Is Hypnosis Real?

Is Hypnosis Real?

Probably the most common question hypnotists get from people who have never been hypnotized is whether or not what we do is a real thing.  I've seen more than one bookstore stock hypnosis books along with parapsychology and books on ESP.  I find it interesting that this question persists despite the fact that science has amassed quite a lot of evidence in favor; and I'll be glad to show you a little ways down the page that it is, in fact, a provably real thing; but while there's still some doubt in the mind I'd like to explore this limiting belief and why it exists.

When I encounter this belief in the world, as a hypnotist I automatically look for the reasons why this person might hold the belief in order to engage them and convince them more effectively.  In my personal experience there are three common causes that ultimately serve the desire to avoid it being real: simple ignorance, flawed reality checking, and deep philosophical objections.

Ignorance:

The ignorant person usually hasn't thought the issue through very thoroughly.  For them hypnosis is a thing they see in comic books and TV shows and usually gets classed cognitively as a "superpower" that only exists in the movies.  They explain the stage shows as social entertainments akin to shows full of magic tricks where the performer either pays confederates or tricks audience members into compliance by a process assumed to be similar to stage magic.

Those who object out of ignorance are probably the easiest class to convince since they easily accept the mountain of scientific evidence on the subject.

Scientific Proof

Studies have shown that trance states are neurologically distinct from normal waking and sleeping states and are characterized on an EEG by an increasingly widespread synchronization of brainwaves which slowly decrease in frequency until they stabilize somewhere in the lower theta band above sleep but below normal consciousness or even meditative states.  On an fMRI or CAT scan you'd see a marked reduction in activity of most of the frontal lobe, a moderate reduction across the board with hot spots in the visual and auditory corteces and deep brain regions responsible for focused attention.

Likewise, many studies exist on the effectiveness of suggestion for a wide variety of psychological and physical conditions, being demonstrated to outperform drugs in control of physical pain and standard counseling in both weight loss and smoking cessation. So if the science is settled then why does the question persist?

Deep Philosophical Objections 

Perhaps the most common objection to the reality of hypnosis on philosophical grounds is the argument that "Hypnosis is a method for manipulating thoughts; thoughts and experiences aren't real and therefore neither is hypnosis." In this case the philosopher is a strict materialist whose definition of reality is "only things that physically exist are real" To this objector I point out that opinions are also a subclass of thoughts and therefore hypnosis is, by logic, exactly as real as his opinion of it.

Since there's a whole other school of philosophy dedicated to the proposition that subjective experiences are real I'll neglect that aspect for the moment and argue within the objector's framing of the question and answer with a question of my own: "Is the document you're reading real?" I typed it into blogger directly, and as far as I know it's never been printed out; yet I can write it and you can read it, so clearly it exists.  How?  As a pattern of 1s and 0s encoded as quantities of electrons in the cells of the memory of a server somewhere.  Now look up at the picture in the previous section: that brain scan shows a pattern of activation in the cells of the brain, which must be every bit as real as the 1s and 0s of the picture showing it to you.  It's fixed in a tangible form down in the physical layer and therefore exists in a purely physical sense.  

The root of this error is to fail to recognize the fact that a phenomenon that happens up in what computer scientists would call the data layer has roots that go all the way down to the physical layer; and therefore this argument should be classed with all the other zombie arguments in philosophy that somehow manage to persist despite being disproven by science. 

A similar cognitive error underlies the strict objectivist's objection that hypnosis should be classed as non-real because it is a subjective experience.  Since the objectivist definition of real is "only things that can be perceived by others are real" the error is not failing to realize that there's a physical layer underneath so much as failing to realize that hypnosis is an interpersonal phenomenon.  One person plants ideas in the other person's mind and they act on them.  Though the ideas and experiences themselves are necessarily non-real in an objectivist framework, most of the things that make it hypnosis are: the language encoding them, the social interaction, the brain scan results and the behaviors produced are all unavoidably labeled "things that can be objectively verified by others" and therefore real in this philosophical framework. 

The remaining objectors would be the solipsistic types who only accord reality to their own personal experiences.  Since this philosophy denies the entirety of the external world this is a personal empirical question for them so I invite you to try it and find out if hypnosis exists in your personal reality.  If your experience verifies it then you are forced to concede it's real from your perspective.  Even if you're laying in a pod plugged into The Matrix somewhere, hypnosis is still real for you if the code of The Matrix allows you to experience it.  

Most other possible philosophical positions tend to come out in favor of hypnosis' reality by default.  Obviously, if you're a Cartesian and your proof of your own existence is "cogito ergo sum" then hypnosis proves not only its own reality by influencing your thoughts, but serves the handy philosophical purpose of proving my own existence to you as well since if I can trance you then I obviously must exist.  Likewise, to anyone who accords reality to subjective experiences as a matter of philosophy then hypnotic experiences are exactly as subjectively real as any other experiences and (given that they occur across a society) are also automatically considered socially real in the sense that other cultural phenomena like "Tuesday" or "Lunchtime" as well.  

The Root Cause of Disbelief:

I like to think that the blog post above pretty conclusively proves the existence of hypnosis as a method for one person to influence another person's thinking and behavior no matter what school of philosophy one belongs to; so if you're still skeptical of hypnosis after reading it and the links provided; it might be useful to ask yourself "why are you clinging to that belief?"

For many subjects the real issue underlying their skepticism is a desire to disbelieve because the existence of hypnosis is threatening to them in some way.  Either because it threatens their sense of personal autonomy by providing a mechanism by which they might be influenced beyond the effectiveness of ordinary conversation or advertising.  This is quite true of hypnosis, and is the root concern at the bottom of all debates about hypnotic ethics.  To these objectors I offer the comfort that hypnosis skills are typically taught along with safety protocols that embody these ethics; such that this concern can be properly re-framed as a perfectly rational desire to find a competent and ethical hypnotist who actually cares about your goals.

Some other subjects wind up unnecessarily skeptical of hypnosis generally because some certain application of hypnosis violates a core belief.  Typically the belief that no one gets to choose certain things like gender expression or sexual orientation.  To these objectors I respond that the evidence of my subjects having success with files like Shattered Heterosexuality and Masculine Conditioning speaks for itself.  These files reliably produce change in willing subjects, so clearly these things can be changed and your issue becomes whether or not you WANT to change in the way these files change people.  I get it that it can be comforting to believe that you were born this way when the majority of people who think you have a choice would like you to choose differently.  

Rest assured that the hypnosis community's commitment to the proposition that people can and should be allowed to change in whatever ways please them means that we are extremely unlikely to be the ones who would be forcing anyone into a choice they didn't want.  Hypnosis can't make a subject do anything they lack a subconscious desire to do; so if you lack truly lack the desire and willingness to change it can't affect you, and even if you DO have a desire to change you still have every right to non-consent to any particular method of change offered, including hypnosis.