Hypnosis and hypnotherapy (also Rapid Transformational Therapy)

Perhaps I should also mention that I have first hand experience of hypnotherapy. As a medical student I was asked if I would like my own hypnotherapy patients. I said yes. At the first session I realised that I was expected to 'do hypnotherapy' without a word of training. I tried to find out what was known about the right way to do it and what the evidence was for that being the right way. I was rapidly taken off the project. It was clear that the whole thing was bullshit.

Hypnotherapists have had fifty years to show that they even know how to do it right. There is nothing to show for it. Why waste patients' time with more trials of something that has no basis?

The reason for 'my view' that you need evidence is humility and not wanting to waste patients' time. The alternative is conning the patient for whatever they are worth with made up stuff.

 

To me, this means that the research was done by unscrupulous and dishonest people. And it means nothing else.
You can't say that another person will do the research and he or she will be dishonest and dishonest too. The number of unscientific arguments begins to grow

 

Okay, now that you're talking about your student years, I'll say this too. I had a course in analytical chemistry at university. In a lab quiz (not an exam), we had to determine the reagent substance. Each student was given a substance with no name and 1 hour to determine. I did it in 10 minutes and showed the lab technician the result, justified it. Do you know what she told me? She said that I was too hustling and that she doubted me and that I needed to go to the Dean of the faculty with my explanations as to why this substance was the one I named.

I went to the Dean of Faculty. I had no choice. I answered the dean's every question. As a result, I was excused from taking the analytical chemistry exam altogether and was given the highest grade.

And why would hypnotherapists prove that it doesn't work? It is up to the party accusing them of quackery to prove quackery, not the other way around. Presumption of innocence, ever heard of it?

For me, the question of the workability of hypnosis looks like this: it works for some people and not for others. And this does not contradict the laws of Aristotelian logic. That is, we have 2 sets of people interacting differently with hypnosis.

 

One could use many ways to change one's perception of things and it's something very ordinary. To me it seems that you point to an unusual way (hypnosis) of doing a very ordinary thing that humans do every day in small and large ways.

One day I decided I wanted to quit consuming sugar and succeeded to strictly avoid it for a year. I think what was helped is to begin thinking of it as harmful, even calling it a poison. This is exaggerated, but the point is not to describe reality accurately, just to increase motivation. I've also built up a reservoir of motivation for generally improving my health which I can access and that was also useful to achieve sugar avoidance.

I'm sure everyone has their own ways of doing these things.

The trick of claiming something extraordinary is happening when what is happening is actually ordinary is something that quacks appear to use a lot. The lightning process that has been mentioned is an example of this. What is really happening is that participants are given a motivational talk that instructs them to pretend they are healthy, to tell others they are healthy. The result is then presented as nearly miraculous healing arising from some kind of brain rewiring.

I still do the sugar avoidance thing but not as strictly. It's not worth expending the effort to maintain it strictly.

 

So it does affect people's psyche and health? Great, that's a very good shift in our discussion!
As has been said here, hypnotherapists haven't been able to prove the dangers of hypnosis in the last 50 years

 

You have to prove conspiracy to defraud, otherwise it's just words.

 

I think that all these techniques are probably capable of changing one's thoughts, motivations, perceptions, and therefore cause good or harm. They're just being marketed as being especially good at it, as extraordinary, and presented as something that people need to solve their problems. The reality is probably that they're not special. It's the brain that is affecting its own functions and it has been doing that since it evolved the capacity to do that. Are these techniques really better than other ways, like for example reading a book by an ancient philosopher, having a conversation, or thinking it all through while sitting in a comfortable chair and staring out of the window?

A funny problem solving technique that is used in computer programming is the rubber duck technique where you explain the problem to a rubber duck (an imaginary one will do). Having to devise an explanation that is sufficiently clear to allow another person to understand seems to help fill the gaps that make it harder to find a solution. So often the solution is found by explaining the problem clearly.

 

Things like tarot or ancient oracles probably worked not because of supernatural things occurring, but because they gave the person a riddle or a message requiring interpreation that led to a the person seeking advice to spend time thinking about the problem (maybe from a different angle) and thereby devising a solution (hopefully, sometimes it was presumably also a disaster).

 

I'd even say it's what it's mostly about. Everyone wants what they're working on to work, it can mean a very successful life afterward, riches, fame, freedom. This bias is inherent and massive, probably the most significant factor. Real scientists want to prove themselves wrong, because they don't want the humiliation of hyping a fake result, you can't gaslight reality. That's how they do it in rigorous disciplines like physics. It works very well.

This is why about 90% of psychological research, including any medical research that relies on psychology, confirms their expectations. They never cleaned up, would rather keep the system that tells them positive lies. Once things get serious in this profession, almost everything known today will be discredited because of it. I doubt even 1% holds up to scientific scrutiny.

 

With hypnosis, I decided to delve deeper into the question of this discussion, namely, can hypnosis be classified as scientific? I delved into deep meditative hypnosis, which I downloaded completely free from YouTube. And here's what I think: To say that hypnosis is irrelevant to science is sophistry. And here's why.

There are several major trends in science - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Wikipedia lists 5 trends. But more understandable classification from two main branches: exact and imprecise science - so I was taught at school, and in the university classification just expanded.

What distinguishes science from pseudoscience?

Science is an activity aimed at developing and systematizing objective knowledge about reality. This activity is carried out by collecting facts, their regular updating, systematization and critical analysis. On this basis, generalizations or synthesis of new knowledge, which describe the observed natural or social phenomena and indicate the cause-effect relations, which allows to make predictions. In addition, science must have a methodology.

Pseudoscience is something like religion and art, subjective opinions and emotional colorings.

Is the methodology of the exact and imprecise sciences different?

Yes, it is different. But that doesn't mean that the imprecise sciences don't have a methodology. And it does not mean that the methodology of the imprecise sciences is less relevant to the formation of objective knowledge about the world than the methodology of the exact sciences. And it does not mean that the imprecise sciences cease to be science.

What do hypnosis and meditation have to do with it?

Hypnosis and meditation are phenomena studied by the modern imprecise sciences (e.g., psychology). What facts are known about hypnosis? Hypnosis and meditation puts a person into a trance, relaxes the body, and lowers stress hormones (I gave a link to a study on the biochemistry of this issue above). These are facts for those people who are able to immerse themselves in hypnosis. Hence, another fact is that not all people are hypnotic, and this has long been known.

Can the methods of the exact sciences be applied to the imprecise and vice versa?

Yes, it can. I gave a link to a study of the biochemistry of the body during meditation above. And the exact sciences use a placebo to get an objective result of the study. The placebo is not proven at all, but it is used in the exact sciences. However, to investigate by methods of exact sciences the phenomena from inexact sciences often becomes as ridiculous as to investigate by methods of inexact sciences the phenomena from exact sciences.

Can we say that hypnosis and meditation do not exist?

No, we can't. Because then that would violate the first law of logic. After all, it does exist!

Can we say that hypnosis and meditation are from the realm of pseudoscience?

No, we cannot. Because that would also violate the first law of logic. Because these phenomena exist and they are from the sphere of inaccurate science. It is not the subjective opinion of the person under study, because the researcher notices changes in the state of the person under study.

Are hypnosis and meditation harmful?

Based on a study of as many as 40 people, nothing has been established. Does it do any good? Above, I gave links to studies that support the benefits of hypnosis. Yes, it's not as accurate as the exact sciences, but they support the benefits.

If anyone on this forum has the belief that prescribing hypnosis as a treatment is harming a person, it is your sacred duty to stop it. File a lawsuit, seek justice.

When war broke out in Ukraine, I did not go into the army, because I have no military training. However, I did not sit idly by, did not whine, but helped my country in another way, and it had its effect, because I was not the only one doing it. You too, take action, and seek justice, it is your human duty.

So are hypnosis and meditation related to science?

Yes, it is. In the realm of inaccurate science. Whoever thinks otherwise is engaged in sophistry. If this forum is about science, then stay that way. And call things by their proper names: hypnosis is a phenomenon from an inexact science, it must be studied using the methods of an inexact science, it does not work for all people, because it is an inexact science. And largely because exact science does not have sufficient tools in its arsenal to prove it (at the current stage of development).


Sorry for my English, I am from Ukraine, I write with a translator.

 

@Hutan,
Prove that your model of the world, with your system of utility proof views, is the only true one. Prove it using the methods of exact science.

If you cannot do this, it would be very decent to admit that there are other systems of views that are not fully understood by people at the current stage of human development. But which have their effect on certain people.
Take a broader and deeper look at people. Not as objects of research, but as living beings whose functioning can hardly be fully understood by modern science. Or do you know everything? Well, then you are God. Medically speaking, this is a sign of megalomania

And it would be very democratic to allow those views to exist and develop in their own way. Not without criticism, of course. Nor is it without criticism of the rigid criteria of exact science.

 

I like your approach. Yes, it seems that the discussion has veered a bit to the side. That's what moderators are for

Okay, about medical applications.

I have never heard of hypnosis being used to treat illnesses unrelated to psychology or psychiatry. That is, I am not aware of any hypnosis treatment for diseases that are organic in nature (like inflammations or organ dysfunction) or invasive (like viruses and bacteria).
However, I have heard a lot about the use of hypnosis in psychology and psychiatry, as well as for amateur, cognitive and relaxation purposes, as I do. I've also seen a video on YouTube of a psychiatrist representing a mental health clinic who talked about hypnosis, that it works for some people and not for others.

I also heard about the difficulty of diagnosis in the area of psychological disorders and illnesses. That is, while the viral infection department will diagnose fairly quickly and accurately based on tests of a person's tissues and secretions, the psychiatric department is quite difficult to diagnose. I have heard that it can take years.

I have also seen somewhere a table of psychological disorders, which are divided into superficial, borderline, and profound. This is a figurative classification, I don't claim to be accurate, I just want to convey the essence. Deep disorders include complex ones such as schizophrenia, borderline ones are manic-depressive, major depression, and anxiety disorder. Superficial - mild depression, mild anxiety, maybe hypochondria (not sure).

And the whole highlight of this classification is that an extremely small percentage of mental disorders have an organic nature, related to the work of the nervous system at the level of cells, intracellular processes, inter-membrane processes without interference from the outside, i.e. the person is born that way.

Yes, if it is smoking, there is an inhibitory substitution of acetylcholine by nicotine. But it's an external exposure to a mild drug. And it's pretty hard to wean yourself off of it, which is true. I saw a chart somewhere that lists nicotine as one of the fastest addictive drugs. But it is possible to get rid of this habit even without the use of drugs, just on willpower, on changing your beliefs and working through the original reasons for smoking. This is exactly where hypnosis helps - to change beliefs. And it is the visualized experience that changes beliefs, which replaces the real one, as I have already mentioned in this thread. And it works, because I've already talked about the basketball-throwing experiment. Yes, the result is unreliable in terms of the exact sciences, but the result is in terms of the inexact sciences. That is, there is a percentage of people who can do it.

Back to mental disorders and treatment. If it is inorganic, it has to do with formed neural connections, which in a person's personality have the form of beliefs (one theory). What drug can be used to change the connection between neurons? That is, to sever one and create another. You have to find that connection first, and then change it. How do you find it? I believe that modern exact science has no answer to this question. I have not heard of it. If anyone knows, give me a link to the research. But it has to be fixed, because people are suffering from it.

So why not entrust the creation of new beliefs to the human body. Humans can visualize and create new connections in the brain themselves. Yes, this requires a strong prefrontal cortex. Many people settle for just the limbic system (joke ).

Yes, this is a theory, but there are also brain encephalogram studies that show the arousal of certain parts of the brain during meditation. That is, if a person meditates on some movement, then the cortical areas responsible for movement are excited. If he visualizes sounds, then the auditory areas are excited. If he visualizes visual images, then the visual areas are activated. And at the same time, there are actually no sounds, images, or movement around him. It is only his representation.

What does hypnosis do? Essentially, hypnosis, like meditation, puts a person in a trance state in which the frequency of brainwave activity becomes equal to the alpha frequency. At this frequency, one is neither awake nor asleep; one is immersed in oneself. In this state one can see conscious pictures and work with them. It's like a real experience, but it's a virtual experience. And it works for some people, as I said above. But in a virtual experience, neural connections are just as formed as in a real experience! (Basketball experiment).

So back to medicine. Yes, exact science has no evidence for the effectiveness of hypnosis. But inaccurate science has such evidence. But they are: Some people have had it work. And no more than that.

Imagine a situation. A person comes to a psychologist or psychiatrist with a complaint of some kind of disorder. The doctor cannot determine the cause on the basis of blood tests, etc. He does not see any organic reasons for this condition at all. So he has three choices: either symptomatic medication, psychotherapy, or a combination of the two. And the patient has a choice: either to destroy his internal organs or try something else.

I would like to hear the name of at least one drug in psychiatry that does not affect internal organs. Tell me the name, please. Hell, if it were real, everyone would be perfectly healthy!

And at the same time, the basic principle of medicine is do no harm.

Now, if there is even a small chance that anyone has been able to use hypnosis to correct their inner state and change beliefs, I would choose to pay money for hypnosis before paying with my internal organs for medication treatment.

Well, if anyone here has spare kidneys and liver to replace them after medication treatment, then you can choose medication therapy without even trying something safer, even if it is safe completely unproven by the methods of exact science! But it worked on someone once.
And I will thank that doctor who will first offer me hypnosis and soulful conversations, because he took care of my organic health, my organs. And you know, maybe that person didn't even have a problem? Maybe he made something up for himself... Or maybe he wasn't, maybe he was really worried about his life. But what will the pills do? They will only relieve the symptoms, make the person more relaxed. To hell with that kind of treatment ! Treating the symptoms is nothing. It is necessary to eliminate the cause, and the cause of psychological disorders often lies not in the organic damage, but in the quality and quantity of beliefs. It is much easier to teach a person to stay calm, even if rockets are exploding around him, than to constantly give him drugs for anxiety and fear. I know this from experience. I practice FREE anxiety hypnosis from time to time (maybe once a month). It always helps me. And my kidneys are intact, and my liver!

And anyway, it's better to pay with money than organs! I've even heard this saying: thank you, Lord, for taking ONLY money