Hypnosis and hypnotherapy (also Rapid Transformational Therapy)

[Jonathan Edwards]

Perhaps I should also mention that I have first hand experience of hypnotherapy. As a medical student I was asked if I would like my own hypnotherapy patients. I said yes. At the first session I realised that I was expected to 'do hypnotherapy' without a word of training. I tried to find out what was known about the right way to do it and what the evidence was for that being the right way. I was rapidly taken off the project. It was clear that the whole thing was bullshit.

Hypnotherapists have had fifty years to show that they even know how to do it right. There is nothing to show for it. Why waste patients' time with more trials of something that has no basis?

The reason for 'my view' that you need evidence is humility and not wanting to waste patients' time. The alternative is conning the patient for whatever they are worth with made up stuff.

 

[Ipquise]

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.

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.

To me, this means that the research was done by unscrupulous and dishonest people. And it means nothing else.
You can't say that another person will do the research and he or she will be dishonest and dishonest too. The number of unscientific arguments begins to grow

 

[Ipquise]

Perhaps I should also mention that I have first hand experience of hypnotherapy. As a medical student I was asked if I would like my own hypnotherapy patients. I said yes. At the first session I realised that I was expected to 'do hypnotherapy' without a word of training. I tried to find out what was known about the right way to do it and what the evidence was for that being the right way. I was rapidly taken off the project. It was clear that the whole thing was bullshit.

Hypnotherapists have had fifty years to show that they even know how to do it right. There is nothing to show for it. Why waste patients' time with more trials of something that has no basis?

The reason for 'my view' that you need evidence is humility and not wanting to waste patients' time. The alternative is conning the patient for whatever they are worth with made up stuff.

Okay, now that you're talking about your student years, I'll say this too. I had a course in analytical chemistry at university. In a lab quiz (not an exam), we had to determine the reagent substance. Each student was given a substance with no name and 1 hour to determine. I did it in 10 minutes and showed the lab technician the result, justified it. Do you know what she told me? She said that I was too hustling and that she doubted me and that I needed to go to the Dean of the faculty with my explanations as to why this substance was the one I named.

I went to the Dean of Faculty. I had no choice. I answered the dean's every question. As a result, I was excused from taking the analytical chemistry exam altogether and was given the highest grade.

And why would hypnotherapists prove that it doesn't work? It is up to the party accusing them of quackery to prove quackery, not the other way around. Presumption of innocence, ever heard of it?

For me, the question of the workability of hypnosis looks like this: it works for some people and not for others. And this does not contradict the laws of Aristotelian logic. That is, we have 2 sets of people interacting differently with hypnosis.

 

[Trish]

Medical treatment is not a court of law where the person criticising the treatment has to prove it's quackery.
Before any treatment is offered to patients with claims of efficacy, it is up to it's proponents to provide sound scientific evidence that it is both more effective than a placebo treatment, and is safe.

Hypnotherapists have not done that. Therefore they have no business selling their treatment with claims of efficacy. They are not marketing a brand of soap, they are messing about with people's psyche and health.

 

[Hoopoe]

One could use many ways to change one's perception of things and it's something very ordinary. To me it seems that you point to an unusual way (hypnosis) of doing a very ordinary thing that humans do every day in small and large ways.

One day I decided I wanted to quit consuming sugar and succeeded to strictly avoid it for a year. I think what was helped is to begin thinking of it as harmful, even calling it a poison. This is exaggerated, but the point is not to describe reality accurately, just to increase motivation. I've also built up a reservoir of motivation for generally improving my health which I can access and that was also useful to achieve sugar avoidance.

I'm sure everyone has their own ways of doing these things.

The trick of claiming something extraordinary is happening when what is happening is actually ordinary is something that quacks appear to use a lot. The lightning process that has been mentioned is an example of this. What is really happening is that participants are given a motivational talk that instructs them to pretend they are healthy, to tell others they are healthy. The result is then presented as nearly miraculous healing arising from some kind of brain rewiring.

I still do the sugar avoidance thing but not as strictly. It's not worth expending the effort to maintain it strictly.

 

[Ipquise]

Medical treatment is not a court of law where the person criticising the treatment has to prove it's quackery.
Before any treatment is offered to patients with claims of efficacy, it is up to it's proponents to provide sound scientific evidence that it is both more effective than a placebo treatment, and is safe.

Hypnotherapists have not done that. Therefore they have no business selling their treatment with claims of efficacy. They are not marketing a brand of soap, they are messing about with people's psyche and health.

So it does affect people's psyche and health? Great, that's a very good shift in our discussion!
As has been said here, hypnotherapists haven't been able to prove the dangers of hypnosis in the last 50 years

 

[Ipquise]

The trick of claiming something extraordinary is happening when what is happening is actually ordinary is something that quacks appear to use a lot. The lightning process that has been mentioned is an example of this. What is really happening is that participants are motivated to pretend they are healthy, to tell others they are healthy. This is then presented as nearly miraculous healing arising from some kind of brain rewiring.

You have to prove conspiracy to defraud, otherwise it's just words.

 

[Hutan]

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.

It's not that the studies are proof that hypnosis doesn't work; it's that there is no good evidence that hypnosis does work. As Trish has said, for a medical treatment, there should be evidence supporting a claim of efficacy. There just isn't that for hypnotherapy.

Pointing to one small study with a high risk bias and ignoring the results of a larger number of studies, some of which were done a bit better, is an example of cherry-picking.

The reason for 'my view' that you need evidence is humility and not wanting to waste patients' time. The alternative is conning the patient for whatever they are worth with made up stuff.

So it does affect people's psyche and health? Great, that's a very good shift in our discussion!
As has been said here, hypnotherapists haven't been able to prove the dangers of hypnosis in the last 50 years

There are many harms that arise from treatments that are ineffective - people waste money, governments waste money. People delay getting effective treatments while they undergo unevidenced treatments. Accepting unevidenced treatments contributes to a culture where all sorts of pseudoscience is ok; where the people with the most funds for marketing govern what is done and what is believed in. We've seen a bit of where that leads us lately.

To me, this means that the research was done by unscrupulous and dishonest people. And it means nothing else.
You can't say that another person will do the research and he or she will be dishonest and dishonest too. The number of unscientific arguments begins to grow

The research was done by humans. And all humans are unscrupulous and dishonest, to a greater or lesser degree. There's that famous Feynman quote
“You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
That is why we need systems and research designs that limit bias, why we need blinding, why ideally we need replication by scientists who don't stand to benefit from a certain result.

 

[Trish]

So it does affect people's psyche and health? Great, that's a very good shift in our discussion!
As has been said here, hypnotherapists haven't been able to prove the dangers of hypnosis in the last 50 years

I said they are messing about with people's psyche and health. I have not said they are effective in changing the psyche or health.

Someone can sell a potion claiming it is a cure for something without providing valid evidence. That is messing about with people's health. It may improve or worsen health or have no effect. It is up to the person selling it to provide evidence that it is effective and safe. If they don't, we are justified in saying it is it's potentially harmful quackery. The same applies to psychological therapies.

 

[Hoopoe]

I think that all these techniques are probably capable of changing one's thoughts, motivations, perceptions, and therefore cause good or harm. They're just being marketed as being especially good at it, as extraordinary, and presented as something that people need to solve their problems. The reality is probably that they're not special. It's the brain that is affecting its own functions and it has been doing that since it evolved the capacity to do that. Are these techniques really better than other ways, like for example reading a book by an ancient philosopher, having a conversation, or thinking it all through while sitting in a comfortable chair and staring out of the window?

A funny problem solving technique that is used in computer programming is the rubber duck technique where you explain the problem to a rubber duck (an imaginary one will do). Having to devise an explanation that is sufficiently clear to allow another person to understand seems to help fill the gaps that make it harder to find a solution. So often the solution is found by explaining the problem clearly.

 

[Hoopoe]

Things like tarot or ancient oracles probably worked not because of supernatural things occurring, but because they gave the person a riddle or a message requiring interpreation that led to a the person seeking advice to spend time thinking about the problem (maybe from a different angle) and thereby devising a solution (hopefully, sometimes it was presumably also a disaster).

 

[Hutan]

I think that all these techniques are probably capable of changing one's thoughts, motivations, perceptions, and therefore cause good or harm. They're just being marketed as being especially good at it, as extraordinary, and presented as something that people need to solve their problems. The reality is probably that they're not special. It's the brain that regulates its own functions and it has been doing that since it evolved the capacity to do that. Are these techniques really better than other ways, like for example reading a book by an ancient philosopher, having a conversation, or thinking it all through while sitting in a comfortable chair and staring out of the window?

I agree. I'm actually surprised that the evidence suggests hypnotherapy is no better than no treatment at all for quitting smoking. I would have thought that the placebo effect associated with the whole 'going to a "professional" and engaging in a ritual' would have counted for something. It seems that it doesn't.

I am wondering @Ipquise, why you want to believe that hypnotherapy is a useful treatment for ME/CFS, or anything else? Have you given that some thought, examined your biases?

 

[Sean]

The research was done by humans. And all humans are unscrupulous and dishonest, to a greater or lesser degree. There's that famous Feynman quote
“You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
That is why we need systems and research designs that limit bias, why we need blinding, why ideally we need replication by scientists who don't stand to benefit from a certain result.

This. Robust methodology is about controlling for researcher bias as much as anything else.

 

[rvallee]

This. Robust methodology is about controlling for researcher bias as much as anything else.

I'd even say it's what it's mostly about. Everyone wants what they're working on to work, it can mean a very successful life afterward, riches, fame, freedom. This bias is inherent and massive, probably the most significant factor. Real scientists want to prove themselves wrong, because they don't want the humiliation of hyping a fake result, you can't gaslight reality. That's how they do it in rigorous disciplines like physics. It works very well.

This is why about 90% of psychological research, including any medical research that relies on psychology, confirms their expectations. They never cleaned up, would rather keep the system that tells them positive lies. Once things get serious in this profession, almost everything known today will be discredited because of it. I doubt even 1% holds up to scientific scrutiny.

 

[Hutan]

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?

Just re-reading the thread, I see that we didn't respond to this point. Ipquise, repeating my quote of the Cochrane review that it looks like you missed:

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.

There were 14 studies with a total of 1926 participants. So, not "some research on 40 people". I've highlighted the key finding.

 

[Ipquise]

With hypnosis, I decided to delve deeper into the question of this discussion, namely, can hypnosis be classified as scientific? I delved into deep meditative hypnosis, which I downloaded completely free from YouTube. And here's what I think: To say that hypnosis is irrelevant to science is sophistry. And here's why.

There are several major trends in science - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Wikipedia lists 5 trends. But more understandable classification from two main branches: exact and imprecise science - so I was taught at school, and in the university classification just expanded.

What distinguishes science from pseudoscience?

Science is an activity aimed at developing and systematizing objective knowledge about reality. This activity is carried out by collecting facts, their regular updating, systematization and critical analysis. On this basis, generalizations or synthesis of new knowledge, which describe the observed natural or social phenomena and indicate the cause-effect relations, which allows to make predictions. In addition, science must have a methodology.

Pseudoscience is something like religion and art, subjective opinions and emotional colorings.

Is the methodology of the exact and imprecise sciences different?

Yes, it is different. But that doesn't mean that the imprecise sciences don't have a methodology. And it does not mean that the methodology of the imprecise sciences is less relevant to the formation of objective knowledge about the world than the methodology of the exact sciences. And it does not mean that the imprecise sciences cease to be science.

What do hypnosis and meditation have to do with it?

Hypnosis and meditation are phenomena studied by the modern imprecise sciences (e.g., psychology). What facts are known about hypnosis? Hypnosis and meditation puts a person into a trance, relaxes the body, and lowers stress hormones (I gave a link to a study on the biochemistry of this issue above). These are facts for those people who are able to immerse themselves in hypnosis. Hence, another fact is that not all people are hypnotic, and this has long been known.

Can the methods of the exact sciences be applied to the imprecise and vice versa?

Yes, it can. I gave a link to a study of the biochemistry of the body during meditation above. And the exact sciences use a placebo to get an objective result of the study. The placebo is not proven at all, but it is used in the exact sciences. However, to investigate by methods of exact sciences the phenomena from inexact sciences often becomes as ridiculous as to investigate by methods of inexact sciences the phenomena from exact sciences.

Can we say that hypnosis and meditation do not exist?

No, we can't. Because then that would violate the first law of logic. After all, it does exist!

Can we say that hypnosis and meditation are from the realm of pseudoscience?

No, we cannot. Because that would also violate the first law of logic. Because these phenomena exist and they are from the sphere of inaccurate science. It is not the subjective opinion of the person under study, because the researcher notices changes in the state of the person under study.

Are hypnosis and meditation harmful?

Based on a study of as many as 40 people, nothing has been established. Does it do any good? Above, I gave links to studies that support the benefits of hypnosis. Yes, it's not as accurate as the exact sciences, but they support the benefits.

If anyone on this forum has the belief that prescribing hypnosis as a treatment is harming a person, it is your sacred duty to stop it. File a lawsuit, seek justice.

When war broke out in Ukraine, I did not go into the army, because I have no military training. However, I did not sit idly by, did not whine, but helped my country in another way, and it had its effect, because I was not the only one doing it. You too, take action, and seek justice, it is your human duty.

So are hypnosis and meditation related to science?

Yes, it is. In the realm of inaccurate science. Whoever thinks otherwise is engaged in sophistry. If this forum is about science, then stay that way. And call things by their proper names: hypnosis is a phenomenon from an inexact science, it must be studied using the methods of an inexact science, it does not work for all people, because it is an inexact science. And largely because exact science does not have sufficient tools in its arsenal to prove it (at the current stage of development).


Sorry for my English, I am from Ukraine, I write with a translator.

 

[Ipquise]

@Hutan,
Prove that your model of the world, with your system of utility proof views, is the only true one. Prove it using the methods of exact science.

If you cannot do this, it would be very decent to admit that there are other systems of views that are not fully understood by people at the current stage of human development. But which have their effect on certain people.
Take a broader and deeper look at people. Not as objects of research, but as living beings whose functioning can hardly be fully understood by modern science. Or do you know everything? Well, then you are God. Medically speaking, this is a sign of megalomania

And it would be very democratic to allow those views to exist and develop in their own way. Not without criticism, of course. Nor is it without criticism of the rigid criteria of exact science.

 

[Trish]

And it would be very democratic to allow those views to exist and develop in their own way. Not without criticism, of course. Nor is it without criticism of the rigid criteria of exact science.

I think this is a misunderstanding of what we are talking about when we discuss scientific evidence in medical settings.

There are of course all sorts of belief systems in the wider world, and all sorts of things people choose to do and to pay for because of personal belief or preference or circumstances that have no scientific basis, and that's fine when no one is claiming to be basing their religious or personal belief or behaviour, or marketing their product or service, on scientific evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, modern western medicine claims to be built on the best available scientific evidence of what is most effective for the most patients. That is the basis on which it is funded by governments and/or covered by insurance or paid for by patients. We have a contract with them to do their best for us in terms of our health and well-being on the basis of the best available evidence.

If I go to a clinician for help with a particular medical problem, I expect them to use their knowledge and training to not only do what they were taught in their initial training, some of which will be outdated and unevidenced, but to have done their best to keep up with recent research in their field, and to be able to tell me the strength of the evidence for each option if there are several possible courses of action. So they may say, we usually do xxx but there's a new treatment yyy that has been shown to be more effective in clinical trials, but is still only effective in zzz% of patients.

What I don't want them to do, as some have done with me, is say, I've heard of this new treatment, why don't you try it. I wasted £240 on 3 sessions about 20 years ago of an expensive quack therapy for ME/CFS that just left me feeling conned, foolish and a failure. That doctor had no business recommending that therapy. He had no evidence on which to base that recommendation.

The same thing is happening today with people with Covid and Long Covid, with all sorts of unevidenced drugs and quackery being sold to desperate people. I don't criticise the patients - I understand desperation - I've been there myself. I criticise clinicians who play along with this, prescribing the unevidenced and potentially harmful treatments, and quacks who use the vulnerability of desperate people to make money. Sure some will get lucky and recover, but some would have recovered anyway, and by collecting anecdotal evidence on social media, as some are doing, more may be harmed.

The contract clinicians have with patients is to base their treatment on scientific evidence, and, if there is none, to say so. In many cases there is no effective cure or treatment, and treatments can only slow down decline, or provide symptomatic relief. That needs to be evidence based too. Since most medications, physical procedures and psychological therapies have negative side effects for at least some patients, it's important that's researched too. And treatments cost a lot of money, so that has to be factored in as well. If there is no effective treatment for a patient's disease, that needs to be said honestly, and the clinician's role then becomes one of providing support, and ensuring the person gets appropriate care.
_________________

It's not about having to prove a model of the world in order to be allowed to criticise unevidenced treatments, it's about the basis on which clinicians claim to be working, and on which they are funded and let loose on the public.
________________

As to hypnotherapy in particular, I can see that some clinicians may find it a convenient quick way of helping a patient to relax in a session so they can get on with discussing with the patient how to go forward with dealing with their medical problem. If it is explained as just a shortcut to the type of relaxation you could equally get from going for a walk in a park, or listening to your favourite music, or whatever that patient finds relaxing, that seems OK to me. It's when it's presented as a treatment that can be effective in changing behaviour such as smoking, and is advertised and sold to people as more effective in changing that behaviour than other treatments, then it becomes problematic because scientific claims are made that need to be based on sound scientific research evidence where it is compared in clinical trials with other treatments.

 

[Ipquise]

I think this is a misunderstanding of what we are talking about when we discuss scientific evidence in medical settings.

There are of course all sorts of belief systems in the wider world, and all sorts of things people choose to do and to pay for because of personal belief or preference or circumstances that have no scientific basis, and that's fine when no one is claiming to be basing their religious or personal belief or behaviour, or marketing their product or service, on scientific evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, modern western medicine claims to be built on the best available scientific evidence of what is most effective for the most patients. That is the basis on which it is funded by governments and/or covered by insurance or paid for by patients. We have a contract with them to do their best for us in terms of our health and well-being on the basis of the best available evidence.

If I go to a clinician for help with a particular medical problem, I expect them to use their knowledge and training to not only do what they were taught in their initial training, some of which will be outdated and unevidenced, but to have done their best to keep up with recent research in their field, and to be able to tell me the strength of the evidence for each option if there are several possible courses of action. So they may say, we usually do xxx but there's a new treatment yyy that has been shown to be more effective in clinical trials, but is still only effective in zzz% of patients.

What I don't want them to do, as some have done with me, is say, I've heard of this new treatment, why don't you try it. I wasted £240 on 3 sessions about 20 years ago of an expensive quack therapy for ME/CFS that just left me feeling conned, foolish and a failure. That doctor had no business recommending that therapy. He had no evidence on which to base that recommendation.

The same thing is happening today with people with Covid and Long Covid, with all sorts of unevidenced drugs and quackery being sold to desperate people. I don't criticise the patients - I understand desperation - I've been there myself. I criticise clinicians who play along with this, prescribing the unevidenced and potentially harmful treatments, and quacks who use the vulnerability of desperate people to make money. Sure some will get lucky and recover, but some would have recovered anyway, and by collecting anecdotal evidence on social media, as some are doing, more may be harmed.

The contract clinicians have with patients is to base their treatment on scientific evidence, and, if there is none, to say so. In many cases there is no effective cure or treatment, and treatments can only slow down decline, or provide symptomatic relief. That needs to be evidence based too. Since most medications, physical procedures and psychological therapies have negative side effects for at least some patients, it's important that's researched too. And treatments cost a lot of money, so that has to be factored in as well. If there is no effective treatment for a patient's disease, that needs to be said honestly, and the clinician's role then becomes one of providing support, and ensuring the person gets appropriate care.
_________________

It's not about having to prove a model of the world in order to be allowed to criticise unevidenced treatments, it's about the basis on which clinicians claim to be working, and on which they are funded and let loose on the public.
________________

As to hypnotherapy in particular, I can see that some clinicians may find it a convenient quick way of helping a patient to relax in a session so they can get on with discussing with the patient how to go forward with dealing with their medical problem. If it is explained as just a shortcut to the type of relaxation you could equally get from going for a walk in a park, or listening to your favourite music, or whatever that patient finds relaxing, that seems OK to me. It's when it's presented as a treatment that can be effective in changing behaviour such as smoking, and is advertised and sold to people as more effective in changing that behaviour than other treatments, then it becomes problematic because scientific claims are made that need to be based on sound scientific research evidence where it is compared in clinical trials with other treatments.

I like your approach. Yes, it seems that the discussion has veered a bit to the side. That's what moderators are for

Okay, about medical applications.

I have never heard of hypnosis being used to treat illnesses unrelated to psychology or psychiatry. That is, I am not aware of any hypnosis treatment for diseases that are organic in nature (like inflammations or organ dysfunction) or invasive (like viruses and bacteria).
However, I have heard a lot about the use of hypnosis in psychology and psychiatry, as well as for amateur, cognitive and relaxation purposes, as I do. I've also seen a video on YouTube of a psychiatrist representing a mental health clinic who talked about hypnosis, that it works for some people and not for others.

I also heard about the difficulty of diagnosis in the area of psychological disorders and illnesses. That is, while the viral infection department will diagnose fairly quickly and accurately based on tests of a person's tissues and secretions, the psychiatric department is quite difficult to diagnose. I have heard that it can take years.

I have also seen somewhere a table of psychological disorders, which are divided into superficial, borderline, and profound. This is a figurative classification, I don't claim to be accurate, I just want to convey the essence. Deep disorders include complex ones such as schizophrenia, borderline ones are manic-depressive, major depression, and anxiety disorder. Superficial - mild depression, mild anxiety, maybe hypochondria (not sure).

And the whole highlight of this classification is that an extremely small percentage of mental disorders have an organic nature, related to the work of the nervous system at the level of cells, intracellular processes, inter-membrane processes without interference from the outside, i.e. the person is born that way.

Yes, if it is smoking, there is an inhibitory substitution of acetylcholine by nicotine. But it's an external exposure to a mild drug. And it's pretty hard to wean yourself off of it, which is true. I saw a chart somewhere that lists nicotine as one of the fastest addictive drugs. But it is possible to get rid of this habit even without the use of drugs, just on willpower, on changing your beliefs and working through the original reasons for smoking. This is exactly where hypnosis helps - to change beliefs. And it is the visualized experience that changes beliefs, which replaces the real one, as I have already mentioned in this thread. And it works, because I've already talked about the basketball-throwing experiment. Yes, the result is unreliable in terms of the exact sciences, but the result is in terms of the inexact sciences. That is, there is a percentage of people who can do it.

Back to mental disorders and treatment. If it is inorganic, it has to do with formed neural connections, which in a person's personality have the form of beliefs (one theory). What drug can be used to change the connection between neurons? That is, to sever one and create another. You have to find that connection first, and then change it. How do you find it? I believe that modern exact science has no answer to this question. I have not heard of it. If anyone knows, give me a link to the research. But it has to be fixed, because people are suffering from it.

So why not entrust the creation of new beliefs to the human body. Humans can visualize and create new connections in the brain themselves. Yes, this requires a strong prefrontal cortex. Many people settle for just the limbic system (joke ).

Yes, this is a theory, but there are also brain encephalogram studies that show the arousal of certain parts of the brain during meditation. That is, if a person meditates on some movement, then the cortical areas responsible for movement are excited. If he visualizes sounds, then the auditory areas are excited. If he visualizes visual images, then the visual areas are activated. And at the same time, there are actually no sounds, images, or movement around him. It is only his representation.

What does hypnosis do? Essentially, hypnosis, like meditation, puts a person in a trance state in which the frequency of brainwave activity becomes equal to the alpha frequency. At this frequency, one is neither awake nor asleep; one is immersed in oneself. In this state one can see conscious pictures and work with them. It's like a real experience, but it's a virtual experience. And it works for some people, as I said above. But in a virtual experience, neural connections are just as formed as in a real experience! (Basketball experiment).

So back to medicine. Yes, exact science has no evidence for the effectiveness of hypnosis. But inaccurate science has such evidence. But they are: Some people have had it work. And no more than that.

Imagine a situation. A person comes to a psychologist or psychiatrist with a complaint of some kind of disorder. The doctor cannot determine the cause on the basis of blood tests, etc. He does not see any organic reasons for this condition at all. So he has three choices: either symptomatic medication, psychotherapy, or a combination of the two. And the patient has a choice: either to destroy his internal organs or try something else.

I would like to hear the name of at least one drug in psychiatry that does not affect internal organs. Tell me the name, please. Hell, if it were real, everyone would be perfectly healthy!

And at the same time, the basic principle of medicine is do no harm.

Now, if there is even a small chance that anyone has been able to use hypnosis to correct their inner state and change beliefs, I would choose to pay money for hypnosis before paying with my internal organs for medication treatment.

Well, if anyone here has spare kidneys and liver to replace them after medication treatment, then you can choose medication therapy without even trying something safer, even if it is safe completely unproven by the methods of exact science! But it worked on someone once.
And I will thank that doctor who will first offer me hypnosis and soulful conversations, because he took care of my organic health, my organs. And you know, maybe that person didn't even have a problem? Maybe he made something up for himself... Or maybe he wasn't, maybe he was really worried about his life. But what will the pills do? They will only relieve the symptoms, make the person more relaxed. To hell with that kind of treatment ! Treating the symptoms is nothing. It is necessary to eliminate the cause, and the cause of psychological disorders often lies not in the organic damage, but in the quality and quantity of beliefs. It is much easier to teach a person to stay calm, even if rockets are exploding around him, than to constantly give him drugs for anxiety and fear. I know this from experience. I practice FREE anxiety hypnosis from time to time (maybe once a month). It always helps me. And my kidneys are intact, and my liver!

And anyway, it's better to pay with money than organs! I've even heard this saying: thank you, Lord, for taking ONLY money

 

[Hutan]

@Hutan,
Prove that your model of the world, with your system of utility proof views, is the only true one. Prove it using the methods of exact science.

If you cannot do this, it would be very decent to admit that there are other systems of views that are not fully understood by people at the current stage of human development. But which have their effect on certain people.
Take a broader and deeper look at people. Not as objects of research, but as living beings whose functioning can hardly be fully understood by modern science. Or do you know everything? Well, then you are God. Medically speaking, this is a sign of megalomania

And it would be very democratic to allow those views to exist and develop in their own way. Not without criticism, of course. Nor is it without criticism of the rigid criteria of exact science.

I'm fine with people spending their money on whatever treatments they like, so long as they don't delay effective medical treatment or harm themselves and end up costing the public system a whole lot more money, and make their family poor and sad. I'm not so keen on treatments with no evidence being inflicted on children. I definitely don't want scarce government money being wasted on treatments that don't work. I'm happy for good quality research to be done on things like hypnotherapy.

Now, I really must get on and create new worlds, or whatever is on my 'to do' list today.