Hypnosis and hypnotherapy (also Rapid Transformational Therapy)

[CRG]

In the 15th and 16th centuries, Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei also put forward a theory that did not fit the then understanding of science. These theories were not finally proven until the 20th century,

Science - following Karl Popper - gave up the notion of 'proof' - science has moved to a position of conditionality, that is there is no absolute only the continuing standard of falsification, which provides that so long as an hypothesis is falsifiable, and has been subject to tests of falsifiability that hypothesis remains a scientifically valid description of the phenomenon it is concerned with, until such time as it is falsified. Everything remains on the table and everything can be revisited with new testing.

The key point is that the hypothesis (or theory) must be capable of falsification - if it is not falsifiable it can not be subject to a meaningful scientific test and there is no value considering it in the context of science. There are other ways to consider things - art, religion etc, but those are not scientific unless they involve testable falsifiability.

Popper's proposition: https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf

"When should a theory be ranked as scientific?" or "Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?

The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, "When is a theory true?" nor "When is a theory acceptable?" my problem was different. I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudoscience may happen to stumble on the truth."

 

[Ipquise]

Science - following Karl Popper - gave up the notion of 'proof' - science has moved to a position of conditionality, that is there is no absolute only the continuing standard of falsification, which provides that so long as an hypothesis is falsifiable, and has been subject to tests of falsifiability that hypothesis remains a scientifically valid description of the phenomenon it is concerned with, until such time as it is falsified. Everything remains on the table and everything can be revisited with new testing.

The key point is that the hypothesis (or theory) must be capable of falsification - if it is not falsifiable it can not be subject to a meaningful scientific test and there is no value considering it in the context of science. There are other ways to consider things - art, religion etc, but those are not scientific unless they involve testable falsifiability.

Popper's proposition: https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf

"When should a theory be ranked as scientific?" or "Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?

The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, "When is a theory true?" nor "When is a theory acceptable?" my problem was different. I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudoscience may happen to stumble on the truth."

Definitely, I like the falsifiability principle

By the way, I have read about studies of the electroencephalogram of a meditating person. And it is proven that it is different from the waking person's state. Meditation is very similar to hypnosis, isn't it?

After all, hypnosis is a state of nerve cells and the connections between them. Of course, there are also neurotransmitters involved. All in all, there's a lot of unknown data here, and I'm pleased that this question is being investigated. If this were pseudoscience, it simply would not be dealt with.

I would also like to supplement my theses with this article - https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...s-may-change-the-brain-in-depressed-patients/
It is indicative of the research that has been done on this issue. The only difference is the research on meditation, not hypnosis. But personally I don't see much difference between meditation and hypnosis.

 

[CRG]

Definitely, I like the falsifiability principle

By the way, I have read about studies of the electroencephalogram of a meditating person. And it is proven that it is different from the waking person's state. Meditation is very similar to hypnosis, isn't it?

After all, hypnosis is a state of nerve cells and the connections between them. Of course, there are also neurotransmitters involved. All in all, there's a lot of unknown data here, and I'm pleased that this question is being investigated. If this were pseudoscience, it simply would not be dealt with.

I would also like to supplement my theses with this article - https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...s-may-change-the-brain-in-depressed-patients/
It is indicative of the research that has been done on this issue. The only difference is the research on meditation, not hypnosis. But personally I don't see much difference between meditation and hypnosis.

What does an electroencephalogram tells us other than which bits of the brain appear to busy and which are not ? What model of the brain (there are more than one) is being used to interpret what one part of the brain being busy means - some interpretations are no more scientific than phrenology ? Unfortunately something being pseudoscience doesn't mean that it is not embraced by people who should know better, or that believers don't attempt to appropriate science in the cause of legitimising pseudoscience e.g: https://www.s4me.info/threads/homeo...s-in-a-null-field-2023-sigurdson-et-al.31820/

Also:

The Effects of Meditation, Yoga, and Mindfulness on Depression, Anxiety, and Stress in Tertiary Education Students: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Meditation, yoga, and mindfulness are popular interventions at universities and tertiary education institutes to improve mental health. However, the effects on depression, anxiety, and stress are unclear. This study assessed the effectiveness of meditation, yoga, and mindfulness on symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress in tertiary education students.

Methods: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, PsycINFO and identified 11,936 articles. After retrieving 181 papers for full-text screening, 24 randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative analysis. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis amongst 23 studies with 1,373 participants.

Results: At post-test, after exclusion of outliers, effect sizes for depression, g = 0.42 (95% CI: 0.16–0.69), anxiety g = 0.46 (95% CI: 0.34–0.59), stress g = 0.42 (95% CI: 0.27–0.57) were moderate. Heterogeneity was low (I2 = 6%). When compared to active control, the effect decreased to g = 0.13 (95% CI: −0.18–0.43). No RCT reported on safety, only two studies reported on academic achievement, most studies had a high risk of bias.

Conclusions: Most studies were of poor quality and results should be interpreted with caution. Overall moderate effects were found which decreased substantially when interventions were compared to active control. It is unclear whether meditation, yoga or mindfulness affect academic achievement or affect have any negative side effects.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

If this were pseudoscience, it simply would not be dealt with.

I am afraid to say that the vast majority of research these days is pseudoscience.
And I don't think hypnosis has any particular similarity to meditation.

 

[Sean]

Overall moderate effects were found which decreased substantially when interventions were compared to active control.

If that isn't a warning sign I don't know what is.

 

[Ipquise]

I am afraid to say that the vast majority of research these days is pseudoscience.
And I don't think hypnosis has any particular similarity to meditation.

The Pope, who lived at the time of Copernicus, also thought that Copernicus' research was pseudoscientific. The Pope had a very limited view of the world, he liked to be in the confines of rigid stereotypes.

What does an electroencephalogram tells us other than which bits of the brain appear to busy and which are not ? What model of the brain (there are more than one) is being used to interpret what one part of the brain being busy means - some interpretations are no more scientific than phrenology?

Once upon a time I heard about an experiment in which a mouse was implanted with electrodes in the pleasure center in the brain. And they gave it a button to stimulate the pleasure center. As I remember, it died of exhaustion. But in bliss

It is unlikely that the researchers in this experiment had an accurate and proven model of the brain. However, the result they obtained was quite definite. And they even erected a monument to the mouse. And even gave it a name - Nancy

The link from Harvard that I left above has information that people who practice meditation show resistance to stress. I'm not judging whether Harvard is a reliable source, but even in our backwater Ukraine, we've heard of it.

And personally, I'm interested in both meditation, and hypnosis, and hypnotic meditation (there is such a symbiosis of marketing names). And I even practice it a little. During meditation I can completely stop feeling my body - any muscles. That is my body completely loses sensitivity. What else has similar effect? Maybe drugs.

Of course, meditation and hypnosis are not as specific as a shot of epinephrine, but they have an effect. I like this article - https://commons.clarku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=surj and this one https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/docum...&doi=15cb8d85dbc7944e92acf7bd27cd391807c4be3c

 

[Hutan]

If hypnotherapy was going to work for something, surely it would be for stopping smoking, where what is primarily needed is willpower to overcome the physical addiction to nicotine and entrenched behavioural patterns. There's a Cochrane review:

Hypnotherapy for smoking cessation

The studies included a total of 1926 participants. Studies were diverse and a single meta‐analysis was not possible. We judged only one study to be at low risk of bias overall; we judged 10 studies to be at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk. Studies did not provide reliable evidence of a greater benefit from hypnotherapy compared with other interventions or no treatment for smoking cessation. Most individual studies did not find statistically significant differences in quit rates after six months or longer, and studies that did detect differences typically had methodological limitations.

Pooling small groups of relatively comparable studies did not provide reliable evidence for a specific effect of hypnotherapy relative to controls. There was low certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, that showed no statistically significant difference between hypnotherapy and attention‐matched behavioural treatments (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.61; I2 = 36%; 6 studies, 957 participants). Results were similarly imprecise, and also limited by risk of bias, when comparing hypnotherapy to intensive behavioural interventions (not matched for contact time) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 211 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results from one small study (40 participants) detected a statistically significant benefit of hypnotherapy compared to no intervention (RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.18 to 305.88), but this evidence was judged to be of very low certainty due to high risk of bias and imprecision.

In summary, studies on the topic don't provide any reliable evidence for a benefit. If hypnotherapy can't even be shown to work for stopping smoking, then it's hard to see how it could be of much use for anything that requires the body to heal itself through the mysterious power of the mind.

 

[Trish]

I think there is a world of difference between healthy people finding meditation helps them feel less stressed, or self hypnosis to relax, and the claims that meditation, hypnosis, psychotherapy or mindfulness have an effect on physical disease, which is what we have problems with as ME/CFS sufferers.

Sure they may help us feel a bit less stressed by the disease if they are practices we find helpful, but others find they make things worse. If you spend any time exploring some of the psychosomatic research threads on this forum, you will find loads of very poorly conducted studies that claim ME/CFS can be cured or improved with things like mindfulness. The evidence simply isn't there.

There is a training program called the Lightning Process that uses hypnosis techniques as part of persuading people to ignore their symptoms and think positive thoughts, with claims of cures. It has done a lot of harm, as you will see if you read these patients stories.
https://lp-fortellinger.no/en/lp-stories/
We have a thread about them. I did a summary of my impressions from reading the patients stories:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/lp-fo...s-now-available-in-english.24653/#post-411641

 

[Hutan]

If it works for someone who wants to stop smoking, then it works - and that's the proof

Ha, I posted the evidence that hypnotherapy doesn't work for smoking cessation before catching up on the posts in the thread.

I wondered recently why hypnosis seems to be credited with utility; I spent a bit of time looking into it, which is when I found the Cochrane study. So I was excited to fish it out of my browser history and post the link here.

I haven't found any credible evidence that hypnotherapy works for anything much. I don't think invoking parallels with Copernicus or meditation changes that.

That hypnotherapy is offered by mainstream medicine, that governments pay hypnotherapy practitioners to provide medical services, is just another example of how far the current medical system is from being evidence-based and rational.

 

[Ipquise]

Results from one small study (40 participants) detected a statistically significant benefit of hypnotherapy compared to no intervention (RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.18 to 305.88), but this evidence was judged to be of very low certainty due to high risk of bias and imprecision.

Highlighted is what really matters: comparing hypnotherapy with no intervention. To me, this means that this issue has not been researched enough-just a small group of 40 people. More research is needed!

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Highlighted is what really matters: comparing hypnotherapy with no intervention.

No, it is the next bit that matters, as pretty much everyone in this forum has come to understand.

Results from one small study (40 participants) detected a statistically significant benefit of hypnotherapy compared to no intervention (RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.18 to 305.88), but this evidence was judged to be of very low certainty due to high risk of bias and imprecision.

I am afraid that you are on a bit of a sticky wicket here, putting forward all the simplistic arguments we have heard from psychologists about treatments that turn out not to work. If the methodology is garbage the results are garbage. Unfortunately, psychologists seem to be particularly unable to understand the psychology of doing trials - that everyone doing trials tries to fool themselves into thinking their treatment works until they have been trained to ensure they stop themselves from doing it.

 

[Ipquise]

Ha, I posted the evidence that hypnotherapy doesn't work for smoking cessation before catching up on the posts in the thread.

I wondered recently why hypnosis seems to be credited with utility; I spent a bit of time looking into it, which is when I found the Cochrane study. So I was excited to fish it out of my browser history and post the link here.

I haven't found any credible evidence that hypnotherapy works for anything much. I don't think invoking parallels with Copernicus or meditation changes that.

That hypnotherapy is offered by mainstream medicine, that governments pay hypnotherapy practitioners to provide medical services, is just another example of how far the current medical system is from being evidence-based and rational.

Please tell me, did these studies include all people in a row or only those who can visualize well? I think this is important because hypnosis and meditation will only work well (in my unproven opinion) for those who can visualize well. Why do I think so? Above in this thread I talked about the ball throwing experiment, and the results were there.

I also heard about the brain tomography experiment. The result was something like this: a person walking and a person thinking about walking have the same parts of the brain excited.
And what forms the new neural connections? New experiences, of course. But it is far from a fact that for a new experience you have to experience it in reality. It may well be that it can be visualized. Yes, it will not be as effective as a real experience. But the film industry is proving that virtual experiences are enough for people

So at this point I don't think the research has been done extensively enough, and with the wrong groups of people. And if there are questions about the studies, you can't call such studies proof that hypnosis doesn't work. Rather, it is research that is not well designed or thought out.

 

[Ipquise]

No, it is the next bit that matters, as pretty much everyone in this forum has come to understand.

Results from one small study (40 participants) detected a statistically significant benefit of hypnotherapy compared to no intervention (RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.18 to 305.88), but this evidence was judged to be of very low certainty due to high risk of bias and imprecision.

I am afraid that you are on a bit of a sticky wicket here, putting forward all the simplistic arguments we have heard from psychologists about treatments that turn out not to work. If the methodology is garbage the results are garbage. Unfortunately, psychologists seem to be particularly unable to understand the psychology of doing trials - that everyone doing trials tries to fool themselves into thinking their treatment works until they have been trained to ensure they stop themselves from doing it.

You are entitled to be right in your model of the world, which implies a certain methodology. Prove that your model of the world is the only right one

 

[JemPD]

Highlighted is what really matters: comparing hypnotherapy with no intervention. To me, this means that this issue has not been researched enough-just a small group of 40 people. More research is needed!

No! I completely disagree. The important part of that quote is not the bit you highlighted... its the bit below it. If the study was

judged to be of very low certainty due to high risk of bias and imprecision.

then it does not matter what it says it detected - it likely did not detect anything at all. Thats the whole point. Research that is judged to be low quality/low certainty means it cant be relied upon to have actually found what it says it found.

Edited to add: it took me so long to type my post i didnt realise i was cross posting with @Jonathan Edwards

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

You are doing a pretty good job of persuading everyone on the forum that you are not familiar with scientific argument, @Ipquise. A ball throwing experiment tells us nothing about hypnotherapy. The reality is that if hypnotherapy really worked decent trials would have shown that long ago. People do bad trials because in their hearts they know that if they do careful trials they won't get much of a result if any.

The old adage remains good - keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Prove that your model of the world is the only right one

The proof is there in the literature for anyone to see. Repeatedly, badly done trials have shown benefit and carefully done trials have shown it is not there. It is called evidence.
I refer you to my previous post.

 

[Ipquise]

People do bad trials because in their hearts they know that if they do careful trials they won't get much of a result if any.

This is just your assumption. You cannot know for sure what is in the hearts of a person, an explorer. All the more so without any examination of this researcher's motives. That doesn't sound very much like a scientific argument. You are beginning to outrun me in your ability to speak without scientific argumentation

 

[Ipquise]

There is some research on 40 people. And on the basis of that study, they think that hypnosis doesn't work. Does everyone here think it would be very scientific to draw such a big conclusion from such a small study?

It looks something like this: find an orchard where only green apples grow, and on that basis say that there are only green apples all over the world. Is that scientific?

 

[Trish]

It's much more than one person's assumption.

We have seen time after time people, particularly psychologists, setting up experiments to try to prove their hypothesis, using every way they can think of to bias the result in the direction they want. That's not good science.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

This is just your assumption.

Actually not. It is my own experience and my experience of the behaviour of trainees and therapists. I was involved in clinical trials for thirty years. I have talked to scores of people who have designed trials, including grilling people as an ethics committee member. People quite often admit their shaky motivation. They know full well that they cut corners to get a result when doing things properly would not show one.