Noise during hypnosis

Discussing to what extent a person can selectively attend to or ignore a particular stimulus, the examples used below tap into extremes intentionally. It is from extremes we work towards determining not if stimuli can be or are routinely ignored, but when, under what conditions.

1. The need for the term “hypnosis” to be in any study in order for it to be applicable.

A person enters a forum and asks if a .357 magnum can penetrate 7 inches of steel. A gun expert with decades of experience says it is possible. A physicist posts several studies that demonstrate it is not possible. The gun expert challenges the physicist by asking the physicist how many guns they have ever fired in their life and by asking why the word gun or bullet is not mentioned in any of the studies.

I am an educational psychologist. The studies I posted neither require that I be a hypnotist or mention the word “hypnosis” in order to respond to the OP by demonstrating how selective attention works.

2. The idea if a study hasn’t been conducted a conclusion cannot be drawn.

Could hypnosis give super powers?

I take the highly suggestible participants in the hypnosis pain studies. I have a post-hypnotic expert work with me to place them in a deep trance. I then take a sledge hammer and break a foot or a knee. I don’t need to conduct a study with the word “hypnosis” to draw the conclusion that the subjects will not be able to ignore the pain. Why? Why don’t I need to conduct such studies?

See point #1. Conclusions can be drawn from other bodies of knowledge that demonstrate why it is not necessary to test the ability of hypnosis to potentially provide the super power of ignoring a sledge hammer to the foot.

3. The hypnosis pain studies.

First, there have been studies on pain with both animals and humans. During and just prior to WWII there were lots of studies forming ‘Gestalt psychology’ as well as some Eastern lines of research that experimented on subjugated populations. One study tied live prisoners to stakes and tested various grenades for lethality. To my knowledge they never hypnotized anyone to demonstrate that subjects in trance were able to ignore the explosion or subsequent shrapnel tearing through the body.

Second, I am familiar with the studies you posted. It is terrific, solid work that shows the benefits and limitations of hypnosis. I’m a big fan of the study you posted along with similar studies. I’ve read quite a few studies on the use of hypnosis in dental practices. I’m not as fond of, but understand the value of publishing ‘case studies’ that demonstrate the isolated narratives of hypnoanesthesia.

The reason there is no need to design a specific experiment that uses the word hypnosis regarding the OP’s experience, is because we can rely on hypnosis studies similar to the one you provided as well as other bodies of knowledge to draw conclusions regarding the limits of being able to ignore multiple random noises of varying intensities.

Note, cognitive load theory does support reaching a mental state where all other stimuli are ignored, hence the concepts of “tunnel vision” or the “cocktail party” phenomena. Human factors researchers use these concepts to design ways to navigate these issues, e.g. warning lights or alarms in airplane cockpits. What is not supported is using multiple random stimuli of varying intensities to intentionally achieve focus, i.e. the question posted by the OP regarding their culpability in not being able to focus. There was no way to predict what noise was next, in what order, or what intensity.

That doesn't answer the question though, right?

I mean, you're saying "I can draw connections" and I agree that in theory it is possible to draw connections, but I'm asking you to actually draw the connection and lay it out so that it can stand on its own. Can you do that?

jimmyh wrote:...but I'm asking you to actually draw the connection and lay it out so that it can stand on its own. Can you do that?

For you to personally be able to make the connection is not my goal.

I’m confident that most people who happen across this thread can see what we both have written and make any necessary connections and draw their own conclusions. They can decide if they prefer a gun expert or a physicist.

Are you saying that you take it back and that you *do* want to "play the credential game" (to use your words) instead of getting into the actual details and letting your arguments stand for themselves?

Again, that's fine, just make sure you're honest about what your credentials are and are not.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:I’m confident that most people who happen across this thread can see what we both have written and make any necessary connections and draw their own conclusions. They can decide if they prefer a gun expert or a physicist.

Yes indeed. If hypnosis can't help to stressed-out, noise-sensitive people, one wonders what value it has for people looking for help. Charging £200 a pop, the practitioner should be able to afford suitable premises.

If I'd been the OP, I'd have demanded quiet and/or my money back. 200 quid for that malarkey? Pah!

jimmyh wrote:Are you saying that you take it back and that you *do* want to "play the credential game" (to use your words) instead of getting into the actual details and letting your arguments stand for themselves?

No jimmy.

I’m confident that most readers can make the connection from my previous posts that it isn’t about the credentials of the gun expert or the physicist. It is about evaluating their respective arguments.

Candid wrote:

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:I’m confident that most people who happen across this thread can see what we both have written and make any necessary connections and draw their own conclusions. They can decide if they prefer a gun expert or a physicist.

Yes indeed. If hypnosis can't help to stressed-out, noise-sensitive people, one wonders what value it has for people looking for help. Charging £200 a pop, the practitioner should be able to afford suitable premises.

If I'd been the OP, I'd have demanded quiet and/or my money back. 200 quid for that malarkey? Pah!

Exactly. And to add insult to injury, not only do you take my £200, but then you blame me for the hypnosis not working!

Right, when you decline to state your argument and instead talk about qualifications like "gun expert" and "physicist", you're talking about evaluating the invisible arguments, not credentials. Makes sense.

Just make sure you do a good job sticking to actual arguments in the future.

jimmyh wrote:Right, when you decline to state your argument and....you're talking about evaluating the invisible arguments,

My argument along with supporting evidence in the form of peer reviewed research articles has been stated multiple times jimmy. Nothing invisible about it. Random, unpredictable auditory distractions, such as those experienced by the OP, cannot simply be “utilized” by the hypnotist.

That argument is by no means invisible in this thread, and even if you personally don’t see the connection, that is not my problem. I’m confident readers can make the connection between scientific research on auditory distractions and selective attention and how it applies to the OP being financially raped by a hypnotist for £200.

Just make sure you do a good job sticking to actual arguments in the future.

Or what? That’s right...nothing, absolutely nothing other than you possibly whining some more.

Or what?

It's not a threat. I won't do anything, except maybe "whine" about it some more (if that's how you want to frame it).

I'm pointing out how you can contribute here such that you get the feedback you're looking for: "Thanks Richard!" "That was really helpful!" "This makes so much sense!" "I put your advice to use, and now my issue is much better than it was!". It feels good to get that feed back, doesn't it? I know it does for me. It makes you feel like you're worth something. Like all that time and effort you put into learning your craft hasn't been for naught. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't be secure and recognize that it's nothing personal when occasionally someone doesn't like what you've said. But when it's not "just one time" and starts to become the norm, it starts to become a bigger issue, you know?

It's kinda like food. If you have a healthy relationship with food you aren't going to have a breakdown when lunch comes 20 minutes late. If you're thoroughly food secure you might lose ten pounds in a month just because you were busy focusing on other things, and then just gain it back later. However, at some point, if no food is coming in, no one is okay.

And I know you don't have a lot of that kind of feed back on this board. I've seen the kind of feed back you usually get, and I know *I* wouldn't be happy if that were my batting average. I think that a *lot* of what's behind this is related to the things we've been talking about here, and I don't think you're aware of what you're doing wrong to get these hostile and unappreciative responses to your honest attempts to help people.

It's merely a suggestion. One which I think will make you look good, and from what you were saying, one I thought you explicitly agreed with.

My argument along with supporting evidence in the form of peer reviewed research articles has been stated multiple times jimmy. Nothing invisible about it. Random, unpredictable auditory distractions, such as those experienced by the OP, cannot simply be “utilized” by the hypnotist.

(emphasis mine)


Okay, I see what you're saying now. When you say "I want to stick to the arguments", and "my argument has been stated multiple times", *this* is what you're referring to. I feel kinda dumb for missing this, but the issue is that I didn't realize you saw this as the argument itself rather than just the conclusion which your unspecified arguments support.

The reason there's a problem is that this statement isn't actually an argument, it is an assertion. The "connection" part that you're choosing to leave out is where the actual argument is. An argument is something that connects premises to a conclusion. The classic example is "1. All humans are mortal. 2. Socrates is human. 3. Therefore Socrates is mortal". It is the logical structure here that has the wonderful ability to take uncontroversial truths (1,2) and turn them into novel conclusions (3) which can then be known to be true *regardless* of who speaks it. While your statement fits the non-technical usage of the word "argument", it is only the "Socrates is mortal" section, and therefore is missing all the magic juice that makes the credibility of the speaker irrelevant.

Linking a few papers is somewhat closer, since instead of saying "Therefore Socrates is mortal" with no premises or argument laid out to support it, you at least give the papers as a premise. Still, the structure seems to go like this "1. Here are papers which contain true things 2. There exists a set of arguments which connects 1 to 3, 3. Therefore Socrates is mortal".

While technically an argument, this really just buries all the hard work into the questionable premise "there exist an argument that connects these two".

If you want to lay out what that argument *is*, then you can justifiably claim 3, and so long as the argument is sound it won't matter one bit what experience you don't have. If you don't though, then all you've done is shift your unsupported statement from your conclusion itself to the vague idea that somewhere in platonic space (but not in the papers themselves, mind you) there exists an argument that supports your conclusion based on premises which exist in the papers.

Without actually making an argument that connects them, determining whether "there is an argument that connects them" is credible, must rely on one of two things. 1) looking and finding one ourselves, or 2) trusting you to be credible when making unsupported claims of this nature. When the first option fails (whether because there actually isn't a valid argument, or that we just can't find it), it's down to trusting your credibility.

It seems like you're saying (and of course, correct me if I'm wrong) that you aren't interested in justifying yourself as an expert and that you are also uninterested in laying out arguments to connect your conclusion to uncontroversial and/or verifiably true premises. It sounds like the *only* thing you are claiming is that "Here are some papers which[, through reasoning not contained in the papers themselves,] justify my conclusions. Furthermore, I am confident that [some unspecified] readers [,though not you, who I see as intelligent,] will be able to locate this connecting set of arguments on their own". Is that all you are trying to claim?

jimmyh wrote:I'm pointing out how you can contribute here such that you get the feedback you're looking for: "Thanks Richard!" "That was really helpful!"

I’m not looking for you or anyone else to tell me thank you jimmy. Given what you wrote, maybe it is another area where you struggle to make the connection. Not everyone has your same motives or goals jimmy. So, thank you for once again providing me with your opinion of what I need to do in the forum. It is really helpful.

The reason there's a problem is that this statement isn't actually an argument, it is an assertion. An argument is something that connects premises to a conclusion. The classic example is "1. All humans are mortal. 2. Socrates is human. 3. Therefore Socrates is mortal".

Thanks for the Philosophy 101 definition of an argument jimmy. Here is another definition;

Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views.

My argument, point, assertion, claim, or whatever semantic twist you want to offer jimmy is up for anyone that reads this thread to evaluate for themselves. They can decide if my observation that paying £200 for a session with random auditory distractions is acceptable, or not. Equally, they can decide if the research offered demonstrates adequately the “assertion” that random auditory distractions cannot be “utilized”.

I’m not looking for you or anyone else to tell me thank you jimmy. Given what you wrote, maybe it is another area where you struggle to make the connection. Not everyone has your same motives or goals jimmy. So, thank you for once again providing me with your opinion of what I need to do in the forum. It is really helpful.

Richard, you're human. You need approval just as much as the next person, and in this forum you're not getting it. You have even explicitly asked me for approval, and tried to show me that others (presumably mostly in the other sub-forums) *have* given you this approval at times. Clearly it is important to you.

I know you don't like taking advice from people who are blunt with you, but it if it ever gets to the point where you're sick of pretending to not care, I promise you that you will like the results.

Thanks for the Philosophy 101 definition of an argument jimmy. Here is another definition;

Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views.

My argument, point, assertion, claim, or whatever semantic twist you want to offer [...]

My point was not a semantic one, as it was not "this is the one true definition". My point was that this is the definition that goes with your claims of "sticking to the arguments instead of playing credential games". "playing credential games" meets the definition of "an exchange of diverging or opposite views", and for there to be any merit to the claim that you're above credential games, you have to be "sticking to the arguments" according to the philosophy 101 definition.

Jimmy, the link you posted is called sarcasm. Not everyone has your same reasons for participating in this forum. Maybe one day you will make that connection.

As for your multiple assertions explaining why what I wrote should be labeled or defined one way verses another, great. Have fun with that.

Richard is a troll. He has been coming back to this forum time and time again in order to get his feedback addiction. Don't feed the troll.

Jimmy, the link you posted is called sarcasm.

I'll just agree to disagree here so we can drop it, but I do have a compelling case for my perspective which is available upon request.

Richard is a troll. He has been coming back to this forum time and time again in order to get his feedback addiction. Don't feed the troll.

I actually don't think he is, in the relevant sense. I will grant that he does sometimes do what looks like trolling to me, but I only see that defensively.

There's definitely "more to the story" which makes things "less than ideal", but under all that I do think his intentions are good. For example, look at his latest comment on the sleeping issue post. That one is helpful and good.