NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/21574

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 3.7 KB | 87 lines

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!cs.uiuc.edu!mcgrath
From: [e-mail] (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Suggestibility
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:54:06 GMT
Lines: 75

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (D
avid Barton) writes in part:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert
|> McGrath) writes:
|>
|>    What is the basis for this last claim?
|>
|>    As far as I recall, one of the key features of the "hypnotised"
|>    state is susceptability to suggestion.  There is PLENTY of evidence
|>    that people who are hypnotized respond to suggestion much more
|>    easily and compliantly than even the same people when not
|>    hypnotized.   That's how you tell they are hypnotized.
|>
|>    Perhaps I am mistaken in this recollection.
|>
|> Which claim?  The claim that I am not aware? :-)
|>
|> I actually don't think there has been a comparative study.  Enhanced
|> suggestibility is certainly a characteristic of hypnosis; however, it
|> is certainly NOT unique to hypnosis.

I'll accept the claim that suggestion is not unique to hypnosis.  I
questioned the claim that:
|> I know of no evidence that
|> this happens to a greater extent than with any memory elicited in
|> conversation, in response to prompting.
but I see what you are saying.


In article <[e-mail]>, "James F. Tims" <[e-mail]
m> writes in part:
|> Though I agree that much testimony for hypnosis exists,
|> that evidence seems circular at best:  We are going to hypnotize you --
|> you know what that means, right? -- ok, here we go.  Are you doing it yet?
|> There.  See?  He's hypnotized.

I was thinking of the studies by Orne and others that compared hypnotized
subjects to subjects instructed to behave just as if they were hypnotized.
There were differences in the behavior of these groups, indicating
that hypnosis is not as simple as "let's pretend you are hypnotized."

and  Barton again:

|> Basically --- have the same people witness the same events, then
|> divide them into two groups.  Ask a differnet set of elicitation
|> questions, which are not even particularly leading, but ask about the
|> events in a different order and with a different emphasis.  You will
|> get fairly consistent, VERY different stories that the people involved
|> are absoultely sure of.

Quite.  A very similar result to hypnosis.  Is this the same process?
I don't know.  I've certainly never heard of people remembering
past lives or channeling 25th century Venusians due to normal
interregation (absent coercion).

I should also note the experiece of teachers everywhere--no matter
how carefully you structure the situation, you still get the most
amazingly divergent recollections on the mid-term! :-)

|> At least one of the lawyer dudes said that, as far as he
|> was concerned, ordinary testimony was as unreliable (or as reliable)
|> as hypnotically elicited testimony.  This is NOT a scientific study,
|> but I found it convincing.

Well, lawyers will say just about anything!  The real question maybe
is how many and what sources of suggestion are present in the
"testimony".  Whatever sources of pollution exist for "regular"
testimony exist for hypnotic testimony, plus unknown biases due
to whatever hypnosis is (role playing, or r.p. + other stuff) and
biases induced by the otherwise irrelevant hypnotist.

--
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  [e-mail]