[mooeypoo]

Okay, I agree, and I see what you mean. I didn't mean to come off too condescending; it struck me as odd that the OP makes what I found as definitive claims and then shift the argument.

You are right, though, and I might have gotten carried away. I still slightly disagree with minor points you're making as to the way I understood the posts, but the bigger point about attitude makes them rather moot.


In any case, I think post #4, which is a rather blatant shift of the argument, drove me a bit farther into frustration and hence condescension. I apologize.

[Iggy]

mooeypoo, on 10 November 2011 - 03:37 AM, said:

Quote

I read the post as "does this not point at something science doesn't understand -- i.e. a 'mystery'?", rather than "is it impossible for science to understand this?" Judging by the literature, the answer would be "yes," because the mechanisms of hypnosis in pain control are poorly understood. granadina would have to verify my interpretation.

Wait, the fact that the mechanism is poorly understood doesn't mean it's *impossible* for science to understand it.

It might be -- and that's something I'm actually in complete agreement with -- that we didn't research it enough. Or, alternatively, that we don't have the proper tools just yet to completely understand all the effects.

That said, I want to emphasize, again, that there seem to be two main issues here. Whether or not hypnosis works, and to what extent. The scientific literature seems to support the idea that hypnosis works, even though it's not quite clear *how* (which is something science SHOULD be able to fix given time, resources and more data).

However, it seems to me that the OP jumps to the conclusion that therefore hypnosis works to a relatively *extreme* extent. That's fine, but he supplied no proof for that, which is why I raised a flag.

Hate to muddy waters, but there is a perfect symmetry here that is too hard not to point out.

No one knows why the most popular general anesthetic works either (diprivan). Its mechanism of action is at least as unknown as the mechanism of action of hypnosis, so these two questions stand on a perfectly level playing field:

• General anesthesia results from hypnotic agents, but science can’t explain why. There are limits to scientific knowledge, right?
  
• General anesthesia results from hypnosis, but science can’t explain why. There are limits to scientific knowledge, right?

The perfect control question. The first would be easy to answer, "yes".

The second feels more like the kind of mistake in reasoning that Steve Jobs recently paid a heavy price for making. No easy answer for sure.

This post has been edited by Iggy: 10 November 2011 - 05:02 AM

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

mooeypoo, on 10 November 2011 - 04:45 AM, said:

Okay, I agree, and I see what you mean. I didn't mean to come off too condescending; it struck me as odd that the OP makes what I found as definitive claims and then shift the argument.

I'm not surprised -- if I posted something and got immediately beaten over the head for it, I'd probably change my argument, too. "Your argument is wrong, but you're not allowed to change it, because I'd rather berate you for being wrong" is rather silly.

Generally when I see a thread like this, I post something like "Hm. I haven't heard of hypnosis being used as a general anesthetic before. Do you have examples?" I still get the information I want, and I can then assess the validity of the argument.

[PhDwannabe]

Quote

Okay, I agree, and I see what you mean. I didn't mean to come off too condescending; it struck me as odd that the OP makes what I found as definitive claims and then shift the argument.

You are right, though, and I might have gotten carried away. I still slightly disagree with minor points you're making as to the way I understood the posts, but the bigger point about attitude makes them rather moot.


In any case, I think post #4, which is a rather blatant shift of the argument, drove me a bit farther into frustration and hence condescension. I apologize.

Awwww, a charitable admission of one's overreach, apology, and polite explanation. It warms my heart. How often do we see any of this here? Cheers to the lady.



hugs mooeypoo

[charles brough]

granadina, on 9 November 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

That was helpful .

The fact that it was a complete success , with someone extremely susceptible to hypnosis ;
Does this not point at a ' mystery zone ' which is still beyond the grasp of science ?

Whatever caused this , had to do with the power of suggestion !
So perhaps a lot more is possible with the Psyche than we are aware of ..

As a tecnique, hypnosis should not be judged just on whether or not it is safe in surgery as seens to be the case in this thread. I have experience with hypnosis and consider it possible in the right type of patient but extremely impractical as it has to be preceeded by staged sessions in preparation and only with susceptable patients.

But is it impossible? No, there are people who can eliminate all pain themselves. This takes years of study and self-suggestion.

I feel it is important to know the subject because it leads to the individual having a better awareness of propaganda techniques, advertising tricks, etc.

[RichardSnodgrass]

Hypnosis is a very dangerous thing to experiment with...only experts can hypnotize people correctly, and even they make mistakes which can damage a person psychologically. Hypnosis is a mild form of brainwashing, and brainwashing can damage people if they are programmed outside thier normal behavoral pattern...such BAD programming can result in several disorders from PTSD to Schizo Affective Disorder...Hypnosis is a psychiatric mental surgery and can cause mental damage if done imprecisely.

granadina, on 8 November 2011 - 05:09 AM, said:

Hypnosis is not regarded as a science .
Yet its use in surgery as anaesthesia has been recorded and verified .

If the power of suggestion can visibly alter the human physiology and render a body part immune to
pain , doesn't the idea of proven science leave much to be desired ?

This post has been edited by RichardSnodgrass: 12 December 2011 - 03:37 PM

[charles brough]

RichardSnodgrass, on 12 December 2011 - 03:26 PM, said:

Hypnosis is a very dangerous thing to experiment with...only experts can hypnotize people correctly, and even they make mistakes which can damage a person psychologically. Hypnosis is a mild form of brainwashing, and brainwashing can damage people if they are programmed outside thier normal behavoral pattern...such BAD programming can result in several disorders from PTSD to Schizo Affective Disorder...Hypnosis is a psychiatric mental surgery and can cause mental damage if done imprecisely.

Yes, like anything useful, it can also be very dangerous.

[PhDwannabe]

Quote

Hypnosis is a very dangerous thing to experiment with...only experts can hypnotize people correctly, and even they make mistakes which can damage a person psychologically. Hypnosis is a mild form of brainwashing, and brainwashing can damage people if they are programmed outside thier normal behavoral pattern...such BAD programming can result in several disorders from PTSD to Schizo Affective Disorder...Hypnosis is a psychiatric mental surgery and can cause mental damage if done imprecisely.

"Brainwashing," in the form that people usually take the term to mean, does not exist.

Hypnosis is a social exchange. It cannot do anything to people that people won't do when simply asked to pretend they're hypnotized--decades of empirical work show us so. It is not "mental surgery" any more than, suppose, an intense conversation might be. It cannot cause any more "mental damage" than an intense conversation might. There is no magic about it, and it is about as dangerous as a Ouija Board.

PTSD, by the way, stems from a traumatic event involving threat to life or bodily integrity. Hypnosis does not cause it. Schizoaffective disorder appears to be solidly on the schizophrenia spectrum, and seems to be a largely organic illness. Hypnosis is not going to cause it.

If you have some kind of citation from a modern, high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific source about the great dangers of hypnosis, I'd love to see it. Showmen, religious zealots, and quacks are all too ready to tell you about its dangers, which should probably tell you something about how dangerous it is.

To give you the briefest of overviews, hypnosis:
1) mildly entertaining
2) of limited clinical utility
3) not magic
4) not dangerous

[charles brough]

PhDwannabe, on 13 December 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:

"Brainwashing," in the form that people usually take the term to mean, does not exist.

Hypnosis is a social exchange. It cannot do anything to people that people won't do when simply asked to pretend they're hypnotized--decades of empirical work show us so. It is not "mental surgery" any more than, suppose, an intense conversation might be. It cannot cause any more "mental damage" than an intense conversation might. There is no magic about it, and it is about as dangerous as a Ouija Board.

PTSD, by the way, stems from a traumatic event involving threat to life or bodily integrity. Hypnosis does not cause it. Schizoaffective disorder appears to be solidly on the schizophrenia spectrum, and seems to be a largely organic illness. Hypnosis is not going to cause it.

If you have some kind of citation from a modern, high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific source about the great dangers of hypnosis, I'd love to see it. Showmen, religious zealots, and quacks are all too ready to tell you about its dangers, which should probably tell you something about how dangerous it is.

To give you the briefest of overviews, hypnosis:
1) mildly entertaining
2) of limited clinical utility
3) not magic
4) not dangerous

I'll accept your assessment of clinical studies. However, my experience is not consistent with that. I have seen and experienced what the focussing of one's concentration can achieve, a feat specific to hypnosis. I make no claim it achieves anything functionally or mentally or physiologically impossible.

In a field requiring a certain type of awesome personality to master the technique, a field dominated by showmanship, and a heritage of "animal magnatism," no research academics could further their career by demonstrating what it can and does do.

[PhDwannabe]

Quote

However, my experience is not consistent with that.

Hopefully, you realize that your personal experience is not really to be trusted within a scientific sphere, but rather, doubted quite strongly.

Quote

In a field requiring a certain type of awesome personality to master the technique, a field dominated by showmanship, and a heritage of "animal magnatism," no research academics could further their career by demonstrating what it can and does do.

I have to admit that this statement does not betray a whole lot of knowledge about the way psychological research works.