h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

First off, I'd like to congratulate you on having an article approved!

I'd also like to make some (polite) suggestions for things to add to the Entry...

Although I know that hypnotism is almost completely harmless, it's not entirely accurate to say that a person is totally in control of it at all times. When induced by another person, that person can *influence* the perceptions and beliefs of the hypnotee, even if only briefly. Psychological defenses go down during hypnosis, and this makes a person vulnerable. There are lots of other ways that people can become mentally vulnerable, of course --- but people should be aware that hypnosis is one of them.

(I'm not trying to make hypnosis sound dangerous, of course [it's about as safe as anything can be, if done properly!]._

There's also some important stuff about hypnotic stage acts being physically dangerous, which I wrote in a forum response to your Entry.

(I posted both that message and this one to be sure that you'd see one of them.)

I suspect that I'm being a bit rude in just making suggestions in what to add to your Entry. Sorry, I'm not trying to offend. I do think that a little bit more information in the Entry would be helpful.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

If you have posted your views at the foot of the article then it is there for all to see.

What you say is partially correct - If you read the original article (before editing) I made it clear that it is up to you if you give control to another. What I was saying was that if something is suggested that is totally against your code of morality - then you would awaken and take control.

A person will know at all stages what is being said to them, and even suggestions about forgetting what has been said or suggested but will be acted upon later, a person will and can say NO WAY ! If the suggestions seem harmless or usefull to the hypnotised person then they will comply.

If they are in doubt and not sure whether to act upon a suggestion then they may take it on but say, what if they feel silly doing the suggestion later? Subconciously, they would still feel they must do something. They would end up doing something similar that wouldn't feel so silly, yet fulfills the criteria of the orginal suggestion.

Stage performing kind of hypnosis is all about giving permission in advance before hypnotism takes place - the act of going on stage does give the hypnotist that permission, unless that person goes up to defy the hypnotist with an attitude of *he cant get me*, then that person will be rejected before the show starts.

Does that make sense ?
I think so.
hypno

Whoops my other self slipped out

Yes, that is very true... but on the other hand, if you trust the person enough to go into a hypnotic state with them, then you might easily assume that they're suggesting good and helpful things when they're really not.

With the poison example, it might really be poisonous, but the person might assume that it was only water, as the hypnotist would never do anything to hurt them... and they could drink it and be injured.

Or, the hypnotist might strengthen the person's feelings of trust.

You're right that a person can't be forced to do something against their beliefs... but their perceptions can be altered enough to make them believe that what they're doing isn't against their moral beliefs at all (making someone see another person as a evil, dangerous threat when they're really quite harmless, for example, and then telling the subject to kill that person). We don't really know if that can happen (as far as scientists and psychologists know, it's never been attempted). But, it might.

I actually did look at your original article first. In some ways, I thought that it was more complete than the Approved Entry itself. I knew that you would agree with some of the stuff that I was saying... which is why I contacted you. The Guide recommended contacting the author of an article if I thought something needed to be added. Maybe you could lean on the editor a bit to get him/her to include some of the possible dangers?

Oh, I forgot one thing: hypnotism is actually considered to be actively dangerous in one condition: if it's used with a person whose attachment to reality is already weak, such as a person who's schizophrenic or denying a highly traumatic event. In those cases, the intense imagining of hypnosis can (rarely) cause someone to become completely psychotic. (At least, that's what several serious books on clinical hypnotism I've read have said... I have no idea if it's true.)

Thank you so much for replying (to my other message, too!).

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

Most of the points you make are if fact quite true - but if you take the word hypnotised out of the contexted of the argument. What you are saying is equally true. If you trust someone who offers you a drink ans says it is only lemonade - you are not going to contradict that person and say its poison. So whether hypnosis is used or not it is still the suggestion that is dangerous, not hypnosis.

I have only ever hypnotised or should I say tried to hypnotise a psychotic once to my knowledge and in my defence that person showed no signs at the time of being in that state. That person would not allow themself to be hypnotised by me and therefore going by the experience of that case I do not believe a psychotic person can be induced in the same way as a neurotic or "Normal" person. I sucessfully bench marked that experience and could see instantly if a psychotic person presented themself to me which was not very often. A psychotic does not feel as if they are in the wrong and would not pay some quack to say they were.

Hypnosis is not really the avenue for psychotic and it usually relations who want to get them sorted out - only neurotic know they have a problem - therefore I doubt if many hypnotst or hypnotherapist ever get the chance to try. There is certainly better methods of help for these people than hypnotherapy analytal or otherwise.

Why are you so intent on pushing the fact that hypnosis is dangerous - I suspect you have some personal reason for this. perhaps you would like to share this with me if not in open forum then by email. hypno@[email protected]

I gave up being a therapist for many reasons - some because of dangers involved but even so I wil still state that hypnosis in itself is a natural state of mind and one of the least dangerous methods of helping people there is. I will alway be on your side if you state that suggestions can be dangerous - the two are separate issues and although in most cases are side by side, one should not beconfused with the other.

You could say meditation is dangerous and use the same arguments.

Bows back
hypno


I

Sorry wrong email adress - should read

[email protected]
hypno

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound so paranoid.

I know that hypnotism is about as close to harmless as anything can possibly be (when it's done correctly), and most of the horrible things that people believe about hypnotism are just plain false.

However, I *do* have personal reasons for being upset about doctors occasionally lying to their patients (or at least leaving out important information). I know that this isn't exactly common, but it happens more often than people think.

It annoys me when people who perform hypnotism claim that hypnotism is absolutely harmless. It's not -- it can potentially be harmful (although it's highly improbable that it would happen unintentionally, and I don't think many hypnotists are trying to injure their patients).

Of course, you could logically argue that putting blind, unthinking faith in your physicians is much more likely to be hurtful, which is of course true. But that's much more well known than the (extremely small) risks of hypnosis.

Just wanted to suggest that a brief mention be made of the problems attendant with "letting down your guard" so completely.

Also, about the psychotic thing -- I've read this in several different books written by "old hands" in the field of hypnotism, some of whom practiced in the '40s and '50s, when practically every kind of therapy was attempted on schizophrenics. I don't know for sure if it's true, I just thought I'd mention it.

As far as I know, meditation by itself has no risks (except maybe for doing it outside and being sunburned ).

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

Thank you for being so honest. I have found meditation to be the one and only hypnotism, (sorry I slipped it in to test your views) which goes to show how the name makes the difference. I feel that you and all the arguments that you give are not really about hypnosis but transference and the way that some people use it to manipulate others. This is something that even frightened Freud when he experimented with hypnotism.

It does speed up this process of transference - that is why I believe it is very much faster than the traditional 1000 analysis. Blind faith
is a good way to describe it and trust, but this can easily be reversed and it is called *reversed transference* which turns the love type relationship into hate. Although the logical mind tries to rationalise it the emotional mind will not allow it..

Coming back to you, It seems you are trying to do the same and focussing erroneously on hypnosis instead of the lack of confidence you have in the human race and certain people in general. Doubts on any given subject is healthy and forms part of the defence or barrier we all put up.

Analysis whether used with or without hypnosis, is all about dropping that guard - We all do it when we fall in love - the old saying (Love is blind). I think by your last posting that you are beginning to realise that the fear you have (and it is a fear) of hypnosis is really a fear of coming accross unscrupulous practitioners. These can be found in all walks of life and professions and are dangerous whatever they choose to do.

I hope I have not been to personal in my response to you. and I may ask the towers to transfer this thread (with your permission) to the foot of the Hypnosis page - as I feel that is where it should be.

Returns the bow (hey, you are not chineese or Japaneese are you )
hypno

Well, yes, you have an excellent point about the dangers of transference. I'm certainly concerned about that.

I really am aware that hypnotism is virtually harmless (crossing a busy street is far, far more dangerous than being hypnotized or hypnotizing yourself, and daydreaming is essentially an unstructured, natural form of hypnosis).

However, there are still some (rather unlikely, but possible) dangers from hypnotism by itself, even if it's self-hypnosis.

Perhaps this is only a semantical issue; I know that meditation and hypnosis are essesentially identical, but I think that a slight distinction can be made between them. In meditation (according to my personal definition), you're not trying to give yourself or others suggestions or change things about yourself. You just relax and learn to ignore distracting and irrelevant thoughts. In hypnosis, you're much more active in the sense that you're trying to consciously affect the way your mind works. (There's a little bit of both of these methods in both hypnotism and meditation, so maybe these aren't very good defining characteristics.)

I do know that self-hypnosis can be somewhat risky (sort-of) if a person attempts to create a hypnotic suggestion and doesn't do it perfectly. For example, smokers who've tried to use hypnosis to make they nauseous whenever they start to smoke have ended up becoming sick to their stomachs whenever they're around lit cigarettes, which certainly was NOT the intended effect.

Maybe a warning to that effect could be placed in the article? Just a thought...

Feel free to place these messages wherever you like... if someone reads them, it might not only make them aware of what *could* possibly go wrong, but how 99.999% safe hypnosis actually is. I don't want to start another round of old-wives'-tales about hypnosis... there are enough negative beliefs out there as it is.

Oh, and no, I am not Japanese/Chinese. Just trying to be polite.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

I will ask Peta on Monday to move it - whether it gets moved is in the lap of the Gods..

I think I have made my point and you have certainly made yours - This is why I think it should be attached to the article because some valid arguments have been made on both sides.

As to the differing criteria of hypnosis and meditation - I think you have just discovered, by your own definition) they are the same and meditation is often guided by a guru - one can find inner peace with both, as you can enter a nightmare world in both. Monsters from the id. Self enlightenment (by whatever means used) can have a long term benificial affect on a persons life. It is usually unresolved memories which can have a negative impact.

Wrongly phrased suggestions can have a bad effect on a person whether they are self induced or otherise. - I have never been an advercate of aversion therapy. I firmly believe all sugestions should be positive and phrased in such a way as to enhance a persons life - not take something away - ie:

suggestions for an obese person.
Negative eeeek
You will not eat fatty foods and every time you see a cake you will visualise worms crawling out it.
Now I have heard so called hypnotherapist (sometimes untrained doctors who dabble) claiming it has a marvelous affect on clients -
eeek !!! - not only is the suggestions wrongly phrased but as you say can be harmfull

Correctly Phrased
Positive suggestion.

You will enjoy eating wisely and you will have a growing will power within you and you will have the strength to do what ever you feel is good for you.

Of course this is only part of the way, you must strengthen a person resolve increase a natural ability we all have to make the suggestions helpful as well as harmless.

The next article I had on my agenda was positive thinking but after having discussions with you, I think Suggestions should be next, followed by Transference, (What do you think?)

Abi added the light hearted part about hypnotising a lobster - I wonder if she would do the same to another persons article on a serious piece on psychology or the mind. It just goes to show how afraid they are of it or it is something to poke fun at.

I slammed the original article (Guide Entry Hypnotism) because it was factually incorrect - they rewrote it without consulting, although they knew I had the expertise and made another hash of it - this is why this article (eventually) was written by me and still they have to bring it down. I have not objected to it, whats life without a bit of fun. Just shows though.
hypno.
hypno

The guru thing is a good point.

I'd have to agree with you that suggestions of any kind are potentially dangerous, although I'd have to say that suggestions made during hypnosis are even more so.

I sympathize with your Entry problems. The recommendations for how to get an Entry approved say not to try to be funny, but then funny bits are stuck into Entries when they're not needed... I don't get it.

Actually, how much leeway do the Editors have when rewriting a piece? I was under the impression that they weren't allowed to add anything, just cut extra stuff out, but in a few Entries I've read, they've changed the information that was presented by editing, and some even had things inserted.

Disturbing.

Oh, well.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

Correction: I should have said that other researchers tend to do put incorrect information into Entries. I've never seen a case where I knew that an Editor was involved.

[apologizes to all the Guide Editors for the previous slander]

[bows remorsefully]

-Caledonian

Oh, sorry, but I have just one more thing to say. Then I'll stop, I promise.

(Okay, it's really two things.)

I've heard many people claim that there is a difference between meditation and hypnosis (whether hetero- or auto-hypnosis), and that the difference is that you're trying to accomplish something specific in hypnosis while there is no specific goal or intent with meditation.

I've also heard that the built-in safeguards of a person's mind can be weakened or bypassed accidentally during outwardly-induced hypnosis. This simply can't happen in auto-hypnosis, but is a risk in hetero-hypnosis. A possible example would be the cases of "recovered memories" that have been shown to be false; while it is possible to rediscover actual memories through hypnosis, it seems clear that many therapists/hypnotists have unintentionally done a great deal of damage.

Alright, I'm done now. Thank you for the conversation, it's been most enlightening. If you'd like to contact me, my email address is [email protected].

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

What you say is accurate but slightly adrift in respect of both premises.

Both meditaion and hypnosos is one and the same therefore it is not what they are, it is what you do with them. It therefore cannot be argued that hypnosis is to blame - only how it is applied.

Analysis does have hidden dangers if applied by the untrained mind and may I say often by over the over enthusiastic and dogmatic. The university of life is a great teacher and only years of study can bring about a greater understanding.
Once again the same mstakes can be made whether hypnosis is used or not.

I did not mean to bring this thread to an end - it has been intersting and fruitful but it just seems as if the same gound is being trodden on over and over - I think we will agree on most but on the things we do not agree on - we will agree to differ I will certain email you in the near future

Hope to view your thoughts again.

Bows (in esteem)
hypno.