Stanford Hypnochallenge

Comment

Comment by John Mohl on January 26, 2013 at 8:50pm

Lewis (and others),

I respect your vantage point (and agree largely on a number of points), but there are a few things that are generally overlooked in the grand scheme of things (these are my perspectives, not commonly held axioms):

1. Studies like the one look at those who score high on some scale.  This means, generally speaking, they can hallucinate, change personalities, and do all those other things that would otherwise seem useful only to the stage hypnotist.
2. There are those  in "medium" or "low" range who may have the aptitude to score "high" but don't for whatever reason (such as, as Lewis suggested, different uses of suggestions etc.).
3. It is probable (or at least a risk worth taking) that very few of those who score low are actual highs, since they are volunteering and putting forth some effort (if it is the case, they are likely so much the minority that their influence on the effect of high vs low grouping as independent variable will likely show up as statistical noise).
4. It is more likely that there are mediums who are potential highs
5. Adding to the last three points, I have yet to see anyone show to me that anyone willing is able to produce all hypnotic phenomena. 
6. Many of these studies, therefore, compare highs vs. lows to get, hopefully, a robust effect.  Testing vs. mediums could lead to specious results (since some have the same attributes - whatever the dependent variable is - of their high counterparts).  

Are there flaws in this general system?  Yes.  Are there disadvantages with the scales, yes, and there are in need of evolution.  However, to discount the methodology of assessment means that a find that is likely NOT due to chance needs to be accounted for, if not for the grouping variable of responsiveness.  In all of the criticisms mentioned here, I have yet to read one alternative account, or at least one that satisfies parsimony to some degree.

Respectfully,

John

Comment by Lewis Dark on January 26, 2013 at 2:01pm

(Note: My original comment was written at a public library computer last Thursday and disappeared before I believed it "took."  I then wrote the expanded reply below while not on-line; here I am ready to post it today and to my surprise my previous draft did indeed appear.  I ask all of your indulgence, and apologize for repeating myself, and for making you scan the repeated words to get to the new words. I hope the additional commentary leads to additional insight ... --LD) 

  Speaking on the one hand as a dedicated Ericksonian (to wit: hypnosis is a variable state; hypnotists should be flexible and adapt their hypnosis to each individual subject; permissive and indirect methods should be emphasized), and on the other as a stage hypnotist (condemned to authoritative formula group inductions), the Siegel study raises more questions with me than it answers.

     Hypnotherapists get such terrific anecdotal success because they have the ability to vary their technique from client to client, and the subjects are motivated to go into trances sufficient to their need to solve their problems.  Stage hypnotists evoke spectacular hypnosis because their volunteer subjects are motivated, either from exhibitionism, altruism, curiosity, adventurousness, or previous enjoyment of altered states of consciousness.  It's the hypnotists who perform standardized studies that become the hypnotism skeptics, because they are using standardized techniques on an under-motivated subject pool.

     I think the correct conclusion of the Siegel study is: Subjects who rate poorly on a standardized scale of hypnotizability have a poor connection between these two parts of their brains when studied on an fMRI.  I did not glean from the article whether the cohort was actually previously hypnotized or merely tested; whether the test was the unweildy SSHS or the fairly mechanical (and self-limiting) Siegel eye-roll test; or whether the subjects were in hypnosis during the fMRI exams.  If they were indeed "hypnotized," before or during, I would like to know whether depth was measured by the SSHS or Arons or LeCron or other "scales," all of which measure depth as a result of, simply, obedience; or if depth was measured in the Ericksonian dimension of withdrawal and inattention from the outside world regardless of suggestibility.  Of the subjects who were ranked low on hypnotizability, I would like to know if their abilities would increase using a more personalized induction, and if they also had previous difficulty involving themselves in other trance-like behaviors, for example watching television, reading, meditation, or concentration on intricate mental work.

     I have read one study indicating that the hypnotizability of a cohort of subjects was increased after time spent in a sensory-deprivation box.  Whether this would physically increase electro-chemical connectivity between the different brain areas in question is to me a good question.

     I condemn all labeling of human beings as "good" or "bad" hypnotic subjects.  I hate to say a subject is "hypnotically susceptible" when we should say they are "hypnotically talented."  There are subjects who are easy, there are subjects who take more time or sensitivity or flexibility (or sneakiness) on the part of the hypnotist, to achieve either hypnosis or the ends for which the hypnosis is the means.  There are subjects who do great trancework for hypnotist A but don't even daydream for hypnotist B, others who only become hypnotized in private, others yet who only "go under" before witnesses, or the right witnesses.  I myself am a good self-hypnotist, a good private subject for my own purposes, and a lousy public subject.

     Once, before a show of mine, I was schmoozing the audience for volunteers, and a man confessed to three separate failures at hypnotherapy for serious problems.  I made the requisite excuses.  He then volunteered for my show, much to my chagrin -- until it turned out he was my best volunteer.  I stuck him to a wall, turned him into a famous politician, caused him to give an impassioned speech while impervious to the hecklers that I set upon him, and finally I performed the human bridge routine with him (this was before the insurance climate changed).  I surmise that he became a good subject for me, at that time, because the pressure was off; all he was doing was having fun.  I don't know if he subsequently went on to quit smoking using another hypnotist.  I hope you understand why this experience, among others, throws a harsh light on Dr. Siegel's study, without criticizing his general support for hypnotism as of great use for human well-being.

I look forward to seeing other opinions.  Respectfully submitted, L.Dark C.H.

Comment by Bill Kennedy on January 25, 2013 at 6:06am

Lewis,

**** L I K E ****

Comment by Lewis Dark on January 24, 2013 at 3:18pm

Speaking as an Ericksonian (i.e. one's hypnotic technique should be tailored to each indidvidual subject, and ideally should be permissive and indirect) and a stage hypnotist (one must use a standardized fairly authoritative group induction), any "scientific" study using a standardized induction (and boy is the SSHS standardized -- and authoritarian!) is going to have one basic flaw: not everyone can be successfully go into hypnosis as a result of a routine induction.  People vary. Different strokes for different folks.  Also different inductions.

Therapists and what I call "office hypnotists" get great anecedotal results because 1) They are free to vary their technique from subject to subject, and 2) The subjects they see are highly motivated to go into hypnosis:  they have problems they want solved.

Stage hypnotists evoke spectacular hypnosis because the subjects who volunteer are highly motivated, either from exhibitionism, altruism, curioisity, adventurousness, or perhaps previous enjoyable experiences with hypnosis or other altered states of consciousness.

The true finding of Dr. Siegel's study is: People who show low hypnotizability using our standardized methods lack certain connections in their brains.

I absolutely condemn the labeling of people as good or bad subjects, of tagging humans as highly or not highly hypnotizable.  There are easy subjects, quick subjects, subjects who take more time or trouble, subjects who need nurturing or education before an induction, subjects who need gentler or sneakier inductions.  In my experience situation and motive make someone "hypnotizable."

Once upon a time, just before a show, a man came up to me and confessed to three separate failures to become hypnotized in therapeutic situations.  I made excuses to him.  He volunteered for my show -- much to my chagrin.  He was my best volunteer: he hallucinated, he was stuck to a wall, he gave a speech as a politician and negatively hallucinated the hecklers I let loose on him, and he performed the human bridge (it was an insured stunt at the time). I surmise that he became a "good subject" because the pressure was off.

I have also seen one study that states periods of sensory deprivation increase hypnotizability.  I look forward to more commentarty.

 

Respectfully submitted, L.Dark Ch.

Comment by Bill Kennedy on January 22, 2013 at 5:13am

Here's someone else who is using technology to investigate hypnotic susceptibility,  I like this approach!

http://vimeo.com/11892172

Comment by Richard Clark MFT on January 20, 2013 at 7:13am

Well Bill you may be right,

I attempted to help everyone see what was actually done in this research but the replies suggest that power of hallucination is strong when dealing with this topic. 

I'll offer a couple of final points that may help.

1. The humans that were subjected to the fMRI were not hypnotized during the testing.
2. The Stanford Hypnotizability Scale is not a ten question true/false test but an hour long hypnosis session testing for hypnotic phenomena very much like an Elman Induction on steroids.

I think that many people are reading the headlines, deciding they don't like those, and not really looking at what is being done in the research.

People can and do die from the administration of anesthetics all the time.

People can have major surgery with hypnosis and no chemical anesthetics.

Why would any hypnotist that thinks everyone is equally able to experience hypnosis EVER use anesthetics for any purpose or allow the people they love to be dangerously drugged before a surgery?

In the case of hypnotizability it is really awesome to believe that everyone can have the full experience if they only allow it. But when it comes right down to practical matters, can't and won't are a distinction without a difference.

Comment by Bill Kennedy on January 19, 2013 at 6:18pm

Hi Richard,

I know I am belabouring a point here and we will probably never agree on this one.  It's just that the summary you gave is circular in its reasoning.  It is testing the hypnotizability of people already deemed to be more or less hypnotizable.  

Personally, I would never call someone a "poor hypnotic subject" under any circumstances.  The word "subject" is de-humanizing and "poor" is a value judgement.  There are too many other variables not controlled in this experiment to come to that conclusion.

Comment by John Mohl on January 19, 2013 at 11:21am

As one of those experimentalist types who uses scales bearing the same of Stanford, Harvard, and the like, I tend to find criticisms of hypnotic susceptibility to be problematic.

Whatever Spiegel may say aside, one needs to ask, what do we mean by hypnosis, and is anyone (who is willing) capable of it...

If we define hypnosis as

1. a state of inward attention that can help one respond to certain suggestions, then I would say that anyone is capable.  However, the scales (except for, say, the Field Inventory, which I have not seen discussed on here) do not capture this construct.
2. an aptitude to experience different types of hypnotic phenomena.  Then I would say that there is diversity there, and some will respond to few to no suggestions for such phenomena (though the percentage of those who respond to none is very small...less than 5%).

As I think was stated somewhere else, the article is for the general populace.  They took that 25% at face value, but a journal might probe for details.  Twenty five percent based on what?  Does that include those who do not wish to be hypnotized, for example? All I mean to suggest here is not this is not scientific reporting, and there could be a lot between the lines (though the 25% is somewhat in line with the eye roll research).

If we accept that second possibility, then I simply cannot accept that anyone willing can eventually learn to experience all hypnotic phenomena.  There have been many hypnotic training programs throughout the years which have increased suggestibility for most people, but it is not the case that everyone can learn to have all of the phenomena. 

One final note, as I have said elsewhere, the scales are far from perfect.  Even Weitzenhoffer (one of the Stanford Scale co-authors) was critical for its lack of evolution.  They can fail to capture responsiveness and report responsiveness when there really isn't any, but to say they're useless is not warranted.

Just my 2 cents.

Comment by Richard Clark MFT on January 18, 2013 at 5:33pm

As a follow up to this, for anyone bothered by hypnotizability scales, I can tell you exactly what you need to do to change the scientific communities view on it.

1. Find a psychology graduate student at a major university that is interested in hypnosis.

2. Have them propose a thesis or dissertation on the topic.

3. Design study that administers a hypnotizability scale to undergrads.

4. Select those deemed unhypnotizable and give each a 10 week individualized training in a theorized cognitive style utilized for allowing hypnosis receptivity.

5. Request to have Spiegel added to your dissertation committee.

As another follow up, anyone interested in understanding research a little bit better can sign up for HPTI's course in Research Methods and Evaluation in May as an extension student.

Comment by Richard Clark MFT on January 18, 2013 at 5:01pm

Sorry Bill,

I think I found the confusion. The link you posted is a general link for the Stanford Center on Stress and Health. It is meant to be populist in nature and not to serve as D. Spiegel's CV. The first link in the text is actually Spiegel's CV where you can see the rigor of his academic pursuits (Dr. David Spiegel)

I was referring to the research you linked to in the statement, yet it holds true for Spiegel's research in general.

Let me restate some of the findings of the research you linked to in terms that might seem more appealing.

The research found that good hypnotic subjects show a strong association between the areas of the brain that determine what is important and the areas of the brain that makes choices while poor hypnotic subjects showed little association in these areas. It also showed that being a good hypnosis subject is a cognitive style and not a hard wired trait thus it is something that can be learned.

Does that sound at all useful?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page