Hypnosis and hypnotherapy (also Rapid Transformational Therapy)

Science - following Karl Popper - gave up the notion of 'proof' - science has moved to a position of conditionality, that is there is no absolute only the continuing standard of falsification, which provides that so long as an hypothesis is falsifiable, and has been subject to tests of falsifiability that hypothesis remains a scientifically valid description of the phenomenon it is concerned with, until such time as it is falsified. Everything remains on the table and everything can be revisited with new testing.

The key point is that the hypothesis (or theory) must be capable of falsification - if it is not falsifiable it can not be subject to a meaningful scientific test and there is no value considering it in the context of science. There are other ways to consider things - art, religion etc, but those are not scientific unless they involve testable falsifiability.

Popper's proposition: https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf

"When should a theory be ranked as scientific?" or "Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?

The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, "When is a theory true?" nor "When is a theory acceptable?" my problem was different. I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudoscience may happen to stumble on the truth."

 

Definitely, I like the falsifiability principle

By the way, I have read about studies of the electroencephalogram of a meditating person. And it is proven that it is different from the waking person's state. Meditation is very similar to hypnosis, isn't it?

After all, hypnosis is a state of nerve cells and the connections between them. Of course, there are also neurotransmitters involved. All in all, there's a lot of unknown data here, and I'm pleased that this question is being investigated. If this were pseudoscience, it simply would not be dealt with.

I would also like to supplement my theses with this article - https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...s-may-change-the-brain-in-depressed-patients/
It is indicative of the research that has been done on this issue. The only difference is the research on meditation, not hypnosis. But personally I don't see much difference between meditation and hypnosis.

 

What does an electroencephalogram tells us other than which bits of the brain appear to busy and which are not ? What model of the brain (there are more than one) is being used to interpret what one part of the brain being busy means - some interpretations are no more scientific than phrenology ? Unfortunately something being pseudoscience doesn't mean that it is not embraced by people who should know better, or that believers don't attempt to appropriate science in the cause of legitimising pseudoscience e.g: https://www.s4me.info/threads/homeo...s-in-a-null-field-2023-sigurdson-et-al.31820/

Also:

The Effects of Meditation, Yoga, and Mindfulness on Depression, Anxiety, and Stress in Tertiary Education Students: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Meditation, yoga, and mindfulness are popular interventions at universities and tertiary education institutes to improve mental health. However, the effects on depression, anxiety, and stress are unclear. This study assessed the effectiveness of meditation, yoga, and mindfulness on symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress in tertiary education students.

Methods: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, PsycINFO and identified 11,936 articles. After retrieving 181 papers for full-text screening, 24 randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative analysis. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis amongst 23 studies with 1,373 participants.

Results: At post-test, after exclusion of outliers, effect sizes for depression, g = 0.42 (95% CI: 0.16–0.69), anxiety g = 0.46 (95% CI: 0.34–0.59), stress g = 0.42 (95% CI: 0.27–0.57) were moderate. Heterogeneity was low (I2 = 6%). When compared to active control, the effect decreased to g = 0.13 (95% CI: −0.18–0.43). No RCT reported on safety, only two studies reported on academic achievement, most studies had a high risk of bias.

Conclusions: Most studies were of poor quality and results should be interpreted with caution. Overall moderate effects were found which decreased substantially when interventions were compared to active control. It is unclear whether meditation, yoga or mindfulness affect academic achievement or affect have any negative side effects.

 

I am afraid to say that the vast majority of research these days is pseudoscience.
And I don't think hypnosis has any particular similarity to meditation.

 

The Pope, who lived at the time of Copernicus, also thought that Copernicus' research was pseudoscientific. The Pope had a very limited view of the world, he liked to be in the confines of rigid stereotypes.

Once upon a time I heard about an experiment in which a mouse was implanted with electrodes in the pleasure center in the brain. And they gave it a button to stimulate the pleasure center. As I remember, it died of exhaustion. But in bliss

It is unlikely that the researchers in this experiment had an accurate and proven model of the brain. However, the result they obtained was quite definite. And they even erected a monument to the mouse. And even gave it a name - Nancy

The link from Harvard that I left above has information that people who practice meditation show resistance to stress. I'm not judging whether Harvard is a reliable source, but even in our backwater Ukraine, we've heard of it.

And personally, I'm interested in both meditation, and hypnosis, and hypnotic meditation (there is such a symbiosis of marketing names). And I even practice it a little. During meditation I can completely stop feeling my body - any muscles. That is my body completely loses sensitivity. What else has similar effect? Maybe drugs.

Of course, meditation and hypnosis are not as specific as a shot of epinephrine, but they have an effect. I like this article - https://commons.clarku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=surj and this one https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/docum...&doi=15cb8d85dbc7944e92acf7bd27cd391807c4be3c

 

Highlighted is what really matters: comparing hypnotherapy with no intervention. To me, this means that this issue has not been researched enough-just a small group of 40 people. More research is needed!

 

No, it is the next bit that matters, as pretty much everyone in this forum has come to understand.

Results from one small study (40 participants) detected a statistically significant benefit of hypnotherapy compared to no intervention (RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.18 to 305.88), but this evidence was judged to be of very low certainty due to high risk of bias and imprecision.

I am afraid that you are on a bit of a sticky wicket here, putting forward all the simplistic arguments we have heard from psychologists about treatments that turn out not to work. If the methodology is garbage the results are garbage. Unfortunately, psychologists seem to be particularly unable to understand the psychology of doing trials - that everyone doing trials tries to fool themselves into thinking their treatment works until they have been trained to ensure they stop themselves from doing it.

 

Please tell me, did these studies include all people in a row or only those who can visualize well? I think this is important because hypnosis and meditation will only work well (in my unproven opinion) for those who can visualize well. Why do I think so? Above in this thread I talked about the ball throwing experiment, and the results were there.

I also heard about the brain tomography experiment. The result was something like this: a person walking and a person thinking about walking have the same parts of the brain excited.
And what forms the new neural connections? New experiences, of course. But it is far from a fact that for a new experience you have to experience it in reality. It may well be that it can be visualized. Yes, it will not be as effective as a real experience. But the film industry is proving that virtual experiences are enough for people

So at this point I don't think the research has been done extensively enough, and with the wrong groups of people. And if there are questions about the studies, you can't call such studies proof that hypnosis doesn't work. Rather, it is research that is not well designed or thought out.

 

You are entitled to be right in your model of the world, which implies a certain methodology. Prove that your model of the world is the only right one

 

No! I completely disagree. The important part of that quote is not the bit you highlighted... its the bit below it. If the study was

then it does not matter what it says it detected - it likely did not detect anything at all. Thats the whole point. Research that is judged to be low quality/low certainty means it cant be relied upon to have actually found what it says it found.

Edited to add: it took me so long to type my post i didnt realise i was cross posting with @Jonathan Edwards

 

You are doing a pretty good job of persuading everyone on the forum that you are not familiar with scientific argument, @Ipquise. A ball throwing experiment tells us nothing about hypnotherapy. The reality is that if hypnotherapy really worked decent trials would have shown that long ago. People do bad trials because in their hearts they know that if they do careful trials they won't get much of a result if any.

The old adage remains good - keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out.

 

The proof is there in the literature for anyone to see. Repeatedly, badly done trials have shown benefit and carefully done trials have shown it is not there. It is called evidence.
I refer you to my previous post.

 

This is just your assumption. You cannot know for sure what is in the hearts of a person, an explorer. All the more so without any examination of this researcher's motives. That doesn't sound very much like a scientific argument. You are beginning to outrun me in your ability to speak without scientific argumentation

 

There is some research on 40 people. And on the basis of that study, they think that hypnosis doesn't work. Does everyone here think it would be very scientific to draw such a big conclusion from such a small study?

It looks something like this: find an orchard where only green apples grow, and on that basis say that there are only green apples all over the world. Is that scientific?

 

Actually not. It is my own experience and my experience of the behaviour of trainees and therapists. I was involved in clinical trials for thirty years. I have talked to scores of people who have designed trials, including grilling people as an ethics committee member. People quite often admit their shaky motivation. They know full well that they cut corners to get a result when doing things properly would not show one.