread.
2. There is some actual scientific basis for a subset of what you may have read. Keeping the thread open in hopes of decent posts is what we want to happen.

Point: We got that it has problems, so let's discuss the fraction of it that is correct and interesting. Or @Aufbauwerk 2045 -- his prediction will come true.

I, for one, do not have knowledge in this area, and it would be nice to learn. Perhaps @Pythagorean or @DiracPool have some input.
 
  • Like
Likes I like Serena
  • #9
NascentOxygen said:
The invention of safe chemical anaesthetics saw hypnosis almost disappear from surgery just when it was about to blossom, but in rare cases hypnosis is still employed where other considerations can justify the lengthy amount of time needed beforehand by the patient to learn to be hypnotised. One doesn't just turn up out of the blue and at the snap of fingers drop into deep hypnosis. For each patient, there needs to be multiple sessions of prior training and practice in the weeks beforehand to achieve that feat.

In regards to the point @NascentOxygen makes here (I have bolded the relevant sentences), I found the study abstract posted by @.Scott to be quite interesting - here is that link again, and the study title is "Is high hypnotic suggestibility necessary for successful hypnotic pain intervention?", from a 2008 publication, Current Headache and Pain Reports. Here's a portion of the abstract; I have again bolded what especially caught my eye:

Research with standardized measures of hypnotic suggestibility has demonstrated that there are substantial individual differences in this variable. Higher suggestibility has been found to be associated with greater relief from hypnotic pain interventions. Although individuals in the high suggestibility range show the strongest response to hypnotic analgesia, people of medium suggestibility, who represent approximately one third of the population, also have been found to obtain significant relief from hypnosis. Thus, high hypnotic suggestibility is not necessary for successful hypnotic pain intervention. However, the available evidence does not support the efficacy of hypnotic pain interventions for people who fall in the low hypnotic suggestibility range.

This suggests that if hypnosis is being considered for medical or health reasons, the practitioner must evaluate the potential of each individual patient, rather than assume that all patients are equally likely to benefit from such training.

Anecdotally, I can say that I once did try hypnosis a couple of years back for a minor chronic pain condition; I found it of zero benefit, and would guess (from the fairly extensive reading I've done on use of self-hypnosis, relaxation exercises, and imagery exercises for pain reduction and also for sleep) that I have low susceptibility. However, I unfortunately also got the strong impression that the practitioner I saw (referral through a local "alternative health center") was neither properly qualified nor ethical - among other things he tried to plant the suggestion, toward the end of the session, that I would be eager to come back for more of the same. He was mortified to discover I had been wide awake and very bored the entire time.

This raises the question of where a person would go to find someone who is both qualified and ethical. As far as I know, hypnosis per se is not regarded as a licensable profession in any state in the U.S.; thus although there is training and certification available via various organizations, there is no legal requirement; i.e. no parallel with requirements for licensing as there would be with psychologists or medical professionals.

So I am guessing that the best way to proceed (which I wish I had done), would probably be to find a licensed professional such as a psychologist, psychiatrist, anesthesiologist, etc., who has has gotten certification in hypnosis and uses it as an adjunct treatment. In fact, now I remember that the first psychotherapist I ever saw, back in my 20s, was trained in Ericksonian hypnosis; he tried it on me and again I remember, no result at all.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
This verifies licensure - such as it exists - for hypnotherapists in some but not all states:
http://www.hypnotherapistsunion.org/statelaws

Example of a school with licensure
http://hypnotherapyacademy.com/licensure-approvals/

I am not clear at all what defines hypnosis as a state of mind - being a biologist:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8244843
This says that there are electroencephalogram data to support changes during the hypnotic state - for some subjects.
10 low-hypnotizable and 9 highly-hypnotizable and right-handed female students participated in one experimental session.
There were differences between the low and highly groups. I'm still not sure what this means, if anything, other than there was a 40Hz band (analyzed with FFT) that showed differences between the two groups.

As of April 2016 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873672/
states:
The efficacy and safety of hypnotic techniques in somatic medicine, known as medical hypnosis, have not been supported to date by adequate scientific evidence.

So far, a big no, hypnosis at least as I showed here is not a functional procedure for medical applications.
 
  • #11
jim mcnamara said:
I am not clear at all what defines hypnosis as a state of mind

That question - we might even say dispute - makes up a big chunk of the Wikipedia article. Obviously since hypnosis goes back to Mesmer in the late 1700s, there have been a lot of proposed models since; but even today apparently there is not a lot of agreement. To get the flavor, dive into the "State vs. non-state" section in the Wiki article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis#State_versus_nonstate_debate; it has a lot of subsections that offer this model vs. that.
 
  • #13
jim mcnamara said:
So far, a big no, hypnosis at least as I showed here is not a functional procedure for medical applications.

Wait, what you quoted was the background portion of the abstract - here it is again:
The efficacy and safety of hypnotic techniques in somatic medicine, known as medical hypnosis, have not been supported to date by adequate scientific evidence.

Whereas the conclusion part of the abstract says this:
Medical hypnosis is a safe and effective complementary technique for use in medical procedures and in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Waking suggestions can be a component of effective doctor–patient communication in routine clinical situations.
And jumping to the actual conclusion they say this:
Hypnosis techniques have long been used—and their efficacy assessed—in somatic medicine. The modern evidence-based indications (emotional stress associated with medical interventions, functional disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome) correspond with the applications of mesmerism in medicine in the middle of the 19th century (e5). Learning techniques of self-hypnosis empowers patients to participate in their own treatment and grants them independence. Hypnosis techniques such as the building of a trusting relationship with the patient and therapeutic waking suggestions can considerably reinforce the communicative competence of physicians (15).

But I must say the conclusion as presented in the abstract seems to make a stronger statement than the actual conclusion.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
There is nothing supernatural about hypnotism, nor is it in any way outside the scope of science.
 
  • #15
jim mcnamara said:
I, for one, do not have knowledge in this area, and it would be nice to learn. Perhaps @Pythagorean or @DiracPool have some input.

I'm not an expert either, but I think hypnotherapy is not quack science. That's not to say that they're not quacks doing it, it's just that there is something real to it. I regularly go into trance daily. I do transcendental meditation twice a day for 20 minutes, have done so since the late 80's. Plus, circa 2010, I've compiled my favorite hypnosis and guided meditation videos from youtube and get into these as often as time allows.

What the biology behind this? Who knows and who cares, it works. I can offer some suggestions (pun intended). One theory is that the idea is to put your left brain to sleep so that the right brain can accept your suggestions without the "screen" of your analytical left brain. Personally, I do think that is what is going on. But to defend that position would take up a lot of space here, which I might be willing to defend, but at the end of the day will probably be inconclusive anyway, so why bother.

The bottom line is that hypnotherapy is not a hoax. The condition, though, is that you have to be willing to accept it and not be skeptical. If you are resistant to it then it won't work. It may not work in any case, but your best chance with it is to yield to the mystic. What's the alternative? Yielding has worked for me. I've reaped great rewards from meditation and hypnosis.
 
  • Like
Likes ddjj77
  • #16
DiracPool said:
What the biology behind this? Who knows and who cares, it works.

That's the slippery slope right there. In this case to say "who knows, who cares, it works" may seem harmless; but the exact same claim is routinely uttered in support of harmful and/or unscientific fads in diet, psychology, and medicine; not to mention in support of nonsense such as dowsing, psychic detection, etc. And you can be sure there is are unqualified, unethical hypnotists who give bogus explanations to their clients about how "it works." That is part of the danger of saying "who knows and who cares" - it gives license to the unqualified to manipulate the naive.

Regarding meditation and guided imagery and so on, it may seem harmless to say "who cares" about these practices in particular, because so many of us do meditate or use guided imagery; and whatever phenomena are involved seem both universal and for the most part safe; if we didn't have science we would still be meditating. But remember, hypnosis is different than these other practices. Again, hypnosis has been misrepresented by stage acts & dubious practitioners ever since it was introduced by Mesmer; so we ought to be be careful and not shrug & say "who knows who cares"; that is not a useful attitude on a forum concerned with not only science but education and responsible use of science.

Even with meditation, we ought not to say "who knows, who cares." Myself, I meditate often; I use imagery; I practice relaxation exercises; etc. And I understand that these practices are historically ancient & validated in multiple cultures, e.g. meditation and mysticism have lengthy histories in both the East and West. But to go from that to saying "who cares" ? Let me tell you who cares: I care; a lot of other interested laypersons care; a lot of medical professionals who draw on meditation skills to help with physical problems care; and many, many scientists care. All of these persons want to understand meditation better, as a way of improving its usefulness and making sure it is used safely (and yes, it is possible for meditation to be dangerous for the mental health of some persons - see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2017-05-26-does-meditation-carry-a-risk-of-harmful-side-effects/ for a non-hysterical review of this issue).

Beyond that, with many practices, other important phenomena are often involved that have been brought out and examined by science. For example, imagery exercises & relaxation exercises can be practiced in such a way (if a practitioner has the education to know to do this) so as to not only lower physiological arousal, but also build a conditioned response that increases the power of the exercises - for example, to help persons who suffer with insomnia associate doing the exercises with falling back to sleep. Building this sort of association can also reduce worry about falling back to sleep, something we know about via cognitive behavioral science. (Myself, I know all this because I have worked a sleep psychologist.) If science hadn't cared enough to investigate conditioned response and cognitive behavior, then we wouldn't have such knowledge; and our use of imagery and relaxation exercises would be that much less effective. We should be glad scientists in the area of behavior & psychology don't have a "who knows, who cares" attitude.

DiracPool said:
The bottom line is that hypnotherapy is not a hoax. The condition, though, is that you have to be willing to accept it and not be skeptical. If you are resistant to it then it won't work. It may not work in any case, but your best chance with it is to yield to the mystic.
Lastly, to attempt to give instruction to others about how to approach something like hypnosis, which @DiracPool has done in his comment, is also a mistake. It has already been well-established in this thread (see my earlier comment) that people vary in their susceptibility; this is not a trait under their control, so they cannot simply will themselves to be open; here again actual science is more useful than personal experience based on an n of 1. Obviously DiracPool meant to be helpful; but over time harm can be done by such statements by misleading people, e.g. telling them to expect something that may not be possible for them, thus leading them to feel it is their fault for not being "open" enough, etc. In a nutshell, if we are going to take hypnosis seriously, then please, let us not try to pretend we ourselves are expert practitioners and can ignore actual studies of hypnosis in telling other people what to do.

A final point which I feel is important: Unfortunately, here on PF, discussions that touch on psychology too often go downhill. The hard sciences of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, etc., along with mathematics and computer science, are treated with rigor; but the so-called soft sciences of economics, psychology, sociology, etc. are treated with a laissez faire attitude or even at times explicit disdain. @jim mcnamara has been a rare and welcome exception to this trend, as he makes a real effort to introduce rigor to questions that involve physiology but verge on psychology as well. But the danger is always present that threads like this will stray away from science. If we truly do care about the underlying values that science & education represent, we should make an effort to honor those values even in fields where we are not personally knowledgeable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Drakkith and Bandersnatch
  • #17
DiracPool said:
I can offer some suggestions (pun intended). One theory is that the idea is to put your left brain to sleep so that the right brain can accept your suggestions without the "screen" of your analytical left brain. Personally, I do think that is what is going on. But to defend that position would take up a lot of space here, which I might be willing to defend, but at the end of the day will probably be inconclusive anyway, so why bother.

"Left brain goes to sleep so right brain can be seduced" seems a rather unpopular model for hypnosis. I did a web search in Google Scholar and didn't see any obvious hits for it - with one exception, an explainer article from the 2006 Journal of holistic healthcare, by a medical education specialist & hypnosis practitioner, Ursula James. At a glance she appears to have good credentials. Of the left/right brain model she says this:

One such theory relates to the perceived functions of the left and right hemispheres of the brain. As a subject enters hypnosis, they become less analytical of the process, and move to a more sensory and image-based event. In this way it can be theorized that as a subject enters hypnosis their left brain is inhibited and the right becomes more active. As we are aware that the theory of 'left brain - logical and right brain - creative' is no longer considered an accurate representation of the brain, this theory of why suggestions made in hypnosis are more effective than those made out of hypnosis loses some impact. However studies have shown that during hypnosis there is an increase in blood flow in the cortex, with associated activation of the temporal centres for acoustic attention, and an increase in alpha wave production in the right hemisphere during emotional states.

Even though we know that the brain does not exclusively partition information into left and right hemisphere roles, this varying brain activation does lead us to the conclusion that hypnosis is having a very real impact on the stimulation and suppression of varying brain centres.​

That last sentence pretty much dismisses a simple "left vs. right" model, given that "varying brain centres" is a very broad phrase and does not stipulate a strictly hemispheric division of cognitive function, whether analytic vs. intuitive, conscious vs. unconscious, etc.; but rather something much more complex.

More generally, what James is alluding to is that the notion of intuitive right brain vs. "analytical" left brain was exploded some time ago as simplistic and inaccurate. In this light, it seems unlikely to represent a viable model not only for hypnosis, but for much of anything else. James was writing in 2006; more recently, in 2013, news outlets such as. The Guardian and NPR carried articles about an fMRI study at the University of Utah that further refuted any notion of broad organization of personal traits (e.g. creative or intuitive vs. rational or logical) based on left-right division; link to that study here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071275#s4

However an interesting blog article from Psychology Today suggests the myth of left/right, analytical/intuitive persists in pseudo-science and popular thinking because there are indeed some left-right distinctions in brain function; the difficulty is, these distinctions are narrower than popularly supposed, e.g. although the left does the bulk of language processing, some of this processing is done by the right side; also the left side is involved in some aspects of what we would call creativity, etc. Link to that article here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...rain-right-brain-myth-will-probably-never-die
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Drakkith and Bandersnatch
  • #18
This thread contains too much personal theories and not enough actual science.

Time to close.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
  • #19
UsableThought said:
This suggests that if hypnosis is being considered for medical or health reasons, the practitioner must evaluate the potential of each individual patient, rather than assume that all patients are equally likely to benefit from such training.
A realistic interpretation is that patients lower on the susceptibility scale may require additional therapy sessions in order to report effective pain relief, or may require a therapist more versatile in improvising, in personalising his approach to more closely dovetail with the needs of each patient. For success with hypnotherapy, motivation is crucial, outweighing susceptibility. Besides, susceptibility testing is not infallible.

Expect to have to shop around before finding a hypnotherapist who you can warm to and whose manner inspires confidence. Some subjects do well with an authoritarian figure, others feel more at ease with a relaxed, less intimidating approach. You shouldn't expect a single session to be sufficient, even though Milton Erickson in his day may have prided himself on exactly that.

With pain being the body's warning signal, and hypnotic pain management involving symptom removal, it is essential to consult with a physician to rule out any undiagnosed condition responsible for pain.

Thread re-closed.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman

1. Is hypnotism real or just a form of entertainment?

Hypnotism is a real phenomenon that has been studied and practiced for centuries. While it is often used as a form of entertainment, it has also been shown to have therapeutic and medical benefits.

2. How does hypnotism work?

Hypnotism works by inducing a trance-like state in a person, during which they are more open to suggestion and their subconscious mind is more accessible. This can be achieved through relaxation techniques, focused attention, and repetition of suggestions by a hypnotist.

3. Can anyone be hypnotized?

Most people can be hypnotized to some extent, but the depth of hypnosis may vary from person to person. Some individuals may be more susceptible to hypnotic suggestions than others, and factors such as belief in hypnosis, trust in the hypnotist, and ability to relax can also play a role.

4. Are there any risks associated with hypnotism?

For the majority of people, hypnotism is a safe practice. However, there are potential risks such as false memories, emotional distress, and susceptibility to suggestion. It is important to seek out a trained and ethical hypnotist to minimize these risks.

5. Can hypnotism be used to uncover repressed memories?

There is no scientific evidence to support the use of hypnosis for uncovering repressed memories. In fact, it has been shown that hypnosis can actually create false memories. It is important to seek out other forms of therapy for processing traumatic memories.

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
208
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
782
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
722
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
Back
Top