Talk:Hypnosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older comments are archived to the 2003-2005 archive.

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

To-do list for Hypnosis:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Sections/info to be added: Clinical observations of various depths of hypnosis Eye changes -eye twitching much like REM sleep Movements of head - other random voluntary muscle twitches Character of breathing Limpness of limbs Lid catalepsy Arm catalepsy Therapeutic Applications Overcomming addictions Subliminal Mind Therapy More controversial applications Psychological trauma (using memory re-call inter alia) Memory-recall Pain management Overcoming physical limits Regression Hypnotic Dreamwork

• • • • • New Info Shows That Hypnosis is possible to trigger with extemely repetitive music under the correct frequency.****

Contents 1 Degree of susceptibility to hypnotism 2 Clinical Hypnosis 3 Clinical applications 4 Hoorah! 5 Glad to see activity here, but... 6 APA definition 7 Archives 8 Next? 9 Spam? 10 You are getting sleepy 11 History subsections 12 Monitoring Foolish Additions? 13 Stylistic changes 14 Physiology definitions 15 Hypnosis suggestibility scale 16 History First? 17 Wikiswing picture 18 Dates in subsection headings 19 Length of Article 20 Hmm... 21 Hypnosis for weight loss? 22 Separate Stage Hypnosis Section? 23 Definitions Getting Too Big? 24 I hate the "Hypnotic Seance, by Richard Bergh" painting 25 Hock R. R. (2005) does anyone have a link to this paper/book 26 Is "Life of Gods" notable? 27 Kevin Stone (Celebrity Hypnotist) 28 Complex hybrid of social compliance - NPOV 29 cycles per second 30 Skeptical Position

[edit] Degree of susceptibility to hypnotism

I once heard a medical hypnotist on a television show (one of those weekly medical stories ones) describe what percentage of people react in what way to hypnosis. He claimed approx. 10% of people appear immune, 10% are particularly vulnerable to it (as in much more easily hypnotized than other people), and that the remaining 80% fall somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure how true it was so if anyone has any information on how different people respond to hypnosis I think it would be good for the article. U R A GR8 M8 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical Hypnosis

Why does the article seem to distinguish between "clinical hypnosis" and "hypnotherapy". Is this an Americanism? In the UK, at least, these two terms are completely synonymous. --HypnoSynthesis 23:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, yes, they are synonymous. Typically, different words have been used because of different state laws. For example, in California (where I'm becoming a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist), you CANNOT use the word "psychotherapist" or "therapist" (and a couple others) without having a license. It's also somewhat of a marketting issue. The lay-public might be more acceptable of hypnotherapy than hypnosis BECAUSE of the word "therapy" in it. Don't ask me... I don't make the rules. DrMattGomes 21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Shouldn't this be made explicit in the article? I've encountered a few people over the years who seemed to think hypnosis and hypnotherapy are essentially different things and this phrasing could foster that misconception.--HypnoSynthesis 09:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! We'll be sure to stomp on it and change it once you've put all your hard work into it! DrMattGomes 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just added Experimental hypnosis vs. clinical hypnosis. I hope that it clears up the ambiguity for youLindsay658 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The piece that I inserted a couple of hours ago has been removed by an unregistered user (71.229.179.186) with a tag “reversion due to vandalism”. Apart from the fact that my addition was not vandalism, it was also and most certainly 100% appropriate to this overall article. As well, it is also necessary to clarify the issues that have been raised raised by HypnoSynthesis. I am restoring my piece and I would respectfully ask that others associated with this article treat any future intrusions by this unregistered user or others associated with him/her/them in relation to my contribution as a case of genuinely malicious “vandalism”.Lindsay658 10:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical applications

The section about clinical applications seems a little sparse.

Research has demonstrated that hypnosis on its own can play a role in changing quality of life, for example in patients receiving painful medical treatments (e.g., Liossa & Hatira, 2003).

Liossi & White (2001) report that hypnosis produces greater changes in perceived quality of life, and reduced anxiety and depression in patients terminally ill with cancer when compared to patients receiving standard care.

When hypnosis is coupled with other forms of intervention, for example CBT (e.g., Kirsch, Montgomery, & Sapirstein, 1995) or anaesthetic (e.g., Faymonville, Meurisse, & Fissette, 1999) it enhances the effectiveness of the original treatment.

Witz and Kahn (1991) describe two cases where hypnosis was used as an intervention with two patients suffering from Huntingdon’s Disease. They describe how hypnotic techniques reduced both physical and psychological symptoms.

Simon and Canonico (2001) - hypnosis in reducing distress in a patient with dementia who was also needle phobic. They report success in reducing the anxiety of this patient whose intellectual functioning was “determined to be significantly lower than her premorbid estimate” (Simon and Canonico, 2001, p. 60).

Welden and Yesavage (1982) - further support for the use of hypnotic techniques with a dementing population. 24 matched pairs of patients with dementia attended either a relaxation-training group or a current affairs discussion group for 1 hour 3 times a week over a 3 month period. Patients learning self-hypnosis showed improvement on ratings of behavioural function compared with the control group and additionally just over 40% no longer were in need of sleeping medication, whereas none of the control group was able to discontinue using their sleep medication.

Some recent work by Duff & Nightingale (2006) shows changes across various measures of quality of life in individuals with dementia, compared to two groups (one treatment as usual, one a discussion group).

I should point out that this is the first time I have tried to put something on Wikipedia so apologise if I have gone about it the wrong way. NortiRaskal 16:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

These seem very recent, but throw a few of them in if you want. We might want to throw in a few older references as well... DrMattGomes 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoorah!

Excellent edit, DrMattGomes! As far as I am concerned the 2 versions header can be removed. I would do that, and make a few minor edits, but as a gesture of good faith I will refrain for the nonce. Sam Spade 15:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. This file/discussion seems pretty big. Is there any way we can prune some of this down? DrMattGomes 17:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Sam Spade 19:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to see activity here, but...

I must admit, I dont find all the proceedings to be very constructive. For one, the intro does not anymore contain an actual intro to hypnosis. It should answer one core question: "what is hypnosis?", but this is not adressed at all.

Secondly, archiving threads from only a few days ago is a bit rude; Antaeus and I were in some kind of a discussion. Archiving threads which are dead for quite a while = good. Archiving active discussion = bad. Archiving active discussions of others = very bad.

Thirdly, inserting headings into an article without content, only referring to one single source does not constitute a very balanced article. For casual readers, it just looks plain silly. Either insert actual content, or dont insert a heading. I have marked them as stubs for the time being.

Fourthly, and not lastly, I think its a bad, very bad idea to just go ahead and do edits which are so clearly controversial. I have spent some time and energy on the talk page to forge some kind of consensus, and out of that emerged a reasonably balanced to-do list. Obviously, all these edits (barring the one by RDF) has totally ignored those attempts.

I cant be bothered to start an edit war, so I will suffice with this post instead. The fact that the editing on this controversial page has bypassed any attempt on consensus is very bad form. The Minister of War 14:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you opposing the progress being made here. I archived the discussion because I felt it was better to get a fresh start, and leave what appeared to me irreconcilable differences of opinion off the table. If you disagree, you may cut and paste from the archive onto this page, and I will not revert you.

Answering "what is hypnosis" is exactly what the article does now, explaining "The definitions of hypnosis are as varied as the definers". As far as the section headers, thats a common practice for building an article, and is a step towards getting a job done, not an acceptable final state. The point is that work is finially being done now, all thanks to DrMattGomes.

This brings me to your last, and most important point, with which I profoundly disagree, in the strongest possible sense. I believe I have been clear about this from the first to the last. We are here to write encyclopedia articles. If talk page discussion facilitates that, so be it. On this page, it largely has not. The reasons for that are obvious to me, but I will refrain from stating them. I will however say what I have always said, that the article badly needs rewritten by a knowledgable party. If that can't be me (and I am willing to step back so long as others are allowed to do the needed work), it must be someone. Thankfully DrMattGomes has begun some rather excellent (and amiable) contributions, and I intend to do what is necessary to see that they continue. Sam Spade 16:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. I agree with Sam around the "What is hypnosis?" issue. I don't see how we can put that in the introduction since noone really knows what hypnosis really is. I tried to introduce it the best way I knew how at the time. The details about hypnosis will be found in the main body of the article. An introduction is supposed to summarize what will be told further in the body. Perhaps we should eliminate the introduction altogether until the article is mostly completed.

My goal is to make edits to 1) remove judgemental sections/wording and 2) insert information that doesn't include any judgemental wording. I try to stay with facts as found in the research and, if there are different "facts" found (such as with the different theories), include the main ones such that the reader can make an informed judgement. To be honest, Kroger identifies MANY theories. I had to use my own judgement to select the more "mainstream" or "popular" ones. I have never heard of the theory of hypnosis as a "social construct", so I left it there until we can do more research around it. I also inserted a heading for my favorite theory on "what is hypnosis" (the "physiological" entry) and will enter information when I can. I find this theory to be more "palatable" to the general public.

Thank you Sam for putting in the "stubs". I didn't know whether it was appropriate to enter place-holders until I could put the content in. Looking at Wikipedia's entry on stubs, I'm happy to hear that it's an acceptable (temporary) methodology. DrMattGomes 17:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, its a work in progress. This is also a large reason for me not to intervene - it just might turn out pretty nice. But still, starting with "Hypnosis has been practiced for thousands of years and continues to be controversial" is not answering the question "what is hypnosis?".

I agree nobody knows what hypnosis is; this was debated extensively before DrMattGomes arrived. And the compromise/consensus was to start with the broad APA definition. It is also listed in the to-do list, so why you should deviate from it is beyond me. But also the content, in my opinion, was just a lot better. Certainly, it didnt cover self-hypnosis, but why not just add a sentence on self-hypnosis, rather than removing the entire intro? The first paragraph should attempt to give an overview of what hypnosis is - as good as is humanly possible. The second paragraph can then deal with history, Egyptians and controversiality.

And Sam, to be fair, you have to admit you are the main person which has boycotted the consensus procedure here by saying it was pointless to start with. This is a very unconstructive attitude. If you hadnt taken that stance, we might well have made more progress.

But so be it. For what its worth, I think DrMattGomes is doing a good job and hopefully something good will come out of it. And you're welcome for the stubs. The Minister of War 07:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect (and I am aware that you tried to help here), you and the to-do list (which you largely wrote) do not = consensus. There has never been more consensus than there is now, we're currently at an all time high in that regard, scroll down and have a look. The only person i see boycotting the consensus here presently is you. My attitude has always been constructive, and my focus has always been on improving the article, rather than allowing it to be dominated by obstructive users. The fact that I was unwilling to engage overmuch in fruitless dialogue (which had gone on for ages before you arrived) in no way diminishes my joyful participation in discussion inclined towards article improvement. Sam Spade 14:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And Minister, now you see exactly why I have been refusing mediation with Sam. Mediation only works with two parties acting in good faith; Sam gives good faith lip service when he needs to and the finger when he doesn't. When my health stabilizes somewhat, I will return and take this up again, but in the meantime Sam has exploited my illness to turn this article into a fountain of bullshit that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. "Clinical hypnosis has been used to ... increas[e] breast size..." Indeed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you see the article as "a fountain of bullshit". It's never going to be perfect, but I've worked hard on improving it. Hypnosis has been used to increase breast size. This is no more controversial than pain management or regression, etc. and, in my opinion, doesn't invalidate the article. How about a bit of encouragement and support? DrMattGomes 23:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] APA definition

I read the “New and Improved!” APA Division 30 Definition and Description of Hypnosis…and I would love to have someone show me the actual definition in there. After I read it six or eight times, it started to look familiar. Then I remembered. I went to my Official Committee Members’ Glossary of Obfuscationable Terms, (sorry, it's an "esoteric" work and not generally available) and there it was, word for word. The only difference was that my glossary had it listed under “waffle.” >;-o)

But seriously folks… I hope this article can do better than this as far as presenting a few credible, concise and understandable definitions. — RDF ^talk 23:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

How about we turn the article into a series of separate definitions, each with its own intrinsic paradigms, histories and methodologies? I think that would be a better service to the reader than for us to attempt producing any one definition, which would be bound to be biased, original research, or more likely.... both ;) Sam Spade 00:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you know, that really doesn't sound all that bad. Any theory basically has its own definitions, so that APA definition section really looks out of place now. One definition per theory actually makes a lot of sense to me! :-) — RDF ^talk 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering... what is the difference between a theory and a definition? MY favorite definition of hypnosis I put in the theory section. I don't particularly like the APA definition since it defines a proceedure and does not seem to take into account self-hypnosis, but I'm unwilling to take it out just because I don't like it. So, I think we're just talking about WHERE to put it, right? DrMattGomes 02:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My thought is to give it its own section, along w your prefered theory and any others of substance. Sam Spade 02:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Among other things, a theory describes key principles and their relationships to help describe and predict circumstances and events. Good definitions often do identify key elements of theories, but they can be at different levels of discourse. For example, a general definition of "medicine" can be compatible with any number of theories about diseases, their causes, prevention and treatment. "Alternative medicine," by definition, must be in reference to some sort of "primary medicine." There may or may not be a one-to-one correspondence with theories and definitions in this article, but specifying which definitions correspond with which theories should be a plausible way to reconcile some fundamental controversies among editors here, a reasonable approach to applying NPOV to the article. — RDF ^talk 03:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree, we should section off each major interpretation/theory/definition in their own sections, provide an aditional section for minor theories or those for which we have little to say, and keep the intro short and vague. Sam Spade 03:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Keeping definition separate from theory makes sense given the vast range of both within the field. I have added the whole of the 2005 APA definition, which although rather long, *is* a consensus statement produced by leading hypnosis researchers rather than a lone view (of which there are an almost unlimited amount). It makes sense of this to have prominence as it reflects the views of many. If we can get some definitions from leading (contemporary?) clinicians to add alongside Yapko then so much the better. Maybe less recent definitions belong in the history of hypnosis section?

As far as theory goes I firmly believe that we should try to keep it based around the scientific literature. There are innumerable definitions of hypnosis, but theories which produce experimentally testable predictions are the most useful. I have added a few sentences at the beginning of the theory (and definition) sections which emphasise the importance of the state/non-state distinction since. Discussion of this has been pretty absent so far despite it being in the first para, and being the issue which has overshadowed much of the hypnosis research in the latter half of the last century - scientists have traditionally been divided along state/non-state lines and have targeted their research accordingly. I intend to add more discussion of theories that have been produced from each of these perspectives, and some coverage of contemparary models which try to reunite them. (MWhalley 00:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Archives

A certain Pathoschild has made some odd edits to the archives. I'd like it to be discussed and agreed to. I disapprove of the changes, esp. unexplained. Sam Spade 14:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Several weeks ago I archived older comments into a chronological archive for the years 2003-2005. Comprehensive chronological archives allow easier searching and referencing of previous comments, since one can search a single page rather than several supplementery archives. Although these are generally categorised by year, I judged that the content was limited enough to justify a single archive.

Sam Spade archived recent comments into the supplementary archive "/Archive_2", which I then integrated into the comprehensive 2003-2005 archive. I apologize if you feel I should have explained myself first, but I very rarely encounter any opposition in my regular rearchivals. Do you have any specific concerns? // Pathoschild 14:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't really know, I found the whole thing a bit confusing, and started to revert it all, but then I decided that was unreasonable and that it should be discussed. Honestly there should be a wiki-wide policy on this, but i don't think there is. I guess I'm ok w you doing things this way, if for no other reason than that you've put so much work into it. One problem is that some users can't load large pages, and 2 years worth of discussion in one archive seems extreme. Could you maybe archive by date, but in smaller sections? Sam Spade 14:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The only modern browsers with this problem are those on some mobile devices, particularly cell phones. Cell phones are naturally limited when browsing a text-heavy encyclopedia; I see no point in splitting the archive into four <32kb archives. Is it really necessary to force compatibility of the archives with cell phones at the cost of functionality? // Pathoschild 15:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

People w dial-up also have problems loading large pages. I know of one user in particular, User:WHEELER who can't load/edit pages larger than 32k, and I'm pretty sure he's not using a cellphone... Where does functionality come in, btw? Sam Spade 15:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Archives allow the user to quickly search through previous discussions to find out if a topic has been covered before, or to reference to one if it has. Archives become nigh unuseable in this respect if there are too many pages to search through. The combined archives total 100k, which should be no problem for dialup users if they don't mind waiting a few moments.

WHEELER is apparently capable of both loading and editing articles over 32 kilobytes. He's made a recent edit to Republic, which currently totals 37kb. // Pathoschild 15:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume he edited only a section of it, he mentioned having trouble w large pages at least once, archiving his talk page in particular. What is the downside of multiple archives? I don't see it. Have a look at mine: User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive. Sam Spade 20:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Let us say, for example, I wanted to know your opinion of User:Willy on Wheels. The natural preliminary to asking you directly would be to perform a simple [CTRL+F] search for "Willy on Wheels" in your archives. I blanch at the idea of performing such a search fourty-nine times, as would be necessary on your archives page. In that case, I'd be more likely to either give up entirely or ask you on your talk page. Although the consequences are negligeable on a talk page, it can be highly frustrating and counterproductive on an article talk page to have users repeatedly bring up a matter that's been covered and settled ad nauseam.

As far as I can tell, those who have trouble with >32kb pages are an extremely small minority. It's statistically unlikely that one of this minority will wish to directly edit an archive (particularly considering the unpopularity of archive maintenance). Still more unlikely is that a user in this minority of the tiny minority should decide to edit a very large portion of the archives, rather than one of the many sections.

Smaller archives result in the total loss of functionality for the sake of compatibility with a numerically insignificant minority, which would then be faced with archives so confusing as to be unuseable and unmaintainable. // Pathoschild 20:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure if I'm convinced wiki-wide (or in my personal archives), but you clearly feel more strongly than I do, and I'm fine w doing it that way here, esp. if your planning to do the upkeep. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Sam Spade 23:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... I think if you can't load a page that is more than 32kb you should be shot by the internet gods :) I was on dialup for many years but never had a problem with something that small. - YuriASF

[edit] Next?

I've un-stubbed (ie, filled in) the theory/definitions I added. What's next? I believe that working on history (the lesser of the controversial sections) would be a good piece to focus on. Anyone want to help me? DrMattGomes 18:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I might, if everybody thinks thats ok. What do you think, TMoW? Sam Spade 21:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. — Richard_RDF^talk 22:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Its looking decent! Where's the wiki-swing though?! That was a great addition! :-) The Minister of War 18:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"Psychosomatic symptoms show that a human body can create physical symptoms that compensate for relationship deficiencies. (For example, hypnosis-induced allergic reactions indicate that a person's immune response can dramatically change during an intense mind-body relationship)" from psychosomatic illness. If it can be referenced perhaps that study deserves a mention? 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

I'm wondering what the policy is for adding websites and information that might be construed as marketing/spam. I would LOVE to put my own web site up and promote my business, but I thought it inappropriate for this article. Should we remove the newly added "e-book"? DrMattGomes 16:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add your personal weblink to this talk page. We don't have much in the way of talk page rules. As far as the ebook, I;m not entirely sure if it should be kept or not...

• EBooks: The Power of Creative Visualization, Personal Transformation in 7 Weeks by legendary Indian Hypnotist Pradeep Aggarwal.

Sam Spade 17:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Any good source document, electronic or otherwise, that's used as a reference can and should be included in the article. — Richard_RDF^talk 19:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You are getting sleepy

I knew someone wouldn't be able to take a joke for very long! >;-o) — Richard_RDF^talk 19:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunate, isn't it? DrMattGomes 19:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Why did we remove Chicken hypnosis? Sam Spade 23:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I was bold and brought back the chickens (Chicken hypnotism)!!! — Richard_RDF^talk 00:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. Do we really want to relate chicken "hypnosis" to human "hypnosis". No studies have been done to compare hypnosis between two species. Perhaps if we put it lower in the list and give it less priority I'd feel more comfortable with it... but I'm just one voice. DrMattGomes 22:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If I learn how to hypnotise my cat, I could start practicing as a pet hypnotist even before I'm certified to work on people! ;) Sam Spade 00:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe I'm wrong? Maybe theirs an American Association of Feline Hypnotism? Sam Spade 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"See also" sections often list articles tangential to the one in question. That's why they weren't integrated into the article somewhere. In this case, that list (along with the links in context) is the closest Wikipedia has to a "List of hypnosis-related topics." — Richard_RDF^talk 01:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

hi, i've just signed up and was the one who added a few bits last week about dave elman. Just thought i'd better say hello ..Jake r

Hi Jake! I hope you like wikiswings. ;-> — Richard_RDF^talk 02:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History subsections

The history section is coming along nicely, but I really think 26 subsections is about 20 over the sentimental wikilimit. Would it be possible to group them into larger time blocks of five or six thematically cohesive periods? — Richard_RDF^talk 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we could certainly do that. I knew it was quite a few subsections and we'd find a logical grouping sooner or later, but I wanted to get the data in there in an orderly fashion. Can we wait until the subsections are filled out and THEN pull them all together? DrMattGomes 03:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. The relative size of the "finished" current subsections can be taken into account that way too. :-) — Richard_RDF^talk 03:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that I'm finishing up the history, I'm starting to see some divisions. I'm suggesting the following divisions. These are arbitrary and are only for general groupings. I'm not married to it, so any other ideas are welcome:

• Pre-history (sleep temples)
• Magnets and other healing objects (starting with Mesmer)
• Medical research (starting with Recamier)
• First applications of psychological use (starting with Charcot)
• Modern (starting wih Freud)
• PostModern(?) (starting with Erickson)

These can even be grouped into Pre-History, Early History (up to the 1900's), The Early 1900's, Modern/PostModern era

What do you think? DrMattGomes 18:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monitoring Foolish Additions?

I'm getting tired of monitoring for fools who add little words/comments/spam to the article. I spend valuable time having to make sure some anonymous person doesn't add something just because they can. I rather spend time working on the article. Any ideas how to deal with this problem? DrMattGomes 19:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a deep breath and say, "Welcome to Wikipedia!!!" It sort of comes with the territory. Anyone can edit an article, so it's always going to be in flux. One editor's "foolish addition" is another's "great insight." If someone else agrees with you that an addition should go, it probably will. Of course, our edits might be considered to be coming from "fools" as well! Just think of it as an exercise in detachment. :-) — Richard_RDF^talk 19:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that... I'm talking about the addition of profanity (which I have learned to revert) and the "obvious" vandalism. And... yes... I'll "be like water" and flow with it. DrMattGomes 18:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how many other articles you've looked at, but profanity and other types of vandalism are quite common in Wikipedia. Most serious editors just do a minor edit revert and move on. Hang in there, you're doing a great job! :-) — Richard_RDF^talk 19:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I second RDF, your additions have been wonderful DrMattGomes, but the same process that allows us to experience your good edits also allows us to experience much more foolish "todd is GAY!" type edits from people who are less... refined.

The dark side of the wikipedia is situations like I has having here a month or 2 ago, where I and another editer had a difference of opinion about what improved the article, and what did not. That is where the consensus RDF alluded to comes in. If everybody but you feels a certain way, its best to let them have their way for the time being, and trust that time will heal all ills. See m:eventualism. Very glad to have you, btw! Sam Spade 20:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sooner or later, if you wait for people to get ill, you can exploit their illness and then tell the whole world how hypnosis can increase your breast size. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Curses, foiled again! XD Sam Spade 21:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar--here's some research for you to do http://www.biggerisbetter.com/html/breast_statistics.html also more recent studies done at manchester university Jake R

Wow! A random website which happens to be selling "breast enlargement CDs" also claims that the mental processes of hypnosis can be used to physically alter the body! My goodness, how could there ever have been any doubt?? Oh, and while we're at it, let's edit Nigeria to include all the information our good friend in Christ MRS. NBOLO MBUTA has provided about how her husband was the Prime Minister there until his recent unfortunate passing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow indeed, notice how 6 different studies were listed ,all of which are researchable, and you (suprise, suprise) only focused on the cd's that were being sold. My goodness! Did i mention anything about CD's? Perhaps it's my fault,perhaps i should have mentioned them and told you to ignore what was being sold, i didn't realise you would get so easily side-tracked by the adverts on the site. I for one know that cd's won't work for this kind of thing because 'one size doesn't fit all', this however doesnt tarnish the credibility of the *listed* study. It takes a skilled practitioner with many years of study under their belt, who will work with the individual to get the changes. If you now checkout the studies *listed* on that website you might find that breasts can be increased through the use of hypnosis and is documented, but dont just take their word for it , do some of your own research. Try taking your questions to http://forum.hypnosis.com/index.php? see what they say, some of the worlds leading hypnotists hang out there and im sure can give better answers than i. Jake R

This is for you, Feldspar. Research. Studies. EVIDENCE! :P

http://www.wendi.com/html/breast_research.html

YuriASF

[edit] Stylistic changes

I've added a number of wikilinks and made many stylistic and correctional changes in my recent edit. However, there's one points I'm unsure of, being unversed in hypnotism. There are references to "Kroger" with page numbers throughout the article; I assume this has something to do with the William Kroger mentioned in the article. If someone would clarify what these refer to, I'll uncomment and clarify the references. // Pathoschild 09:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Those are mine. Much of the theory information was taken from the Kroger book identified in the "Book" section. I don't know how you want to identity this reference. Since there are issues with backing info up with data/references, I'd prefer to keep some identifier there. DrMattGomes 05:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physiology definitions

The edits made by 137.45.196.181 are mine...

Right now the "Physiological" section of the hypnosis article reads:

"The physiological definition state that typical therapeutic hypnosis - using hypnosis to work on issues such as stop smoking, weight management, reduction of phobias, sports improvement, etc. - occurs in the alpha state. Hypnosis for surgery, hypnoanesthesia and hypnoanalgesia occurs more readily in the theta and delta states commonly known as the "Esdaile state" or the coma state. Arm and body catalepsy are indicators of readiness for these surgical applications."

... As a hypnotist I have a problem with this.

1. 1... I have been thru numerous hypnotic trainings and have always been taught that you are primary shooting for the theta state for most hypnotic applications, like for example weight loss. I don't have the research right at my fingertips or the inclination to look this up, however.

As a hypnotist with a doctorate in Clinical Hypnotherapy, I have a problem with your statement. In all MY training, I have been taught that we are "shooting" for health and healing. If you believe that you need Theta state, then you are in good company. Milton Erickson was also of the same belief. Dr. Erickson is my god, nevertheless, he was known to take quite a bit of time in training people to get into the Theta state. And, even then, it would take him 20-30 minutes of induction. Basic health and healing (smoking, weight, sports, etc.) doesn't require Alpha state. In fact, change occurs in ALL states. In fact, in studies that I can quote later, we aren't really in one state or another. Our DOMINANT state is one of the four/five (new definitions of a fifth state are in the literature), we can simultaneously be in multiple states (important for regression work). DrMattGomes 17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, we can agree on this. You're right, change occurs in all states. And yes we are in 4/5 at the same time. That was my main point anyway. As it reads right now, it suggests that change only occurs during the alpha state. YuriASF

I don't know what "the physiological definition" means, that needs to be clarified and referenced. Whose definition is it and what sources do we have to back that up? When was the research done and with what range of clients?

That's MY definition and I'm not going to back it up with any research. You don't do research on definitions. You do research on theories. The Elman definition is just that, his definition. Where is the research for THAT definition? There is none... DrMattGomes 17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well if you are going to put forth your own definition, then you should note that it is only YOUR definition. I know other people who would disagree that change would happen only in an alpha state. With your clarification above, I understand your viewpoint, but why don't you put THAT into the definition instead of this stuff about "needing theta for deeper work"? It doesn't make any sense. YuriASF

From how I am reading it right now, it seems as if this is saying that you can ONLY work on Stop Smoking or Weight Loss in the alpha state. That would be untrue to state that. Of COURSE you can do it in theta, just so long as you have the person's critical factor bypassed and you are guiding them into a new experience. I know some very smart people who most definitely know more about this subject than probably anybody who cares to update this thread, and they insist that the theta state is generally what you are shooting for.

You must be reading a different definition then. Nowhere does it state that you can ONLY work in the Alpha state. If I were going to say ONLY, I would have said ONLY. DrMattGomes 17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

My comments regarding Neuro-linguistics Programming (ie hypnosis, as Richard Bandler himself admits) and the Jose Silva Mind Control method being in the alpha state, were also removed.

Yes, they didn't belong there, so I remove them. DrMattGomes 17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

1. 2... Yes arm and body catalepsy are ways of testing for the coma/ultradepth states, however according to the Davis-Husband scale, you can get Limb and Rigid catalepsies in a LIGHT trance state, and this is why no hypnotist properly trained in the Esdaile state would ever consider to be that person in a trance based on this fact alone.

I'm going to modify this section of the article to reflect what is a more meaningful way to state this. I had originally changed it to "some physiological definitions state" ... but then it was changed back to "THE physiological definition." -- and I think either that definition is just wrong, or there have not been enough sources consulted, or maybe the study was flawed onto itself that made this so-called definition. I think it was DrMattGomes that changed it ... I don't know if you're a medical doctor or not, but it sounds to me like you just looked it up in a reference text and assumed it was correct. No offense of course, but I've been told differently. Cheers.

-YuriASF

I'm not going to get into a debate around my credentials... or YOUR credentials. Looks like I'll have to post my background on my own page... No... I'm not a medical doctor. I find your above comment disrespectful and unnecessary. If you've been told differently, add your own definition. DrMattGomes 17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey no disrespect man, I'm just telling you what I think. I don't care if you have a "doctorate in clinical hypnotherapy"... that's not exactly a common degree and I know some very smart people without doctorate degrees who know their stuff quite enough. My credentials are performing clinical hypnosis on a wide range of people. I got a PhD from the street, yo. ;) Relax man ... I just don't want people who know nothing about hypnosis to be editing the article... and yes Milton Erickson was a very smart guy. And now Nick .. as Mondy goes into a trance.. I'd like you to watch how Mondy's face.... -YuriASF

Edit:

I just changed it to reflect what is actually happening. One thing that jumped out at me as I re-read it was that the passage was saying that theta/delta states were characteristic of the Esdaile ("coma") state... I don't know if that's a typo or what, but if intentional it represents a misunderstanding of what exactly is taking place.

Somnambulism, the Coma state, the Sichort State, UltraHeight, HyperEmpiria ... these are all different "states" .. but they do NOT all represent different physiological states, rather what they represent is a different perspective or view point of the observer self. In no way should they be construed to each have different physical consequences beyond relaxation. For example, someone can be profoundly relaxed but NOT be in a somnambulistic state. Someone can be up and moving playing a sport, and be "deep" in trance.

The Esdaile state should be removed from this definition. They are two different definitions. Trying to integrate them is confusing since they overlap and are defining two different phenomena. DrMattGomes 17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok the second thing that stood out as I looked over again was that there was a note about analgesia being characteristic of the theta or delta states. Well, crap, if you're going to say that, then you might as well admit that almost every hypnosis session is done in the theta state! This is because a COMMON test is to pinch the person's inner forearm after giving a suggestion for pain loss. All you need is the suggestion, that is why the distinction I made above is important.

Anyway that's about all I changed.

This article is looking a lot better than it did when I looked at it a few months back. However, I still get the distinct impression that it's content is being filled by people who know little to nothing about hypnosis. This page looks nothing like what I would tell a person in the pre-talk, which of course is marketly different than you might learn in your psychology classes in college.

Again, I find this comment disrespectful. I've spent quite a bit of time on this article just to have you come in and criticise and complain. It IS easier to destroy rather than build. All I've seen you do so far is destroy. Instead of nit-picking, this is the time to create a solid foundation. What will your contribution to this article be? DrMattGomes 17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Haha, I think you skipped the pacing stage there ;) ... I actually did add some stuff, under the IP I previously mentioned. I haven't been "destroying" so much as .. recreating. YuriASF

I once hypnotized a guy who had just studied hypnosis in his psychology class... man was THAT a funny experience. He kept telling me all the things that I could and could not do with hypnosis, like HE was the expert because some schmuck with tenure studied the positive effects of monotone voices 50 years ago. He ended up going into trance thru an instant induction because otherwise his belief system got way too much in the way.

"Well, you know Yuri, I could have opened my eyes..." "Well, yes, you could have, but did you?" "No." "Why didn't you open them?" "I didn't want to."

-YuriASF

Some other observations, Yuri... I found some of your wording very difficult to take. Using words such as "always", "never", and "all" are cognitive distortions. Your addition: "somnambulism, which is the state that all hypnotists work in, in order to get lasting change" and a previous submission contained such words. Black and white thinking in this context is inappropriate.

I'm spending more time defending than adding to the article. We will NEVER agree what hypnosis is or a definition or a theory. We just don't know. And, as a clinician, I could care less. Over the 8 years I've been working with clients, this physiological definition I give comforts and assists in establishing rapport with my clients. Is it 100% correct? No way... but it works for my clients, establishes expectancy and reduces anxiety.

Add your own definition if you'd like. I'll rename mine... there are a few more to be added as well. Start adding viable content to the article and stop nitpicking. We haven't established a good enough foundation to be picking it apart... 'nuf said. DrMattGomes 17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll refrain from using the word "somnambulism" because I can see how it would be confused.

One of your adds is this:

"Hypnotic phenomenon can also be exhibited in the theta state, and, for some applications, it is necessary to get to this depth."

Depth doesn't exist... It's a nominalization.

I think I'll lay off a while until this article gets to be more straightforward. One thing that does need to be in there is:

"The bypass of the critical factor of the conscious mind and the establishment of acceptable selective thinking." -- That's the official government definition now of hypnosis, by the Department of Education, Human Services Division.

These comments are becoming quickly confusing :)

What I want to know is this ... are we designing this article to be ACCURATE or designing it such that an average person on the street could interpret it? For example you could say, "hypnotic depth doesn't exist" but to the average person it doesn't have any relevence in their life. It's only important to hypnotists.

YuriASF

Yuri... that's the whole point. There is no "accurate" in defining hypnosis. That is why there is so much controversy. My alpha state-based definition is somewhat accurate AND is palatable by lay people. It works for my clinical work and is generally "accurate". This article presents different definitions and theories... and they are ALL accurate. They are all right... and they all have their problems as well.

I'm not even going to touch "I got a PhD from the street" :-p

Also... please log in so we can identify you in the history log instead of by random IP addresses. Thanks...

Okay... back to actual work on the article...

DrMattGomes 18:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hypnosis suggestibility scale

I transcribed the Davis-Husbands scale from "The New Encyclopedia of Stage Hypnotism" (Ormon McGill) and put it in a table... however I don't really want to mess around with the table width and all of that (and have some bad memories in that regard) ... so here is what I've done so far.. The punctuation and grammar is retained as it is in the book:

• • Feel free to remove this and post it in the actual article, I might do it myself but I don't know when the next time I'll be able to work on this is, so I wanted to put it here before I forgot. **

Depth	Score	Test Suggestion and Responses
	0
Insusceptible	1	Relaxation
Hypnoidal	2	Fluttering of the eyelids
	3	Closing of the eyes
	4	Complete physical relaxation
	5	Catalepsy of the eyes
Light Trance	6	Limb catalepsies
	7	Rigid catalepsies
	8, 9, 10	Glove anesthesia
	11, 12	Partial posthypnotic amnesia
Medium Trance	13, 14	Post-hypnotic amnesia
	15, 16	Personality changes
	17, 18, 19	Kinesthetic delusions:
	20	complete amnesia by suggestion
Deep Trance	21, 22	Ability to open the eyes without affecting the trance
		Bizarre posthypnotic suggestions
	23, 24	Complete somnambulism
	25,	Positive visual hallucinations,
	26	posthypnotic
	27	Positive auditory hallucinations, posthypnotic
		Systematised posthypnotic amnesias
	28	Negative auditory hallucinations
	29	Negative visual hallucinations
	30	hyperesthesia

YuriASF

Thanks for typing this in, but is this copyrighted material? -Willmcw 20:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Good question... I don't think so. Ormon didn't come up with it. I think it has common use among professionals, although I don't know the origin of it. I doubt it's copyrighted but I guess anything's possible. YuriASF

This scale was done by Davis and Husband from the 1930's. NOBODY uses this in current research. The Harvard and Stanford Scales are used most. Ormond was an excellent hypnotist, but he was not too up to date with clinical research. There are actually many scales; a seperate article could be written about them. Monoideist 00:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops there already is one. :-) Monoideist 00:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History First?

I'm thinking that the order of the article needs to change a bit. I think it should go: History, Definitions, Theories. It seems a bit more standard and less broken up. Any thoughts? DrMattGomes 22:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Nonono. Definition must go first. Seriously. Until we establish some definition, it is hard to justify a history - we wouldn't know if an event was relevant or not. Definition, History, Theories is the way to go. -Fangz

[edit] Wikiswing picture

I thought the picture was good. It had a hypnotising effect. Can we bring it back ? I am afraid (I know I shouldn't be, in Wikipedia) to do it myself lest I start another edit war, having seen what is happening to this article for the past two months!- Wikicheng 04:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I brought it back - Wikicheng 04:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally oppose using superfluous images (let alone animated gifs) in an encyclopedia. Someone looking up hypnotism probably isn't looking for a "hypnotising effect". Obviously some people disagree with me, though, since they keep putting it back up; I bow to their lesser apathy. // Pathoschild 07:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dates in subsection headings

Should dates be used in the subsection headings, specifically where it mentions the names of certain individuals involved in Hypnosis (as in 2.2.1, 2.2.2, etc.)? --CannotResolveSymbol ^talk 03:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What else would you recommend? Is there a Wiki formatting suggestion? DrMattGomes 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that birth and death dates should be relegated to articles about these people, since they are not really relevant to the study of hypnotism. --CannotResolveSymbol ^talk 03:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Upon further research, I would recommend using only the names for section headings. Place the birth/death years in parentheses after the first use of the name in the actual text. Putting the years in the headings adds little useful information to the article, disrupts reading the article, and adds clutter to the table of contents and sections. For example, use "Paracelsus and "Magnet" healing" rather than "Paracelsus (1493-1541) and "Magnet" healing". The Manual of Style is the best reference I can find on this matter, but there does not seem to be any specific documentation about this circumstance. If you disagree with me, please take the issue to the Help Desk, as I would like to see this article come up to the same standard as the rest of Wikipedia. --CannotResolveSymbol ^talk 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I'll see what can be done to make it look better. DrMattGomes 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay... done! DrMattGomes 00:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks much better! --CannotResolveSymbol ^talk 06:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Length of Article

This article is BIG. Maybe it would make sense to export some of it, say, to a "History of Hypnosis"?Katsam 10:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine... if I knew how to do it... DrMattGomes 00:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you type "history of hypnosis" into the search box it will take you to a page which says "history of hypnosis does not exist" and will give you the option to create it. Take that option, then come back to the hypnosis page, click "edit this page", and copy all the text here which relates to hypnosis. Go back to the new, empty "history of hypnosis" page and paste the material there -- voila! Then come back and edit it out of this article...Katsam 01:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I did it. Now it would be nice to write a paragraph to stick at the top of the new "History of hypnosis" article and which we could stick in the big Hypnosis article as a placeholder...Katsam 10:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

I think this article would benefit from a description of what it's like to go through hypnosis. Everything is laid out very empirically, with multiple theories and perspectives presented, but the article fails to mention what it's actually like to go through hypnosis. I suppose that'd be controversial, since some claim that hypnosis doesn't even exist, but I think somebody who has actually gone through hypnosis writing a blurb in the article of what it's like would really add to the quality of the contents. If I had never been to a hypnosis show, I'd have a very hard time getting an idea of what hypnosis is like from reading this article. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This points out what I deal with EVERY person who call me to book an appointment. Stage hypnosis IS DIFFERENT from therapeutic hypnosis. I added to this article to clear up those misconceptions. And, as it says in the article, everyone's experience of hypnosis is different. What exactly would you like to clarify? DrMattGomes 03:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypnosis for weight loss?

The article makes people believe that they can lose weight through hypnosis without any diets and exercises: "Hypnosis has been shown to be an effective tool... (it is effective for weight loss...)". Who showed that hypnosis is effective for weight loss? This statement is not proved. It is possible, we should write something like "hypnosis may be an effective tool".

You know, obesity is a serious problem, and many people want to lose weight quickly and easily. Hypnosis is getting more and more popular as a way to lose way. We should not mislead people and sell hypnosis to them. I don't know, may be we should include this link to the article [How effective is hypnosis for weight loss?]

Does it work? Dateline did a study of weight management techniques in 2003 (check out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3841501/). I'm sure I can call the NGH and get actual research if you want. We can't prove EVERY statement in this article or else it will get hugely large. 'Nuf said. DrMattGomes 03:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the article at MSN you linked to, but it does not prove anything. A single person lost weight through hypnosis and exercises. This is not a research. I do not tell we need to prove every statement in the article, but we must not mislead people. Why not to use the word "may", if the statement is not proved?

You want to argue over "has been shown to be" vs "may be"? AND... a recent news report is given as an indication that hypnosis is effective for weight management as an example of the research out there. I'm not going to spend time trying to convince individuals that the research is valid... I'm sticking to the phrasing. DrMattGomes 19:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Stage Hypnosis Section?

It seems as if the stage hypnosis section is getting quite large. I'm wondering if it's a good idea to separate the clinical and entertainment sides of hypnosis. What say you? DrMattGomes 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Stage hypnosis should have its own page away from the science of clinical hypnosis.Hypnosadist 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions Getting Too Big?

It seems as if the Definitions section has been opened up to anyone who wants to add one. I'm wondering how we can organize this such that there is a distinction between well-accepted or from highly regarded experts in the field and others. I don't know... anyone have an idea? DrMattGomes 20:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't recognise most of these names, and Bandler does not even have a definition. Where are Milton Erickson and Tad James, what about even Nicholas Spanos's they are all lieing and making it up definition.Hypnosadist 02:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I hate the "Hypnotic Seance, by Richard Bergh" painting

I think its a very negative POV picture of a debunked non-medical use of hypnosis from the Victorian era. It paints (pun intended) a very old and unprofessional image of hypnosis, how about a picture of Hypno-surgury or something like that? Hypnosadist 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to changing it... with what? DrMattGomes 20:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest the famous Lithograph of Charcot? Monoideist 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hock R. R. (2005) does anyone have a link to this paper/book

They just have no idea, we prove it scientifically beyond most psyco-babble. Spanos claimed that this was due to the subjects wanting to be viewed as a great hypnotic subject. Spanos’ findings were not to prove that the hypnotic state did not exist at all but to prove that the behaviors exhibited by those individuals are due to “highly motivated” individuals.Hypnosadist 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've place the whole Spanos information into its own section. I haven't read through it, but it seems REALLY long. It should get its own Wiki entry. I'll look for the owner of that information, but we'll probably want to hone it down. DrMattGomes 20:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is "Life of Gods" notable?

I introduced major changes to the article Life of Gods, including a Proposal for deletion. The hypnosis article has a link to Life of Gods in the "See also section". Inputs on my changes to the Life of Gods page are not only welcomed, but necessary, since I am not familiar with this group or company. Another Wikipedian 22:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Kevin Stone (Celebrity Hypnotist)

Searched YouTube for some hypnosis videos and I came accross the name Kevin Stone quite a lot. Apparently he is famous for performing various acts on celebrities. There isnt a wiki article on him either - so yeah can something be done about that? 149.167.110.147 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

±

Yes you can create an article about him yourself 149. If you don't know how to then have a look at the tutorials they are not writen in technobable so you will have no problem understanding them. I've never in my life heard of him and i dislike the area of stage hypnosis as it bringd the field into disrepute in my never humble opinion, so i won't be helping with that article. But please 149 get a log in and start the Kevin Stone page.Hypnosadist 12:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complex hybrid of social compliance - NPOV

The subsection "Complex hybrid of social compliance" seems very NPOV to me. CalebNoble 03:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't see why really. Referring to the research that supposedly supports the claim would be nice, certainly, but I don't think that's reason to say that the person who wrote it is being partial. I think the wording is very encyclopedic. Perhaps you could add "According to this theory" right before "Some hypnotized subjects" to make it clear that the paragraph describes a theory (and not all-including consensus), but I must say it seems fairly obvious as it is. In my opinion you should put in a "citation needed" and remove the NPOV.

[edit] cycles per second

The article talks about brain activity and cycles per second at one point. Isn't it better to say Hertz instead of cycles per second there? --Abdull 10:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptical Position

The 2nd paragraph of the article mentions that the existence of hypnosis is disputed. However, the rest of the entire article continues as if it were completely accepted. Since it obviously is disputed, especially by many everyday skeptics, there should be some discussion of the skeptical view. This article seems to accept hypnosis as fact, ignoring contrary positions. Cernansky 16:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats because Hypnosis is a range of altered states proveable with repeateable scientific experiments (from low tech pupil responce tests to high tech CAT scans), those that have the skeptical view have NO scientific evidence to disprove the existance of hypnosis so at most it deserves a list of those who hold those contrary positions.Hypnosadist 20:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is very hard (usually impossible) to find "scientific evidence to disprove the existence" of something. The proof is done the other way around. You must find scientific evidence to prove the existence. Try to disprove the existence of the easter bunny, or Santa, or elves, or God... There is a good article about hypnosis at the Skeptic's Dictionary http://skepdic.com/hypnosis.html Italo Tasso 03:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that you are confusing, say, cynicism, with skepticism. The present "skeptic" position is that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that hypnosis exists. The current issue (Vol.12, No.4) of The Skeptic, for example, states (it comes from page 5, and I have added the emphasis in the third paragraph):

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

It would also seem that there is an increasing body of evidence from fRMI scans that there is a significant brain difference between a subject "in" hypnosis and the same subject not "in" hypnosis.

Yet despite this evidence of difference, no-one has yet been able to identify (or even speculate upon) what these brain differences might indicate at the higher level of description that would be required to explain hypnosis as it is understood by those who use it.

And if this notion of "levels" is new to you, may I suggest that you look at Dennett's three stances, and High and low level (description) and Marr's Levels of Analysis, in order to gain a better understanding of the discussion about "appropriate levels" of investigation.Lindsay658 01:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)