Talk:Hypnosis/Archive 1

message: ==="Definitions"===
The very first sentence of the article states "Hypnosis does not have a single definition that is universally applicable," but this does not seem to me to be a useful way to explain the debate.  There are arguments about whether it exists; there are arguments about what it can and cannot affect; but the basic definition seems to me to be fairly universal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: April

message: The very first sentence of the article states "Hypnosis does not have a single definition that is universally applicable," but this does not seem to me to be a useful way to explain the debate.  There are arguments about whether it exists; there are arguments about what it can and cannot affect; but the basic definition seems to me to be fairly universal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Definitions"

message: ===Scientific evidence that hypnosis is "real"===
I added the following paragraph:
"However, some controlled scientific experiments seem to suggest that hypnosis may change conscious experience in a way not possible when people are not under hypnosis, at least in "highly hypnotizable" people. For example, according to one of these experiments, color perception was changed by hypnosis in "highly hypnotizable" people as determined by positron emission tomography (PET) scans."
I also added a link to that study. I ignore if the study is representative, but it seems to have been at least interesting. My intention is to add to the neutrality of the discussion. The first impression I got from the article is that there were no serious evidence that hypnosis could be a real neurological phenomenon. This seems not to be the case for some experts, (see for instance ), although it is clear that this is still the subject of debate.
:: Critics who doubt that hypnosis is real are really looking for observable phenomenon. However as a practicing hypnotist I can tell you that hypnosis both exists and doesn't exist all at the same time. This is because, yes, you can document many effects that people will experience while under the influence of "hypnosis" but in fact the pro will realize that ALL communication that is done with congruency and perhaps dominance could be considered hypnosis. Neuro-linguistic programming is considered by many to be a form of hypnosis. The media is a form of hypnosis. Yes, even Wikipedia is a huge form of cultural hypnosis. 
:: The only thing that "hypnosis" does as it is commonly referred to is provide a SYSTEM for inducing this phenomenon that is reliable and repeatable. For example one common effect of hypnosis is pain control. You could induce reliable pain control in someone if only you were dominant and congruent in what you say to someone. That is a form of hypnosis and it is a form of suggestibility. There is ZERO difference between this type of hypnosis and the type of hypnosis that is done in a controlled environment. It is all the same thing. However to an extent many hypnotists know that if you believe there is a special and significant effect, you are more likely to induce the phenomenon, because otherwise you are simply fighting people's versions of reality. - YuriASF 12:18, Jul 20, 2005 (EST)
===removed from intro===
I removed the following sentence that had been added to the end of the introductory paragraph:
However this view fails to explain the countless documented cases of hypnosis being used successfully as an anesthetic during surgery, among other effects hypnosis had been shown to produce that cannot be mere pretending.
The fact that hypnosis is believed by its supporters to not feel pain even under painful stimuli is already mentioned in the intro paragraph.  It could use more fleshing out in the article, so it'd be a good thing if those "countless documented cases" got documented in the article -- on a quick look, I can't see which section would be best, but we can find or make one.
The rest of the sentence seems to be trying to extrapolate from this one fact into the conclusion that the debate is over.  Which it isn't...  even if it should be, it isn't, and Wikipedia shouldn't be taking sides and stating "Because of X fact, anyone still arguing the other side has been proven wrong." -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: July

message: I removed the following sentence that had been added to the end of the introductory paragraph:
However this view fails to explain the countless documented cases of hypnosis being used successfully as an anesthetic during surgery, among other effects hypnosis had been shown to produce that cannot be mere pretending.
The fact that hypnosis is believed by its supporters to not feel pain even under painful stimuli is already mentioned in the intro paragraph.  It could use more fleshing out in the article, so it'd be a good thing if those "countless documented cases" got documented in the article -- on a quick look, I can't see which section would be best, but we can find or make one.
The rest of the sentence seems to be trying to extrapolate from this one fact into the conclusion that the debate is over.  Which it isn't...  even if it should be, it isn't, and Wikipedia shouldn't be taking sides and stating "Because of X fact, anyone still arguing the other side has been proven wrong." -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: removed from intro

message: ===removed another section===
Hypnosis, Scientology and Neuro-linguistic Programming
The New Age notions of Scientology and neuro-linguistic programming have both been associated with a covert command type of hypnosis.  The hypnotic commands of NLP are said to be an unethical use of hypnosis as the written code of ethics of most psychologist associations state that openness is important with practitioner/client relations.  
According to the Australian Report, Scientology's auditing is also said to result in command hypnosis, which under certain circumstances may lead to potentially damaging dissociative states. Both NLP and Scientology use these kind of command hypnosis techniques for clearing or re-programming, and past life regression therapy, in accordance with the New Age belief in reincarnation.
I don't know if anything is salvageable from this.  I think that if salvage is to happen, it would probably start with finding out what "the Australian Report" is, determining if it's a credible/important source, and if so finding out what it says first-hand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree entirely with your idea that the way to present a controversial subject in an NPOV fashion is to disclose one and only one POV in the introduction, and wait until the body of the article to disclose that major portions of what has been presented to the reader as established uncontroversial fact is in fact the subject of much debate.  Nor do I see what is "not neutral or encyclopedic" about the previous introduction, which did not presume the truth of one view or the other.  Accordingly, I am reverting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other; you're still saying that only one POV should get a fair hearing in the intro, and the other one, the one you dismiss as a "smear job", should be isolated in its own section.  If anything, we should do the reverse of what you're proposing:  disclose right up front in the intro that there is a substantial body of opinion that hypnosis doesn't actually exist -- and then in the article, discuss hypnosis as what it is if it exists, with no need for constant reminders that "then again, some people think it's all BS and doesn't exist."  There will no artificial ghettoization of such references, but they will need to actually say something beyond just proposing that hypnosis doesn't exist:  i.e., detailing exactly what the alternative theory is to explain a particular observed effect, etc. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: And now you're blithely adding references to "brainwashing" and "mind control" as if those had any scientific consensus on their existence.  One editor alone is not enough to deal with your bad faith, Sam.  You make extensive unsupported claims about what hypnosis is and what it does and at the same time you demand massive citations for just the fact that your view of hypnosis isn't the only one?  You're acting in shockingly bad faith, Sam. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Changing the subject and deliberately juvenile mockery are neither of them adequate defenses, Sam.  If you are seriously arguing that because you are too lazy to type "Hypnosis does not exist" into a Google search box and verify that yes this is a POV on the matter then there is no point in digging up any citation for you; you would just discover new endless bullshit hoops to be jumped through.  "Oh, but it doesn't count because your citation is from 2003; you haven't proved that anyone still believes that in 2005!"  Meanwhile, the proof that you are demanding citations not out of any good-faith attempt to edit according to Wikipedia standards, but just to harass, is shown by your additions of the above-cited material casually claiming that  "there are examples of brainwashing or mind control where [resisting hypnosis] is far more difficult."  To read your version of the material one would never suspect that the American Psychological Association has specifically stated that no theory of mind control so far has been scientifically verified.  Yet did you cite this claim?  No, you did not.  If you think you have the right to demand that I jump through hoops that you are passing by, you are far mistaken. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your job is to demand that others verify their claims only to the degree that you verify your own.  That is to say, your job is to act in good faith.  Claiming "here's a link that shows that the MKULTRA program tried to find methods of mind control and that's all I need in order to state that mind control does exist" is bad faith.  Claiming that "you have to cite sources just in order to show that there is any dispute that this exists" when the article history alone shows that there is dispute is bad faith.  Combining the two into a double standard is manifestly bad faith.  Is it your job to verify claims for me?  No.  But it is your job to verify your own claims when the burden of proof falls upon you; if you are going to claim that there is no dispute that hypnosis exists, the burden of proof for that extraordinary claim falls on you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmmm, let's see, is that a valid chain of logic?  Let's try something out.  "This article is extremely unprofessional in its non-neutrality.  If someone wants to learn about white supremacy, they are obviously not primarily interested in the arguments against it; they are interested in white supremacy itself.  Hopefully a real white supremacist will eventually rewrite the article."  Somehow that fails to convince me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: August

message: Hypnosis, Scientology and Neuro-linguistic Programming
The New Age notions of Scientology and neuro-linguistic programming have both been associated with a covert command type of hypnosis.  The hypnotic commands of NLP are said to be an unethical use of hypnosis as the written code of ethics of most psychologist associations state that openness is important with practitioner/client relations.  
According to the Australian Report, Scientology's auditing is also said to result in command hypnosis, which under certain circumstances may lead to potentially damaging dissociative states. Both NLP and Scientology use these kind of command hypnosis techniques for clearing or re-programming, and past life regression therapy, in accordance with the New Age belief in reincarnation.
I don't know if anything is salvageable from this.  I think that if salvage is to happen, it would probably start with finding out what "the Australian Report" is, determining if it's a credible/important source, and if so finding out what it says first-hand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: removed another section

message: The NPOV way to introduce a subject is to give it a fair hearing in the introduction, and present the sort of intense criticism I found in a later and appropriate section. There are a variety of opinions, and they all will be heard, but the former introduction was not neutral or encyclopedic. Please help me in further proofreading the article, its very long and needs alot of work. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree entirely with your idea that the way to present a controversial subject in an NPOV fashion is to disclose one and only one POV in the introduction, and wait until the body of the article to disclose that major portions of what has been presented to the reader as established uncontroversial fact is in fact the subject of much debate.  Nor do I see what is "not neutral or encyclopedic" about the previous introduction, which did not presume the truth of one view or the other.  Accordingly, I am reverting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other; you're still saying that only one POV should get a fair hearing in the intro, and the other one, the one you dismiss as a "smear job", should be isolated in its own section.  If anything, we should do the reverse of what you're proposing:  disclose right up front in the intro that there is a substantial body of opinion that hypnosis doesn't actually exist -- and then in the article, discuss hypnosis as what it is if it exists, with no need for constant reminders that "then again, some people think it's all BS and doesn't exist."  There will no artificial ghettoization of such references, but they will need to actually say something beyond just proposing that hypnosis doesn't exist:  i.e., detailing exactly what the alternative theory is to explain a particular observed effect, etc. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: And now you're blithely adding references to "brainwashing" and "mind control" as if those had any scientific consensus on their existence.  One editor alone is not enough to deal with your bad faith, Sam.  You make extensive unsupported claims about what hypnosis is and what it does and at the same time you demand massive citations for just the fact that your view of hypnosis isn't the only one?  You're acting in shockingly bad faith, Sam. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Changing the subject and deliberately juvenile mockery are neither of them adequate defenses, Sam.  If you are seriously arguing that because you are too lazy to type "Hypnosis does not exist" into a Google search box and verify that yes this is a POV on the matter then there is no point in digging up any citation for you; you would just discover new endless bullshit hoops to be jumped through.  "Oh, but it doesn't count because your citation is from 2003; you haven't proved that anyone still believes that in 2005!"  Meanwhile, the proof that you are demanding citations not out of any good-faith attempt to edit according to Wikipedia standards, but just to harass, is shown by your additions of the above-cited material casually claiming that  "there are examples of brainwashing or mind control where [resisting hypnosis] is far more difficult."  To read your version of the material one would never suspect that the American Psychological Association has specifically stated that no theory of mind control so far has been scientifically verified.  Yet did you cite this claim?  No, you did not.  If you think you have the right to demand that I jump through hoops that you are passing by, you are far mistaken. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your job is to demand that others verify their claims only to the degree that you verify your own.  That is to say, your job is to act in good faith.  Claiming "here's a link that shows that the MKULTRA program tried to find methods of mind control and that's all I need in order to state that mind control does exist" is bad faith.  Claiming that "you have to cite sources just in order to show that there is any dispute that this exists" when the article history alone shows that there is dispute is bad faith.  Combining the two into a double standard is manifestly bad faith.  Is it your job to verify claims for me?  No.  But it is your job to verify your own claims when the burden of proof falls upon you; if you are going to claim that there is no dispute that hypnosis exists, the burden of proof for that extraordinary claim falls on you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmmm, let's see, is that a valid chain of logic?  Let's try something out.  "This article is extremely unprofessional in its non-neutrality.  If someone wants to learn about white supremacy, they are obviously not primarily interested in the arguments against it; they are interested in white supremacy itself.  Hopefully a real white supremacist will eventually rewrite the article."  Somehow that fails to convince me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: Regarding somnambulism. As far as "stating the effect of hypnosis on memory as undisputed", I'm not doing that (of course its disputed, everybody knows bad therapists instill false memories sometimes, particularly regarding past lives, alien abduction, and satanic ritual abuse), so I don't see how a cite is necessary. Sam Spade 17:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is disputed isn't just that some some hynotists create false memories - what is claimed by the skeptics is that all hypnotic memory recollection is false, and that if ever there is success, this is just by chance or prior knowledge from the hypnotist. See:  --Fangz 00:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite sources

message: This state can be induced by placing tension on binds, the client is receptive and suggestable, normally experiences memory loss, while becoming very aware of themselves and not their surroundings.  James Braid (physician) referred to this as being a state of "nervous sleep".  Ivan Pavlov demonstrated this behavior in Pidgeons by taking away the reinforcement, sleep resulted in the animals and it was referred to as "Cortical Inhibition".
Hypnosis can effect a persons judgement and therefore could potentially cause them harm.  In the hand of a "Professional" seeking to promote their welfare it can produce profound effects and be a compliment to treatment.  One can always resist Hypnosis if one so desires.
:I'm sorry, but I don't understand that very well... Can you please rephrase, and maybe ad this info somewhere other than the intro? Sam Spade 13:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: recent edit

message: This article is so poorly constructed and out of step with research and theory that it is not worth editing. I would suggest scrapping it and wait for a more expert writer to take an interest rather than present this as an authoritative entry. It certainly makes Wik look bad! -- unsigned comment by Hyp (talk • contribs)
:I agree the article sucks, but please help, rather than simply complain. Sam Spade 12:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Amateurish and out of step with current thought

message: I submitted an RfC, and am asking editers who are familiar w the subject to lend a hand in overhauling the article. Sam Spade 12:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also see the RfC submitted two weeks before Sam's, in the correct section. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: I added a list of things to do with its first item.  If consensus can be reached on what should be on the list, then that's a good thing! :-) Agreeing how to go about doing what's on the list would be even better! There have been plenty of substantive and process proposals made here.  Although I have some experience with hypnosis, I don't consider myself to be an expert.  However, I do know a resolvable issue when I see one.  My main proposal at this point is to use this list as a tool to find and document the "highest common ground" for what should be included in this article.  Then just go out and do it! ;-)  — RDF talk 14:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Things to do

message: Hypnosis is a trance state similar in appearance to sonambulism, wherein a client is in touch with their subconscious. In this state the client is receptive and suggestable, as well as possessed of acute recall of memories, often even those not remembered consciously.
There has always been a certain amount of controversy regarding hypnotism, particularly in its precise definition. Among psychologists that practise hypnosis, some view hypnosis as an altered state of consciousness, others as a type of focused attention. The states invoked by clinical practitioners of these methods are very similar, implying that they are, in fact, describing the same phenomenon. The methods employed and the underlying methodologies have still not converged to the point where there is consensus on a single definition of hypnosis. 
---
Hypnosis is a psychological state whose existence and effects are strongly debated.  Some believe that it is a state under which the subject's mind becomes so suggestible that the hypnotist, the one who induces the state, can command behavior that the subject would not choose to perform in a conscious state (even behavior to be performed after the subject has left the hypnotic state, through post-hypnotic suggestion,) or even behavior the subject would be incapable of in a conscious state, such as not feeling pain, manifesting skin blisters as if the subject had been burned, or recalling things the subject's conscious memory does not retain.  However, there is strong dispute and skepticism about what behavior and effects hypnosis can induce; some believe that the state does not actually exist, and that all effects of 'hypnotism' that have been observed are in actuality a combination of subjects' expectations (based on their beliefs of hypnotism's effects) and their desire to please the hypnotist (see Hawthorne Effect).
Not surprisingly, given the disagreements described above, there is also wide disagreement about whether it has uses in fields such as mental health, medicine and law enforcement.  Some promote hypnotism as a powerful tool for therapists to treat patients, claiming that it can bring up to consciousness painful repressed memories.  Some even claim that it can retrieve repressed memories of alien abductions, Satanic ritual abuse, or memories from past lives.  Others point to this very fact, that subjects under hypnosis can develop and come to wholly believe in "memories" that are implausible (or even proven false by existing evidence), as proof that hypnosis is, if it even exists, a tool proved too unreliable to be safely used in any important undertaking.
---
:The second of these two introductions ("Hypnosis is a psychological state whose existence and effects are strongly debated.") seems much more balanced in its presentation of the facts as we are able to determine them regarding hypnosis. It makes the point up front that the phenomenon is highly debated (very important), and then goes through and presents various sides of that debate as they concern specific aspects of the phenomenon, with relevant links to other Wikipedia articles. It's really quite well done, actually. I would be hard pressed to do as well. I wish the author had signed it. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mostly my work, actually; Sam didn't mark them well, but these are the introductions (minus some changes made in the meantime) to the two versions currently under contention.  Out of the two, of course, I favor this introduction, but I'm not stuck on it as the final form; I think it's a bit long and I suspect there must be some way we can keep it well-balanced but move some of the detail it now contains into well-organized sections of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What were discussing

message: The following text was added to the "Hypnotism as a social construct" section.  It has been removed, since it violates NPOV by stating only one POV as fact and provides nothing in the way of verifiable evidence for that POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 64.136.26.235's contribution

message: Is Hypnosis a significant fictional treatment of hypnotism? If it is, wouldn't a link to it be useful (especially since it can be read online)?
--Vibritannia 11:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Novel About Hypnotism

message: I dont mean to butt in in an editing dispute (so i'll refrain from editing), but the four tags on this articles page is REALLY too much. If the tag really MUST include more information, perhaps a custom tag to say what is absolutely necessary would be more appropriate. This just looks plain silly. 
--The Minister of War 15:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please help. Sam Spade 16:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading around, i'd be happy to. First of all, i'd suggest replacing the four tags with just one, . It looks a lot better, and refocuses the discussion towards a goal: making one good article. --The Minister of War 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually  may be better suited to stay on. But reading around, i am becoming more and more curious of what the exact disagreement is all about. Can you summarize in, say, three sentences what forms the core of the dispute? --The Minister of War 17:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Four Tags?!

message: I don't want to step on toes, but I'm wondering what qualifications people might have in writing this hypnosis information. I've found this article interesting, but controversial in some areas.  I'm willing to add my two cents as a person knowledgeable and experienced in this area (PhD Clinical Hypnotherapy, MA Counseling Psych (Dec., 2005), MA Education, and 8+ years of clinical work). DrMattGomes 21:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do, it would be much appreciated. I, for my part, am a psyche undergrad. Sam Spade 22:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: However, please make sure you understand WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:verifiability.  The fact that the article is "controversial in some areas" does not mean it is incomplete or incorrect from Wikipedia's point of view; when multiple POVs exist on a matter Wikipedia does not try to declare one POV correct and the others incorrect, but rather describes the POVs and describes the reasons why those who hold those POVs hold them.  Very often, people get frustrated because they have "improved" an article by applying their "expert knowledge" to remove what they "know" (believe) to be incorrect or assert what they "know" (again, believe) to be correct, only to see these changes reverted because, by applying their "expert" knowledge to declare as settled a matter which is not in fact accepted as settled by the relevant professional community, they are in fact committing original research.  This is not even getting into the fact that, ahem, we rarely if ever have a way of checking whether someone who shows up claiming to have expert credentials that settle the matter actually has those credentials or is just claiming them.  But if you can provide us well-referenced contributions that help us accurately describe what is known and what is debated in the field, they'll be more than welcome.  Hope to see second and third edits from you soon! -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The fact is that you are trying every means fair and foul to turn the article into more of a disgrace.  I am 100% for improvements to this article but your proposed changes are not improvements.  This article needs to be streamlined.  It needs to be better-balanced.  It needs to be better-organized.  What it doesn't need is your proposed changes, which include inserting dubious unreferenced statements about hypnosis in cases of brainwashing and "mind control" (a concept that the American Psychological Association has never affirmed, I repeat again; exactly where are you getting the standing to declare that someone else's "lack of expertise is self evident"?) and surpressing a significant POV on the subject.  When you have improvements to make that will actually improve the article instead of just pushing your POV, please contribute; I'm sure we'd love to see you being constructive instead of just obstructive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I look forward to them too.  One thing which could really help make this article shine, IMHO?    The effect that I think is most commonly cited as proof that the hypnotic state is "real" (that is, it produces actual effects which are not available to someone merely compliantly playing out a role, even if unaware they are doing so) is pain suppression.  We have all heard the stories of surgeries undergone without anesthesia thanks to hypnosis, but the problem is that sometimes the story that gets around isn't quite accurate, or isn't the whole story (see for instance the memory RNA experiments of James V. McConnell).  Any citation of sources for the experiments best considered to show this effect, and of course any criticism of those experiments, will be quite helpful. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualifications?

message: *
Sam Spade 21:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am not the bank robber you are looking for. Move along." --The Minister of War 20:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bank robbing hypnotist

message: This might take a while to compile, but a section like this certainly is verifyable!!! :-)
Here's an example of a professional association.
* American Psychotherapy and Medical Hypnosis Association
Here's one example for a certification/licensure list.
* Indiana Hypnotist Committee
 — RDF talk 00:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional associations and governmental authorities

message: Each individual accumulates a great deal of information and absorbs sensory input from the environment, which is assimilated as a neurological process of review and merging activity in the brain.  During trance, it can be observed that other people demonstrate an interest in the subject's memory content, including the professional interest of healers or litigants.
Hypnosis is the result of a query method which seeks to elicit and extract specific content from an individual's memory, and the trance state which results from a professional trajectory of attention has as its primal purpose the retention of all memory content which might be otherwise lost during query sessions.  Hypnosis and other query-related mental states are also the result of methods which challenge an individual's self-concept and perceptions stored as past memories.
It is possible that hypnosis seeks out the engrams embedded within the individual's psychological make-up, without aim to disperse such memories but also with the will and compehension that some thought and memory patterns are not easily maintained within mental mindset.  Beadtot 10/19/2005 01:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: trance behavioral states

message: ::: There is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that hypnosis is not very different to sleep. Brainwave analysis shows that they are extremely different.
**A person who is hypnotized and not brought out of the trance drifts into a state indistinguishable from sleep.  My own experience of being hypnotized suggests a mental state bordering on sleep without actually surrendering consciousness.   The brainwaves may be different but observation which is also a valid scientific tool does suggest that hypnosis is not very different from sleep.ping 08:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I don't think good science is built on your own experiences, and I think most scientists would agree here. Hypnosis is not like sleep. 
** On the contrary: all science is based on observation and experience.    It is thinking of rationalal explanations for the observations that gets difficult especially with something as nebulous as hypnosis.  I still think it is valid to say that hypnosis is like sleep but also it is very different in someways ie brainwaves.  ping 08:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sleep?

message: ===article needs reformat===
This page needs more organisation with more headings. This will probably mean an upheaval of the content (although little deletion). However, the content will need to be moved. This does not mean that content is less important than other content just because it does not appear at the beginning of the article.
::Good job Lauciusa.  The major reformat is looking much better now.
Suggestion from TJMonaghan
Subheading required for Benefits to Clients for the clinical application of Clincial Hypnosis.
British article that I found, that could be incorporated into the main body of text. Note:  for american readers The primary care NHS GP sugery clinic described below is a health clinical funded by the british govt's Health Dept.
Dobbin, A. et al (2004) Impact on health status of a hypnosis clinic in general practice. Contemporary Hypnosis Vol 21 (4): 153-160
The impact on health status of hypnosis was investigated in a primary care NHS GP surgery clinic, with referrals from a Local Health Care Cooperative (LHCC) with 85,000 patients. The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF36) pre and post treatment was completed by patients referred with mental health problems, medical problems and for smoking cessation. One hundred and fifteen patients successfully completed SF36 questionnaires before and six weeks after the intervention. Categories of treatment were smoking cessation, mental health, and medical. In the case of referrals for smoking cessation there were no significant changes in mental, social or physical function six weeks after the intervention. In the case of mental health referrals, which were predominantly anxiety related, there was a large and significant effect on the SF-36 in emotional role and mental role and a moderate effect on social role and mental health. Self-hypnosis was in widespread use after treatment, even in those whose perceived problem appeared not to have improved. The results suggest that simple hypnosis techniques could have a significant impact on mental health. This could have implications for promoting mental health as well as for treating mental illness, and needs to be tested further by a randomized, controlled trial.
TJMonaghan
===Freud's gums===
I agree with Golbez that too much was removed, but the explanation that Freud's disenchantment with hypnosis came about only because his gums were bad and therefore he couldn't lead people into hypnotic trance seems frankly preposterous.  Can anyone lend support to the claim, or should it really be removed? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea.  Such a section should probably include the infamous Svengali and the way that hypnosis has often been used (for instance, in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and the Dr. Mabuse films) as a political allegory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: September

message: I agree with Golbez that too much was removed, but the explanation that Freud's disenchantment with hypnosis came about only because his gums were bad and therefore he couldn't lead people into hypnotic trance seems frankly preposterous.  Can anyone lend support to the claim, or should it really be removed? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Freud's gums

message: A paragraph needs to be added about hypnosis as portrait in popular culture, along with refrences to films for example.
:Excellent idea.  Such a section should probably include the infamous Svengali and the way that hypnosis has often been used (for instance, in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and the Dr. Mabuse films) as a political allegory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: popular culture

message: ===Movie reference===
::The Japanese thriller Cure strongly involves hypnosis too. Junkyardprince | Talk 21:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: November

message: ::The Japanese thriller Cure strongly involves hypnosis too. Junkyardprince | Talk 21:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie reference

message: Who took out the clean-up notice?  This is still unmitigated academic garbage that skirts the issue that hypnosis is verbal mind control. 
"Hypnosis, as defined by the American Psychological Association Division of Psychological Hypnosis, " AND how does the CIA define hypnosis? Is hypnosis that much different from from cult or religious indoctrination?  ..  -geepee 00:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: what about the clean up notice?

message: I propose that all sections under State vs non-state be split into a separate page called Theories of Hypnosis. These sections are large enough to make their own page, and this article badly needs shortening. Vizjim (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping. My first question for my own education is: is there such a thing as an article being too long? I'm reading at WP:NOT but not seeing anything specifically about length. Is it a MOS consideration? Having asked that, I agree that the article rambles with a haphazard heading structure. The article suffers from a confusion of "Definition" and "State vs non-state" and "History." Much of what comes under "State Vs..." seems to be in the wrong category. Much of what is under "definition" would be better under your proposed heading of "theories". I think a more parsimonious (though an equal amount of shovel work) strategy would be to clean up this page as it is, and then see if it needs to be split. I'd start with making a heading as you suggest, "Theories of Hypnosis" and incorporating much of what comes under "Definition" under that (Nash says there are 8!). If anything, I think the new split-off page should be not "theories of hypnosis" but "History of hypnosis". DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - the relevant guidelines are WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:LENGTH - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Yes, that was rather my impression: this page seems to try to encompass all aspects of hypnosis in depth, which becomes very difficult for the lay reader to follow. So, in another instance, the section on History has a link at the top that says "Main article: History of hypnosis," but in fact there is far more detail on this page than there is on the History of hypnosis page.Vizjim (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh thanks for the link on LONG. And also thanks for pointing out that a hypnosis history page already exists. I think that should be task one, move most of the history to that page. And on that history page is where the discussion about Braid should take place. On this page, however, I think we should focus on the modern practice and understanding of Hypnosis. State Vs non-state and Nash's 8 definitions seem very germane to the modern understanding of hypnosis. And there are plenty of RS to back that up. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting proposal 

message: First, the section describe the work of several theologians who have claimed that satanic brainwashing in rock music is real but who's views are heavily disputed by the scientific community. Reputable scientists who have studied the whole claim about rock music/heavy metal music containing satanic imagery/themes being able to brainwash teenagers and considered it bunk. As  it was written the section presented views from controversial Theologian Carl Raschke that are as written in a way couldn't make sense of as written (did some poorly quote the guy or is that exactly how he wrote it in the book which would be plagiarism since the quotes are not properly attributed to him. It also presented this guy's views in a way that implied he was a non-controversial recognized expert/reliable source on the subject when he is considered so within scientific community that has studied this issue. Thus if we are going to quote his views on the issue then we must also make it clear his views are very contested by relevant scientists  and present their counterargument, at least in summery. While it's true that some rock and heavy metal bands did indeed intentionally include satanic images and such, it's not ever been proven that this leads to any brainwashing of teenagers or others who listened to said music or that any violence committed by certain heavy metal fans can be traced back to the satanic content in certain the heavy metal/rock songs they've listened too (correlation not causation). Also, one should not describe controversial views as "so and so stated...." as the word "stated"  should be reserved only for non-controversial statements IMO whereas words like claimed. argued, alleged, etc are better in this sort of context.--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satanic Brainwashing section had serious NPOV and clarity issues.