4 ms·

MRI evidence on how hypnosis works

21 points by mikecane 16y ago

gruseom 16y ago
I missed the point where evidence that hypnosis works has been established. That is, I know it works from personal experience, but a lot of people have been claiming that it's hogwash for a long time, and unambiguous empirical study of the matter has proven rather difficult. Thus it's interesting that this study takes for granted that the distinction between hypnotic and non-hypnotic state is well-defined. If that really has been established, it's news.
- powrtoch 16y ago
  The exact nature of a hypnotic state is widely debated. But hypnosis being hogwash and hypnosis working for some are not mutually exclusive hypotheses. The test shows that there were differences of some kind between hypnotized and non hypnotized patients. Maybe it is hogwash, and only works because they think it will, but that doesn't change the fact that they are in a measurably different state.
  - gruseom 16y ago
    If they're in a repeatably measurably different state, that's the very definition of not being hogwash. The key word is "measurably". The interesting thing is that if MRI techniques have established a repeatably measurable distinction between people who are in a trance and people who are not in a trance, that's a far bigger deal than the specific finding reported here (which appears to presuppose that).
- blahblahblah 16y ago
  That's why reading this blog post is inferior to actually reading the paper, although it's better than most of what passes for science journalism these days in that they at least bothered to give a proper link to the paper's abstract. In the third paragraph of the paper's introduction, the authors cite six prior fMRI studies of hypnotic vs. non-hypnotic states, the first of them dating back as far as 1997. If those six papers employed careful methodology and measured a statistically significant result, then I'd say it's pretty well established. I don't particularly care enough about it to go look up all of those other papers, but I suspect the phenomenon's neurological basis is probably well established and the detractors calling it hogwash are probably not neuroscientists.
  - gruseom 16y ago
    Thanks! You're absolutely right about reading the paper. I should have looked at it before posting; casualty of the constant battle to minimize online distractions. I appreciate your digging that information up.
grannyg00se 16y ago
I don't think many people would disagree that hypnosis works in terms of changing brain state. Where the doubt lies is in the claim that you can plant some kind of repeatable cue that will cause a person to involuntarily perform an action. Or that you can help somebody recall events from previous lives. Or that you can cause somebody to loose weight or quit smoking. It's this type of associated claim that shrouds hypnosis in disbelief, not the actual hypnotic state itself. So I guess it depends on what is meant by 'works'.
starkfist 16y ago
Has anyone here ever tried hypnosis? I got sick from food poisoning a few years ago, and ever since then have had an on again off again issue with hypochondria. I've heard that hypnosis can help with this, but as a natural skeptic I'm... skeptical.
- powrtoch 16y ago
  I haven't tried it, but the first thing that comes to mind is that your skepticism is likely to have a causal influence on it's efficacy.
- gruseom 16y ago
  I studied hypnosis intermittently for a couple of years. It's a powerful tool that can help one make changes. But it's not a mechanical process that produces the same results every time; there's a lot of mutable state involved. It's better to treat it as an exploration and see what happens. Skepticism need not get in your way. Just let it take the form of curiosity for a while. The most important variable is probably how good the practitioner is (and whether there's a good fit between that person and you).

21 points by mikecane 16y ago

I missed the point where evidence that hypnosis works has been established. That is, I know it works from personal experience, but a lot of people have been claiming that it's hogwash for a long time, and unambiguous empirical study of the matter has proven rather difficult. Thus it's interesting that this study takes for granted that the distinction between hypnotic and non-hypnotic state is well-defined. If that really has been established, it's news.

powrtoch 16y ago
The exact nature of a hypnotic state is widely debated. But hypnosis being hogwash and hypnosis working for some are not mutually exclusive hypotheses. The test shows that there were differences of some kind between hypnotized and non hypnotized patients. Maybe it is hogwash, and only works because they think it will, but that doesn't change the fact that they are in a measurably different state.
- gruseom 16y ago
  If they're in a repeatably measurably different state, that's the very definition of not being hogwash. The key word is "measurably". The interesting thing is that if MRI techniques have established a repeatably measurable distinction between people who are in a trance and people who are not in a trance, that's a far bigger deal than the specific finding reported here (which appears to presuppose that).
blahblahblah 16y ago
That's why reading this blog post is inferior to actually reading the paper, although it's better than most of what passes for science journalism these days in that they at least bothered to give a proper link to the paper's abstract. In the third paragraph of the paper's introduction, the authors cite six prior fMRI studies of hypnotic vs. non-hypnotic states, the first of them dating back as far as 1997. If those six papers employed careful methodology and measured a statistically significant result, then I'd say it's pretty well established. I don't particularly care enough about it to go look up all of those other papers, but I suspect the phenomenon's neurological basis is probably well established and the detractors calling it hogwash are probably not neuroscientists.
- gruseom 16y ago
  Thanks! You're absolutely right about reading the paper. I should have looked at it before posting; casualty of the constant battle to minimize online distractions. I appreciate your digging that information up.

grannyg00se 16y ago

I don't think many people would disagree that hypnosis works in terms of changing brain state. Where the doubt lies is in the claim that you can plant some kind of repeatable cue that will cause a person to involuntarily perform an action. Or that you can help somebody recall events from previous lives. Or that you can cause somebody to loose weight or quit smoking. It's this type of associated claim that shrouds hypnosis in disbelief, not the actual hypnotic state itself. So I guess it depends on what is meant by 'works'.

starkfist 16y ago

Has anyone here ever tried hypnosis? I got sick from food poisoning a few years ago, and ever since then have had an on again off again issue with hypochondria. I've heard that hypnosis can help with this, but as a natural skeptic I'm... skeptical.

powrtoch 16y ago
I haven't tried it, but the first thing that comes to mind is that your skepticism is likely to have a causal influence on it's efficacy.
gruseom 16y ago
I studied hypnosis intermittently for a couple of years. It's a powerful tool that can help one make changes. But it's not a mechanical process that produces the same results every time; there's a lot of mutable state involved. It's better to treat it as an exploration and see what happens. Skepticism need not get in your way. Just let it take the form of curiosity for a while. The most important variable is probably how good the practitioner is (and whether there's a good fit between that person and you).