Loading AI tools
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The use of hypnosis to recover memories is a very contentions and potentially harmful thing to do. It shouldn't be casually added to the lede, but fleshed out in a sub-section and on another page. It'd be like casually adding "lobotomy" as a treatment in the lede for "anxiety." Okay, maybe not quite that bad but close. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I've made two attempts to indicate that the current "statist" definition of hypnosis is disputed. Both times it's been reverted in the name of having a concise, unbiased, definition. The problem is that there really is no such definition available. By pretending that there is, you are de facto taking a side in the debate. It's a mere pretense of objectivity and it does the readers, especially those who read only the lede (ie most) a disservice.
You don't have to read very deep into the literature to see that there are camps. From the first citation in the article:
In fact, the recently adopted definition is neither based on any apparent empirical foundation, nor is it “new.” Moreover, it has the potential to sow the seeds of conceptual and pragmatic confusion to an area sorely in need of greater clarification..... The most recent definition is arguably more biased than previous Division 30 definitions in declaring hypnosis to be a “state” linked with enhanced response to suggestion. Clearly, notwithstanding the authors’ caveats that the definition allows for “inquiry as to whether the ‘state of consciousness’ is in fact altered” (Elkins et al., 2015, p. 6),the integral role that “state” plays in the new definition, and the clear implication of an altered or distinct state in the description slants the depiction of hypnosis toward state theories, which for decades have kindled controversy and continue to provoke scientific debate. Furthermore, the HDC definition is perhaps as problematic for what it excludes as well as what it includes. [1]
What's more, this definition is not very useful to the lay community. If I'm looking up hypnosis and see that it is a "state of human consciousness" what does that tell me about what it is? If the first sentence instead said something to the fact that it is a term that is disputed and has many manifestations, at least now the reader knows they must read further to get a fuller picture. I'd love some help in making this first sentence reflect the actual matter of fact. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the new section Criticisms added by Christinaelizabeth. I have no objection to a section on Criticisms of hypnosis or hypnotherapy, but I do not believe this addition meets Wikipedia standards. Here is the section:
=== Criticisms ===
Within the scientific community, the opinions surrounding hypnotherapy have repeatedly been negative. Although there are a handful of studies suggesting support for hypnotherapy, the vast majority of research suggests the practice does not actually hold any significant results. Many of the research suggesting that hypnoses works as a form of therapy are not supported by proper scientific hypothesis or testing procedures[1]. This makes it difficult for scientists to refute the claims that hypnotherapy provides positive experiences, however rigorous testing is needed to prove a psychological measure is properly working[1]. Claims suggest hypnotherapy is effective do not stand up to these rigorous Scientific tests[2]. Again and again when true scientists attempt to replicate these “scientific” studies suggesting positive benefits of hypnotherapy, the result do not hold[2]. For a theory to hold scientifically, it must withstand replication research. Hypnotherapy repeatedly does not show any credibility when considering the replication studies attempted in this area[2].
Hypnotherapy has again and again not held up testing in the scientific community. The mixed reviews and conclusions regarding the vigor of hypnotherapy suggest that hypnotherapy does not work successfully. Due to the inconsistency there may be third variables and confounds may be contributing to the results of hypnotherapy. Due to this, further research must be done before a conclusion can be made regarding the effectiveness of hypnotherapy.
{{cite journal}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 51 (help)I removed the section for the following reasons:
I could go on with the problems, but that's a start. This section could be rewritten and readded to the article. Can anyone provide any reliable sources WP:RS for criticisms of hypnosis and hypnotherapy? - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
In looking at the article I was NOT surprised there was NO mention of MASS hypnosis, a very popular term. I suspect the phenomena is very unlikely. But folie à plusieurs the sharing of a visual hallucination (mass hallucination) among many is not. As the reported sharing of apparitions: Miracle of Fatima, the apparitions at Heroldsbach, Germany (1949). [Did the Giant Air Ship of 1897 really exist?] Does anyone have information on shared (visual) hallucinations in the Ancient World. The only works I am familiar with are: "Ghosts and Spirits in the Ancient World" by Eric Dingwall (1930), an old friend, and "The Greeks and the Irrational" by E.R Dodds (1951). Please reply if you have any knowledge of this topic. Miistermagico (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear Epinoial, May I suggest The Wonders of the Invisible World. Observations as Well Historical as Theological, upon the Nature, the Number, and the Operations of the Devils (1693) by Cotton Mather. It is doubtful that this classic eldritch work is the result of an altered state of consciousness. Miistermagico (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear: Epinoial, Mather's book deals with human perception and behavior resulting from past harsh times. You will find the same distress also taken to extremes in Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. Only here the foreign environment is Europeans in the African jungle. Miistermagico (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear Epinoia, What we have got here is a failure to communicate. I am only interested in the wild claims and accusations of witchcraft. Why do they exist? Where were the minds of these accusers and why? In 1890, at the age of 32, Conrad was appointed by a Belgian trading company to serve on one of its steamers. While sailing up the Congo River from one station to another, the captain became ill and Conrad assumed command. He guided the ship up the tributary,Lualaba River to the trading company's innermost station, Kindu, in Maniema,Eastern Kongo; Marlow has similar experiences to the author. Conrad's three-year association with a Belgian trading company included service as captain of a steamer on the Congo River. I would argue Conrad's Heart of Darkness is NOT ENTIRELY a work of fiction. Miistermagico (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear Epinoia, Thank you for the tip Mass psychogenic illness is new to me.Miistermagico (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
After this revert, Kwesi Yema responded elsewhere: Hypnosis does involve a trance and sleepy phase. What was described in the Nigerian warfare, was a psychological system of hypnotizing enemies.
You will have to find a different source to support that claim, because the source you cited described "use of biological weapons in warfare in pre-colonial Africa", mentioned various biotoxins, and described the use of one "which was spread at the war front. If inhaled by the enemies it had the effect of taking the enemies into a stupor, becoming drowsy or sleepy" (Akinwumi 1995, p. 127—see the aforementioned edit for full citation). This describes a drug-induced stupor. There is no description of a psychological induction of hypnosis in the cited source. Biogeographist (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"The use of hypnosis in other contexts, such as a form of therapy to retrieve and integrate early trauma, is controversial within the medical or psychological mainstream."
I'm not sure about that innocent little word, 'or.' Read literally it says hypnotism is controversial within either the medical or the psychological mainstream. In that case, I'd like to know which one. And why is the other one included? As a guess (I'm not a subject matter expert) the word should be 'and.' If my guess is correct, could I ask for an expert to make that little change? TIA.
MartinRinehart (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The crime section is misleading. It implies that hypnosis can force people to do things against their will and that subjects aren't in control. There is no evidence for that. As seen in the military section and well proven by Martin Theodore Orne and other scientist in the field, hypnotized people are not helpless, not unconscious and not more willing to engage in anti-social behavior than without hypnosis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Theodore_Orne#Antisocial_Behavior_and_Manchurian_Candidates
It seems the people mentioned in the "crime" section were not committed for "abusing hypnosis". They were committed for a variety of crimes and abusing power positions. Just the newspaper-articles used as sources claim that hypnosis was a tool in this. Some of the articles admit that it is at least questionable that "hypnosis" was responsible. That hypnosis could make somebody not notice a traumatizing event is an extremely questionable claim. It is close to misinformation. Even memory-loss above normal forgetfulness is rare. Do you remember more than the gist of a conversation after it's over? Directing somebodies attention to what he would not remember anyways, can seem like induced memory-loss to the person. Fittingly, hypnotic suggestions are often ineffective on people who say they cannot remember anything from a trance. 2001:A61:1205:C801:D9DE:DB30:3BC6:9F0C (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.