The joys of critical thinking . . . redently on the Hypnosis Technique Exchange, there has been a thread developing on the need or not of scientific method and critical thinking within the hypnosis community.
Well . . . scientific method or no . . . there certainly are a few folks in the hypnosis community who need to grab hold of a few handfulls of critical-thought-candy and chow down ‘cuz they are runnin’ on empty.
A video of Criss Angel "hypnotizing" a young woman to pass physically pass through his body has been making the rounds in the various hypnosis discussion groups.
Some folks rightly point out that Angel is an illusionist and that the effect is a trick (the girl isn’t even what she is portrayed as but is an audience plant who is "in on" the trick) and certainly has NOTHING to do with hypnosis . . . some posters have even been so kind as to share the history of the actual effect.
However . . .
. . . and this is the scary part . . .
. . . . . . there are indeed HYPNOTISTS who think this is REAL! They’re wondering where they can go to learn such amazing hypnotic skills or more. These aren’t members of the mass lowest common denominator who have been tricked or fooled but folks who claim to be knowledgeable and/or experienced in hypnosis, some who even make claims of having advanced experience themselves.
Please, understand a simple and straightforward fact . . . Criss Angel is NOT a hypnotist, he is NOT an alien demigod, he has no special powers, none, nada, zilch, meiyou. He is an illusionist. Period. Some hypnotists are also magicians or mentalists (I dabble in mentalism myself and I have a number of good friends who are fullfledged skilled magicians) and some magic illusions (that’s magic, not magick) are effects that use hypnosis as a patter set but actually have nothing to do with hypnosis, nothing at all . . . so, it’s understandable when some members of the public become confused. However, it is inexcuseable when folks who should know better, folks who are experienced hypnotists, fall for such magickal thinking, big time.
Anyone making claims of being able to transubstantiate physical reality in this way via hypnosis is lying to you or is self-delusional. Keep in mind that entertainment is a form of consensual lying within the context of the entertainment as part of our process of suspension of disbelief for purposes of the entertainment and I have absolutely nothing against illusionists using patter to enhance their entertainment effects, although I do have issue with the use of such misleading patter as an explanation of the effect outside of the entertainment context. If someone wishes to make these claims and wishes us to believe they are genuine and do not fall into one of these categories, then they need to demonstrate the effect under laboratory conditions or at least conditions that are very carefully monitored and the effect needs to be reliably repeatable.
Now, as far as the thread goes at the Exchange, I do NOT believe the person who noted his belief that scientific method was not necessary within the contexts of hypnotic discussions was advocating such sloppy thinking in his comments as I have found him to be a far more intelligent writer to put him in that corner. Nor do I agree with the other extreme that personal experiential or esoteric discussions of hypnotic contexts are always inappropriate . . . I have my own deeply held faith and believe in certain types of divine or fairies, thank you very much, and as long as no one tries to force their sky fairy on me or as long as they don’t try to kill mine, I am content to leave them to their own delusions, beliefs, or deeply held personal faith, whichever might apply. However, is one is going to state that this or that is an explanation for an effect – be it fairy, quantum makebelieve, metaphysical dust, mind-body neruophysical connections, or whatever – then they need to be able to discuss it intelligently and with more support than "well, I just BELIEVE that’s the way it is and so it must be so" as that particular gambit was thrown out of logic circles some time ago.
I do hold that an adapation of the Holmes premise is appropriate of approaching seemingly "impossible" events through a process of elimination that 1) checks for probably explanations and if none fit then 2) checks for improbable explanations and then, and only then, 3) checks and accepts the impossible.
All the best,
Brian
http://www.hypnoticon.org
WALKABOUT TRANCE BEACH RESORT GETAWAY
http://www.walkabouttrance.com
See http://www.BrianDavidPhillips.com for details!
Brian David Phillips, PhD, CH [phillips@nccu.edu.tw]Certified Hypnotherapist
President, Society of Experiential Trance
Associate Professor, NCCU, Taipei, Taiwan
http://www.BrianDavidPhillips.com
