freaked out

ahimsa42 wrote:i have mixed feelings about this. personally i would always prefer the truth no matter how harsh rather than a comforting lie and cannot recall a time when this was not the case.

Why mixed feelings?

Might it be the case, that there is a rational side of you that can make an argument for telling a lie? In my opinion, you partially avoid exploring this, because as you began generating perfectly legitimate reasons for telling lies, you then need to distance yourself from your current belief of “truth no matter how harsh.”

It is easier to remain with your current belief that truth is always better than a lie.

jimmyh wrote:
...because precision *is* important on things like this

Empirically false.

Just because you don't understand the importance of precision does not mean there is none.

jimmyh wrote:Just because you don't understand the importance of precision does not mean there is none.

Never said precision is never important or there is none.

Again, your statement is empirically false.

Just because you don't understand the importance of precision in cases like this does not mean that precision is not important in cases like this.

jimmyh wrote:Just because you don't understand the importance of precision in cases like this does not mean that precision is not important in cases like this.

Empirically false jimmy.

Ahimsa, I will start you off with one example to consider...

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

ahimsa42 wrote:i have mixed feelings about this. personally i would always prefer the truth no matter how harsh rather than a comforting lie and cannot recall a time when this was not the case.

Why mixed feelings?

Might it be the case, that there is a rational side of you that can make an argument for telling a lie? In my opinion, you partially avoid exploring this, because as you begin generating perfectly legitimate reasons for telling lies, you then need to distance yourself from your current belief of “truth no matter how harsh.”

It is easier to remain with your current belief that truth is always better than a lie.

A group of men arrive in the city and threaten your life, saying if you are of a certain religion or come from a certain region of the world they will kill not only you, but your family. Is it better to lie or suffer the consequences of telling the truth?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

ahimsa42 wrote:i have mixed feelings about this. personally i would always prefer the truth no matter how harsh rather than a comforting lie and cannot recall a time when this was not the case.

Why mixed feelings?

Might it be the case, that there is a rational side of you that can make an argument for telling a lie? In my opinion, you partially avoid exploring this, because as you began generating perfectly legitimate reasons for telling lies, you then need to distance yourself from your current belief of “truth no matter how harsh.”

It is easier to remain with your current belief that truth is always better than a lie.

mixed feelings because i can see both the positive's & negatives but only the exact circumstances can determine which one outweighs the other. i can only speak for myself personally in that i would always prefer knowing the truth rather than attempting to be comforted by an intentional falsehood.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

ahimsa42 wrote:i have mixed feelings about this. personally i would always prefer the truth no matter how harsh rather than a comforting lie and cannot recall a time when this was not the case.

Why mixed feelings?

Might it be the case, that there is a rational side of you that can make an argument for telling a lie? In my opinion, you partially avoid exploring this, because as you begin generating perfectly legitimate reasons for telling lies, you then need to distance yourself from your current belief of “truth no matter how harsh.”

It is easier to remain with your current belief that truth is always better than a lie.

A group of men arrive in the city and threaten your life, saying if you are of a certain religion or come from a certain region of the world they will kill not only you, but your family. Is it better to lie or suffer the consequences of telling the truth?[/quote]

in a life or death situation, most (but not all) would agree that lying would be the preferable choice by far but this is a very extreme case which very few will ever experience. most lies are told in order to attempt to avoid far less repercussions or as an effort to save someone else's feelings. i don't think in the majority of cases that this is the most positive choice in the long run.

there is a famous meme which this discussion brings to mind:

https://www.google.com/search?q=harsh+t ... s&tbm=isch

jimmy,

thanks for your very detailed & robust answers. i certainly have a far different understanding of this subject than i did a month or two ago. i also think the paper i linked to reaches some very insightful conclusions and even though it is an intense read, i think that the concluding comments is a great summary of the main points.

"Our analysis supplements other social psychological and expectancy-based models in specifying social and cognitive processes that mediate hypnotic subjects' perception of the situation, their suggestion-related responses, and ultimately, their reports of involuntariness. Our analysis focuses not so much on the issue of whether involuntary experiences are real or illusory as it does on identifying multiple and interactive determinants of subjects' reports of involuntary experiences. In so doing, we highlight the interplay of situational and personal factors. How amenable rapport, expectancies, and imaginal abilities are to modification is still an open question.

Hypnotizable subjects' perceptions of involuntariness are generally consistent with their perceptions of how hypnotized subjects respond to hypnotic suggestions. Subjects' identification of their actions as involuntary is motivated largely by their desire to have the experiences called for by hypnotic communications, to please the hypnotist, and to experience modifications in consciousness and behavior. Culture-bound images and expectancies about hypnosis set the stage for the perception of goal-directed actions as involuntary. Hypnotic communications script role-relevant behaviors, reinforce preconceptions about hypnotic behaviors as happenings, and shape response expectancies and perceptions that facilitate the identification of action as involuntary. When receptive subjects interpret their suggestion-related imaginings, sensations, and responses in keeping with an occurrence schema, they are likely to experience suggestion-related involuntariness and respond successfully to suggestions. Because perceptions of involuntariness are integral to many subjects' self-appraisal as good hypnotic subjects, feelings of involuntariness bolster response expectancies and beliefs that they are hypnotized, facilitate a positive response set, and increase the likelihood of successful involuntary responding to suggestions.

Imaginative abilities may be important to the extent that imagery is easily accessible and well rehearsed in fantasy-prone subjects, for example, and therefore experienced as relatively spontaneous. However, only a minimal degree of fantasy ability is necessary for many subjects to adopt the definition of the situation called for by most suggestions. Nevertheless, feelings of involuntariness can be short circuited or disrupted by certain actions. For example, subjects might attend to the objective reality of the situation, have task-irrelevant thoughts, and analyze the causes of their actions. Such cognitive activity is particularly likely to be disruptive when it results in subjects' interpreting suggested events and experiences as the by-products of personal effort or naturally occurring phenomena.

The importance of subjects' adopting an overarching schema to account for hypnotic responses can be seen in research that provides subjects with a clear-cut interpretive framework for responding as a good subject while responding in the opposite direction of suggestions. Yet, certain features of the hypnotic context discourage awareness and analysis of the personal and situational factors that influence hypnotic behavior. Even though subjects do not recognize that their feelings of involuntariness are a product of their own goals and understandings, even though they might not be aware of contingencies that affect their feelings, even though their sense of volitional direction and control may consist only of a peripheral awareness of directed activity, their behavior is, in fact, goal directed, purposeful, and ultimately explicable in the same terms that account for nonhypnotic behavior."

jimmyh wrote: Just because you don't understand the importance of precision in cases like this does not mean that precision is not important in cases like this.


Empirically false jimmy.

So you're saying that the fact that you don't understand the importance of precision in cases like this *does* mean that precision is not important in cases like this? It's empirically shown that it's not possible that you're missing something?

Well damn, that's impressive. I'd love to know which observations you're referencing there :p

i also think the paper i linked to reaches some very insightful conclusions and even though it is an intense read, i think that the concluding comments is a great summary of the main points.

Certainly seems like an insightful paper, and I don't see anything to object to in the part that you quoted.

Out of curiosity.. I know you said you don't object to using hypnosis for therapeutic reasons so long as it does not involve accepting nonsense suggestions, but is this something you could actually see yourself doing? For example, if you were suffering from chronic pain or something and the doctor said that you'd be safe to tune the pain out, do you think you'd have an easy time letting a hypnotist help you do that?

jimmyh wrote:

i also think the paper i linked to reaches some very insightful conclusions and even though it is an intense read, i think that the concluding comments is a great summary of the main points.

Certainly seems like an insightful paper, and I don't see anything to object to in the part that you quoted.

Out of curiosity.. I know you said you don't object to using hypnosis for therapeutic reasons so long as it does not involve accepting nonsense suggestions, but is this something you could actually see yourself doing? For example, if you were suffering from chronic pain or something and the doctor said that you'd be safe to tune the pain out, do you think you'd have an easy time letting a hypnotist help you do that?

actually, these discussions here and my own investigations have recently led me to have several sessions with a hypnotist to help solve some personal issues. i am pleased with the results and am considering continuing to investigate self hypnosis on my own.

i even brought up the idea of trying name amnesia and forgetting numbers with them and they of course are willing to do so (if i pay for it of course) but since i would only be going into it with the intent for it not to happen it would likely, as you said, be a complete waste of $. i also saw how the reporter in the BBC documentary so easily resisted the suggestions she was given. i guess you could say that i am no longer "freaked out" about this anymore but i am still unable to comprehend how & why people are so willing to fool themselves so completely or why it would be entertaining to do so.

according to the paper i linked, one of the main things that makes a highly hypnotiziable subject is their willingness to believe that voluntary acts are involuntary. i obviously fall on the other end of the spectrum but unlike the reporter & the hypnotist himself who said he was also not a very good subject but wishes that he was, like you, i am perfectly fine not being able to and don't even know if i could if i wanted to. i do find it interesting that you have no issue with putting people in states that you yourself are adverse to being in. this is of course no reflection on you but my own personality would have major trouble doing so.

jimmyh wrote:So you're saying that the fact that you don't understand the importance of precision in cases like this *does* mean that precision is not important in cases like this?

No. It is not what I’m saying or have said.

Disagreement does not equal misunderstanding.

ahimsa42 wrote:in a life or death situation, most (but not all) would agree that lying would be the preferable choice by far but this is a very extreme case which very few will ever experience. most lies are told in order to attempt to avoid far less repercussions or as an effort to save someone else's feelings. i don't think in the majority of cases that this is the most positive choice in the long run.

In the majority of cases you don’t believe that to lie is the most positive choice in the long run. Fair enough, but that leaves room that in the short term it can be positive. When people allow themselves to be hypnotized, is that not a short term situation?

Granting the assumption that truth is desirable, there is still benefit to the how, when, and why truth is communicated. A truth, communicated in the wrong way at the wrong time can induce psychological trauma. A truth is also more likely to be rejected if presented in a way that directly contradicts verses adjusts a core belief. A lie, excepted as truth, can also induce trauma.

Point being, it isn’t a binary, either/or world. There is a spectrum of truth (epistemology/ontology). There are half truths, omissions of facts, etc., that serve a positive, constructive purpose. It doesn’t need be an extreme case.

Applied to the context of this thread, people that hold a deep belief in the power of hypnosis will understandably have a different perspective on truth. A person that does not believe in hypnosis will see a suggestion that they cannot remember their name as an obvious lie. It is not true. Those that believe in hypnosis will frame it differently, that the suggestion that they can’t remember their name is not a truth, until the person accepts the suggestion as true.

actually, these discussions here and my own investigations have recently led me to have several sessions with a hypnotist to help solve some personal issues. i am pleased with the results and am considering continuing to investigate self hypnosis on my own.

Awesome, glad to hear.

according to the paper i linked, one of the main things that makes a highly hypnotiziable subject is their willingness to believe that voluntary acts are involuntary.

It's worth noting that it's often not an explicit choice by the person being hypnotized. If someone breaks down your door and threatens you with an axe, would you consider your fear response to be "voluntary"? If you were to know that the axe wielding madman only axes up people who are afraid, would you simply choose not to fear?

The "voluntariness" of actions isn't simply "it's your brain doing it, so it's your choice by definition". In order for something to feel "voluntary", you have to be able to track your brains decision making process well enough to stay on top of it and redirect things when it feels like the right thing to you. People can give this up willingly (e.g. "Imagine that you're no longer imagining"), but people will often lose track of this without trying to -- both in context of "hypnosis" and in context of "axe wielding madman that only axes up scared people".

i do find it interesting that you have no issue with putting people in states that you yourself are adverse to being in. this is of course no reflection on you but my own personality would have major trouble doing so.

Actually, I'm closer to you on this one than you'd think. It has definitely been a real obstacle for me. I have "overruled" that objection in the past when I felt like it made sense to, but the incongruence there was definitely a difficulty.

These days I basically don't help put people in states that I would object to if I were in their shoes. Partially this is about being better at understanding and empathizing with their desires for things and states that "aren't for me", but also in large part it is about going about things in ways that work well with people like my past self.

This becomes interesting when their perspective and position is vastly different than mine. For example, I've had a few clients who wanted me to hypnotize them to forget a traumatic set of events, and it was quite an exercise for my brain because I couldn't just say "well *I* sure wouldn't do that and don't recommend it, but okay!", but neither could I just go about things the way *I* would be comfortable with if I were in their shoes with my personality and knowledge/beliefs, because they did not share them and wouldn't be open to that. It ends up becoming an exercise of "what would it take for me to accept that this is the right thing for them, and is something that I can and would accept if I were to be in their shoes?", and then finding out if it's my mind that changes (in which case I hypnotize them and give them what they asked for) or theirs (in which case they realize why it might not be in their best interest, and decide to go about things differently).

It's not really a binary "I was right" or "they were right" thing, as the merging of the two perspectives gives a lot of insight about exactly *how* to hypnotize them to forget, or what exactly to do instead.