The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » You are getting sleepy...very sleepy... » » Won't do something they normally wouldn't do? Really? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20833 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Partizan you are way off man no matter how many things you may want to quote.

Conning someone as you mention is not really hypnosis and that is a fact. it is simply a form of social influence dominated by your CONSCIOUS mind period. you do it to them and they know it is going on.

90% of all good cons have an element of greed to them. you appeal to people on whatever level they are looking for and manipulate them.

any marketing major (my masters degree is in marketing by the way) will quote Maslows higherarchy of needs to you. A simple pyramid formula by which people can be socially manipulated to buying different things. Very similar to a good con game as a matter of fact. It however is NOT a form of hypnosis, at least by MOST (not all mind you bit most) accepted definitions.

you seem to be putting the theory forth that simply being able to "influence" people is hypnosis. I may need some back up here but I believe this is at best an incomplete understanding of hypnosis, if not flat out wrong.

People decide not to go to dinner because of the weather, did the weather "hypnostise" them because it "influenced" their decision? Few would answer yes I believe.

and to make people kill for different reasons is not really that hard, true. BUT look at what it takes. Danger of a child, themslevs or a loved one, extreme anger, this is really not hypnosis now is it. No real influence is involved unless your claiming that someone slept with the spouce spacifically to induce them to commit murder.

Again Lee is correct in your making straw man arguements. And more appropriatly are comparing apples and banannas.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Partizan
View Profile
Inner circle
London UK
1682 Posts

Profile of Partizan
Thanks, you have proved my point.

Many forms of priming are constantly bombarding people. this provides fertile opportunity to manipulate the mind that is already weak from this format.

A guy in a bar getting drunk with a 'friend' returns home and kills his wife. The guy gets life but the 'friend' who commited the murder by introducing the right triggers is free.
By simple manipulation of a vulnerable by suggestions, a grave act is set in motion. this without hypnosis.

All I am saying is that hypnosis can be used by an adept to produce abnormal behaviour by shifting the perspective of morality in the subject.
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
- Mark Twain
Partizan
View Profile
Inner circle
London UK
1682 Posts

Profile of Partizan
Quote:
People decide not to go to dinner because of the weather, did the weather "hypnostise" them because it "influenced" their decision? Few would answer yes I believe.

What sort of twisted logic is that?
Does not compute! Syntax error!
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
- Mark Twain
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20833 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
The point your are missing either intentionally or though lack of understanding is not ALL influence is hypnosis.

many things influence us. A person getting drunk IS NOT HYPNOSIS no matter how many times you write it
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Partizan
View Profile
Inner circle
London UK
1682 Posts

Profile of Partizan
Yes, not all influence is hypnosis, but all hypnosis is influence. (or uses the same pathways)
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
- Mark Twain
Daniel Santos
View Profile
Special user
562 Posts

Profile of Daniel Santos
Quote:
On 2006-01-10 04:28, Lee Darrow wrote:
...many women will disrobe given the slightest excuse - see the Girls Gone Wild videos for some excellent examples of that -...

LOL
If it is to be, it is up to me.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5105 Posts

Profile of landmark
Iago, Master Hypnotist?


Jack Shalom
Godel
View Profile
New user
California
71 Posts

Profile of Godel
I remember a hypnosis show in junior high. I was mesmerized. Great interesting subject. I recently saw a hypnotist at a fair, also sold stop smoking loss weight tapes....
Lee Darrow
View Profile
V.I.P.
Chicago, IL USA
3588 Posts

Profile of Lee Darrow
Quote:
On 2006-01-10 11:53, procyonrising wrote:
Lee Darrow,

I was clear in stating hypnosis was a social disinhibitor (like alcohol). I did not imply anything else.

Mr. Darrow, I don't think you fully understand the role of stats in psychological research. Moreover, I question whether you truly understand the faultiness of the Hidden Observer idea. Much of the research you're questioning is actually fine... and, if you've bothered to read the chapter on hypnosis in Wegner's book, you'd realize why I'm going to drop out of this discussion and return to my own research. Now.


As to my training in statistics in psychology, well, I do have some training (see below) and I was discussing the problem of confounding variables in the design of the experiment, which can throw statistical evaluation out the window in ANY experiment. If an experiment is not sufficiently controlled for confounding variables, variables which could alter the results and are not accounted for in the design, then the experiment is flawed and the results will be worthless at best and misleading at worst.

Good enough?
Quote:
["he used a simple survey, and did not cross-check it at all with other intake means... as was noted in several of the clinical journals around the time of his initial publications."]

(Several of the clinical journals? There are only, like, two. And why would you need to cross-check a measure? That would make it an entirely different study.)


Actually, one ALWAYS should have one's experimental design peer reviewed in graduate level psychological work. It's part of the process. And there are quite a few journals; Axiomathes: An International Journal in Ontology and Cognitive Science; Psychology Cognition & Perception; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Journal of Memory and Language; Journal of Experimental Psychology; British Journal of Psychology; Journal of Instructional Psychology; Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science; Journal of General Psychology, you get the idea... Intake methods for controlling variables regarding preconceptions with regard to hypnosis and the hypnotist are CRITICAL in such studies, otherwise, the preconceptions of the subject can seriously skew the results, rendering the study worthless.

Spanos did NOT use anything more than a simple checklist intake for preconceptions about hypnosis and did not check attitudes about the hypotists that the volunteers would be working with at all, nor did his inventory touch on anything having to do with relative voluntary abilities in trance or not and the preconceptions the volunteers may or may not have had regarding them - hence, his work was flawed, facially.

Welcome to Experimental Design for the Behavioral Sciences at Northeastern Illinois University, as taught by Dr. Victor DuFour, when I attended the class, back in the mid-70's. It was taught in conjunction with Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Both were three semester credit hour courses and had to be taken at the same time, in the same semester. I did a bit more than that as well, but why belabor the point?

Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!"
mota
View Profile
Inner circle
1658 Posts

Profile of mota
Just for entertainment...

Here is a guy who had a harem...it is on topic, check the last line of the article...

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?......11002340
themindreader
View Profile
Loyal user
254 Posts

Profile of themindreader
Hi,

I think that we are missing the point here.

If we look at the obedience studys carried out by Stanley Millgram it is clear to see that people obey instructions given to them by people in perceived authority.

Therefore even though it is possible to say that the 'hypnosis' cannot cause anybody to breach their moral boundarys - it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the 'hypnotist' can.

Simon
Lee Darrow
View Profile
V.I.P.
Chicago, IL USA
3588 Posts

Profile of Lee Darrow
Actually, studies using Millgram's methods with hypnotized subjects showed exactly the opposite. The hypnotized subjects were actually less likely to follow the supposedly damaging commands given than the people in the "normal" waking state. I believe the study was done both at Harvard and Stanford.

Remember, too, that Millgram's study also involved verbal coercion of the volunteers doing the supposed "shocking" of the supposed "victims." Try that with a hypnotized subject and the subject will, uniformly, exit the hypnotic state and respond in a generally negative manner. Sources, Fromm & Schorr as well as Hilgard & Hilgard.

Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!"
themindreader
View Profile
Loyal user
254 Posts

Profile of themindreader
Hi Lee,

I am not doubting your honesty here - but I have never heard of Millgram's study being repeated with hypnotised subjects at Stanford or Harvard. The reason I mentioned it was after reading Trancework by Yapko. There is no mention of it in there either and (as I am sure you are aware) it is a fairly substantial volume.

Also Millgrams study was so heavily critised by various psychological associations that surely no university psychology department would wish to repeat it. It breaches almost every single ethical guideline there is and University's have a duty to be ethical in there research.

Also it is very difficult to carry out any practical research into hypnosis to disprove a theory - by definition it would only be possible to prove that people would respond to the authority of a hypnotist, and not that they would not. Essentially a repeat of Millgrams study could only attempt to prove a negative.

To refine the point that I was making surely the 'hypnotist' is in the position of perceived authority that the 'psychological researchers' were put in in with Millgram's orginal study. Therefore to clarify it is not the hypnosis which would influence someone to carry out some immoral act, but the perceived authority of the hypnotist.

Simon
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20833 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Simon your making a distinction without a difference.

The distinction of "authority figure" vs. "hypnotist" is not important in the least.

thee position of hypnotist IS one of authority to the hypnotee. it is no different.

Also most important thing is that the hypnotist IS a position of authority. BUT the difference is it is a "voluntary" position of authority if you will. THIS is what makes it different. HYPNOSIS IS SELF HYPNOSIS, surley you know this right?

So therefore the hypnotist gives, suggestions, not orders as is the case of many authority figures. You are convoluting the issue. Because they are in a voluntary state NOBODY can make them do somethnig against moral or ethical code period.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
themindreader
View Profile
Loyal user
254 Posts

Profile of themindreader
Hi,

Yes - I am fully aware of the theory that 'all hypnosis is self hypnosis', however it is virtually impossible to create a uniform definition of hypnosis which we all agree with and therefore a simplistic statement such as the above really means very little when quoted. It's a little bit like talking about 'effective streamlining of productivity enhancements'

Getting back to the subject, who says that our moral boundaries are fixed anyway? If you (as I do) subscribe to the Human Givens theory of hypnosis (which suggets that we learn all our behaviour through REM programming either in sleep, the womb or trance) then all behaviour is learnt and therefore can be releart through reaccessing this state of mind. It is therefore possible to get someone to alter their value system through accessing the REM state (and even without doing this if we are suitably convincing) and if we can do this we can then give them suggestions which were previously outside of their moral code.

Anyway I think that we have to agree that it is impossible to prove that people would not carry out suggestions against their moral code - we can only prove that some people in certain situations wouldn't.

If the hypnotist states at the outset that 'you will not carry out any suggestion against your will' then naturally they would not. However if the hypnotist makes no such disclaimer it is perfectly possible that some people would carry out the hypnotists suggestions simply for the reason that they believe that the hypnotist has a 'magic power' over them.

I know that he would not like his name dragged into such an debate - but think of Luke Jermay's Definition = Creation theory.

Even if there was no hypnosis/REM programming involved, it is reasonable to assume that a certain percentage of the population would carry out a hypnotists suggestion simply because they believe that the hypnotist has power over them. Think of the power a faith healer or witchdoctor has over a suitably suggestable person.

Another point - it is possible that a group of older teenagers could influence a younger teenage to carry out an action which is against his moral code (for example smoke, steal etc), so therefore why could a hypnotist not do the same?

Simon
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20833 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Again your missing the point.

your right to assert that it is impossible to define what people "will or will not do" under what conditions.

point is make a case by showing me some siteing that states someone did a "murder" because they were hypnotised.

Point is you are who you are, not who the hypnotist tells you to be. When you are doing things on stage you are still you, simply ACTING line Elvis.

To make a distinction of who would take off their cloths normally, who would look for any excuse to do so, or any other thing is impossible. BUT to state that people will unequivically do what they are told is idiotic. there is even less proof for that.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
themindreader
View Profile
Loyal user
254 Posts

Profile of themindreader
Hi Danny,

Please don't take anything I say as an attack and kindly refrain from calling my views 'idiotic' - they are simply different to yours.

I did not say that 'people will unequivically do what they are told'

Discussing this issue on a public forum filled with people who will never perform in public (thank God) is a bit of a waste of time. If anyone would like to continue this discussion off-list then you are more than welcome to contact me.

Simon
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20833 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Oh and by the way I do work in public, for a living.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Lee Darrow
View Profile
V.I.P.
Chicago, IL USA
3588 Posts

Profile of Lee Darrow
Themindreader posits:
Quote:
If you (as I do) subscribe to the Human Givens theory of hypnosis (which suggets that we learn all our behaviour through REM programming either in sleep, the womb or trance) then all behaviour is learnt and therefore can be releart through reaccessing this state of mind.


Sorry, I do not, as I have actually taken several courses in developmental psychology. The Human Givens Theory is relatively easy to disprove through a number of ways, including operant conditioning, conscious learning, rational experience and repetetive gains, just for openers. Each of these methods of learning disprove the concept that the Human Givens Theory espouses about ALL learning of behavior occurring in sleep (faulty and disproven by brainwave studies as conscious processing and sensory intake portions of the brain are essentially offline during sleep, especially during REM), that REM is programming (actually, according to the latest studies, including those by the Air Force, which is arguably doing some of the best work in the field at the moment, REM is not well understood at all - what we thought we knew even six years ago went out the window with the new CT and MRI scans) - it is not as intake is NOT going on at all during REM, and processing is essentially random and the argument for in vitro learning in the womb is still unproven to a very great extent. Proof: we are not born with linguistic skills, nor even a basic recognition of our parents.

Your basis for the argument is scientifically flawed. Sorry.

Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!"
bishthemagish
View Profile
Inner circle
6013 Posts

Profile of bishthemagish
Quote:
On 2006-01-06 09:23, Jim Poor wrote:
First of all, I know very little about Hypnosis but am curious to learn someday. I can't afford classes as yet, so it will have to wait. Now, on to my question...

We were talking about the whole free will thing, and he mentioned that he believes a person will do anything, given the right suggestion and circumstances. Example:

A person who would never take of their clothes in front of strangers. Suggest to them that they are really at home, getting ready for a shower, and they will take off their clothes.

A person who would never flip someone the bird. Convince them they are in a country, or even on a planet where that is the proper and expected greeting, and they will do it.

Again, these are not MY theories, but still very interesting. What do you think?

Tks
Jim

If your interested in hypnotism I suggest you start reading stage hypnotism books. Anything by Ormond McGill and anything by Jerry Valley. Also try to see as many stage hypnotists as you can. Read the bio books of Franquin and Martin St. James.

Your question is interesting and it has been a topic in hypnotism for as about as long as there have been hypnotists. Part of what you have to do as a stage hypnotist is to respect the subject that is part of the show. In fact you subject almost IS the show. And each subject has a belief system. As a stage hypnotist you have to say your suggestions so they will be accepted by a lot of different people's belief systems. If you say any suggestion that is objectionable by the subject - there is a huge chance that their watch dog mind will wake them up.

Now if the hypnotist is in a night club and they have four people that came up out of twenty on a Sunday night. The subjects waking up is a problem. Because if they wake up there is no show.

The argument of "Losing free will" is partly a religious argument. Under hypnotism a subject does not lose control they gain control. People go in and out of hypnosis all day long and often don't even know it. The problem with hypnotism isn't a risk of losing free will it is the lack of education people have on the subject.

And the fact that almost all religious organizations use it only they call it something else!
Glenn Bishop Cardician

Producer of the DVD Punch Deal Pro

Publisher of Glenn Bishop's Ace Cutting And Block Transfer Triumphs
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » You are getting sleepy...very sleepy... » » Won't do something they normally wouldn't do? Really? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.19 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL