[SPLIT] Hypnosis

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/apr/07/sexual-abuse-false-memory-syndrome

Despite the falling away of media interest, families are still being torn apart when ‘recovered’ memories of childhood sexual abuse are introduced into the minds of vulnerable people

I have three wonderful daughters – two teenagers and one young adult. I can hardly imagine anything more horrible than the prospect that one of them might one day enter therapy for help with some common psychological problem such as anxiety, insomnia or depression and, at the end of that process, accuse me of childhood sexual abuse on the basis of “recovered” memories. Even though I would know with absolute certainty that such allegations were untrue, the chances are that nothing I could say or do would convince my accusers of this.

A few days ago I sat in a lecture theatre mostly filled with middle-aged or elderly parents living through this exact nightmare. Typically, their adult children had started therapy with no pre-existing memories of being sexually abused, but had become convinced during the therapeutic process that they had indeed been victimised in this way. So convinced were they that the “recovered” memories were true, they more often than not accused their parents directly of this vile act and then cut off any further contact, leaving their parents devastated and confused, their lives shattered.

The occasion in question was the 15th Annual General Meeting of the British False Memory Society. The BFMS began life in 1993, the year after the formation of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation in the US. Accused parents were at the forefront of founding both organisations. Both have scientific and professional advisory boards to support them in their aims, which include providing support – including legal assistance where necessary – to those affected by such accusations, providing information and advice to professionals, and improving our understanding of false memories by encouraging and supporting academic and professional research.

One serious problem appears to be that many people mistakenly believe that the false memory controversy is “yesterday’s news”. They are aware that there was a huge increase in such allegations back in the 1980s and 1990s. They may even be aware that many professionals and academics have reacted against such claims, most notably Elizabeth Loftus, whose pioneering work in this area has done more to increase our understanding of the true nature of false memories than any other scientist. But it is simply not the case that this is a dead issue.

I do believe that people are sometimes open to suggestion to varying degrees. I also understand that memories can be malleable and that some things can be suggested and then remembered.

Right, but that doesn’t require hypnosis; just sit down and watch a movie with your friends. After a few hours, start talking about a scene in the movie, with some modifications and see how many of them will “remember” what you’re describing rather than what they actually saw.

Some things don’t even have to be suggested; I worked in safety and security for a few years, and the differences in witness statements taken minutes after an incident were, to say the least, disturbing. Even when we had wide angle video of the entire area, people with no connection to the incident other than eyewitness would clearly remember large things that just weren’t there. Even an 18 wheeler that wasn’t involved in any way, but the witness was sure it had been right there within 20 feet of the incident, so the driver must have seen exactly what happened: only problem was we monitored that yard and there hadn’t been a truck in it all morning, unless it could launch itself straight up over an 8′ chain link fence to avoid the cameras and guards at both gates. (And yes, I did go check the undisturbed soft ground and the still-rusted-shut lock on the one unguarded gate.) The witness, completely unprompted, (others were specifically instructed not to ask about details of the incident other than checking for injury or immediate danger before we got our initial statements) could “remember” the color of truck and trailer, logo on the truck and a rough description of the driver of a giant vehicle that just plain didn’t exist.

For that matter, I have occasionally had memories I now know to have been false, including some that were inherently obvious even at the time. On the other hand, they’re not memories anyone would have any reason to have “planted” through hypnosis or any other method, and in one case that comes to mind, no one alive would have known any of the other details of the context in which that memory exists. It’s closely emotionally connected (to me) to a very traumatic event, (my father was murdered when I was 10) and the memory is of a brief conversation we had several months before that. No one else, including my mother (they divorced when I was 7) would have known the details of that evening, but I have a clear yet false memory of us talking about events that I now realize hadn’t yet happened. Given the content, the false memory must have formed sometime after I was 12-13. However, after examining the false memory, I have been able to recall enough of the actual conversation that even though I can still remember the nonexistent parts, they’re clearly marked in my mind as imagined rather than real. How and why does it exist? I can’t say for sure, though in truth, it is a conversation I would have wanted to have with him, had he still been alive. Most likely, I imagined or even dreamt a conversation I wished I could have with him, and for whatever reason, my brain edited it into one that did happen, as a coping mechanism. As I said, no one else would have the reason or the knowledge to create it, and no one but early-teen me would ever have seen even a small benefit from its creation.

I read a book by Hugh Nibley’s daughter in which she made some horrifying but also strange and uncorroborated accusations against him.

I see plenty of articles here where people are doing the same thing to various Church and political leaders.

I suppose it might be prudent to tread with caution before intentionally opening yourself to another’s suggestion.

Yes, but we do exactly that any time we fail to apply substantial critical thinking to everything we’re told.

Hypnosis can help with things that require focused effort and dedication. It can help someone act in a positive way when they feel like acting in a negative way (like when dealing with addictions). It can be a valuable part of therapeutic counseling. It also can be damaging if not done properly, even by professional therapists.

Memory recovery is far trickier, much more susceptible to manipulation, and very difficult to do objectively.

Finally, Nibley’s daughter had lots of issues, and her claims have huge problems, with or without hypnosis, but especially given her overall beliefs and those of her hypnotist. That case appears to be a textbook example of hypnosis intended to find something specific, not to uncover objective truth.

I took courses in and studied hypnosis in depth for several years. My aunt was the one who got me into it. My TMB parents were none too pleased.

Here’s my few cents on the subject:

1. Hypnosis can never cause someone to do something they don’t want to do. The mind would reject it and fight back. If a hypnosis were to suggest handing over a wallet, personal information (passwords, SSN), or solicit sex, the subject would break from it. That being said, there are many things a person could want that could be exploited.

2. It actually began my faith crisis, many years ago. This is because I discovered that hypnosis occurs regularly, without anyone being aware of it, many times a day. It just happens on a much more subtle, lighter level (although often not less intentional). I’ve spotted it heavily in politics, business, and especially religion. There are certain words they use, certain patterns of speak, subject preparation, and alteration of perception that runs heavily though it all in much the same way. Priesthood blessings are a strong example, but prayer is general often fits in the same category. What shocked me most, was when I saw how much it was used, in missionary tactics. That’s not to say, it’s used for “evil”. Convincing, helping and encouraging someone to do “good” is a “good” thing, right? What’s more, most people who practice hypnosis on others, usually don’t realize it. What’s more, they’re probably self-hypnotizing themselves at the same time. It happens more often than you think.

3. Humans are not rational. We like to think we are… but the truth is, our reality is largely our perception, which is colored with all sorts of things which are illogical and sometimes blatantly false. Which is why you’ll NEVER be able to change someone’s mind on religion or politics through reason. Take a look at every presidental election ever. You’ve almost always got a rough 50-50 split of Americans with such an obscenely different view of reality, they are revolted by the immorality and gross stupidity of the other group. Is one of the groups smarter, more informed, more rational than the other? Religion takes it even a step farther. What are the chance you are one of the lucky few, brilliant and noble enough to belong to the “One True Religion”, when most everyone else is wrong? What evidence do you have for the correctness of your beliefs that could not just as equally apply to the religious beliefs of others? We shape can alter and shape our own reality. Hypnosis is a tool to facilitate and control that process. False memories are to be expected.

Just to clarify, I don’t believe that being rational is always good, that most religious leaders exploit or knowingly lie to their follows (politics and business are another story), or that it is often immoral to persuade someone to act differently than they might’ve otherwise. Hypnosis is a very enlightening subject, and a powerful tool. Religion is also a very enlightening subject and power tool.

1. Hypnosis can never cause someone to do something they don’t want to do. The mind would reject it and fight back. If a hypnosis were to suggest handing over a wallet, personal information (passwords, SSN), or solicit sex, the subject would break from it. That being said, there are many things a person could want that could be exploited.

There are ways and means to get past that. For example, I have heard the story of a young therapist in pre-WWI Vienna who tried to get a woman to undress. He had tried it the simple way and it never worked… but instead he made her think she was in a different situation and made it work.

So you couldn’t say “get your clothes off”, but you could say “you are going to take a shower, you go to the bathroom, you turn on the water. It’s warm and you are relaxed. You fetch the towel, you take off your clothes and get in…” etc etc. The hypnotist has to lead as well as order.

If you implant memories, you have to lead them there. You wouldn’t just say “you’ve been abducted by aliens”, you’d have to tell them they’d just gone to bed, and that they had to describe what was going on that night. And then you’d lead them on a few points intentionally or unintentionally.

“Brainwashing” and “hypnosis” are great examples. They mean something specific, and over-applying them outside their actual definitions is highly problematic – just as over-applying charges of racism or sexism causes serious issues, even though many views and actions are racist and sexist even if many people don’t recognize them as such.

However, it’s important to recognize that even light trance – what most people would refer to as a guided meditation or wide awake hypnosis when it’s assisted by another person – is pretty close to traditional deep trance hypnosis, and can be used in much the same way. Again, it also happens unintentionally when we hyper-focus on certain things, and many people don’t recognize it at all when it’s done without the formal trappings of a hypnosis or guided meditation session. That can make it far more dangerous, as the subject won’t even realize they’ve been suggested. It’s even possible to convert it directly to deep trance hypnosis, and from there hypnoamnesia to prevent conscious memory of the deep trance is trivial…if not automatic.

This is why I generally recommend treating any person known or suspected to be particularly unethical with constant suspicion; there are people who can and will lull you to a light trance state without your knowledge or consent, and use it to condition you without the normal resistance that critical thinking provides, even to repetitive and/or skilled persuasion methods. If you find yourself focusing more than typical whenever a person starts talking, you need to redirect that focus to critical consideration of everything they say in order to make sure it doesn’t become blind acceptance.

To be hypnosis, there must be a “sleep-like state”. Without such a condition, we have suggestions, conditioning, subliminal messaging, etc., but we aren’t dealing with hypnosis.

At the point where direct conditioning becomes possible, it’s really splitting hairs; it doesn’t matter which process is used when the result is identical. Light trance with full conscious control is basically the only meaningful exception; the subject still has the conscious ability to reject any suggestion directly at all times, so it’s barely more than a normal focus state. It’s also rare without specifically creating that state, since it’s typically (Always? Never heard of another way to get there.) a modification of an existing light trance state, rather than one the subject can be guided directly to.

There is nothing in standard LDS missionary work that fits the classic definition of either brainwashing or hypnosis, and I would say the vast majority of LDS members never come close to hypnosis through prayer.

Normal prayer, no, but a focused, extended session, entirely possible. The standard “day of fasting and prayer” might get there on occasion. Actually using it productively without recognizing he phenomenon is highly unlikely, though.

As I said, I simply want to make sure we distinguish between hypnosis and things like concentration and focus. There is a difference, and it is important. Sure, they might be on the same general spectrum, but so are depression (of various levels) and consternation. We distinguish between them for an important reason, even if they can be linked in some way, and we intentionally avoid suggestions that conflate them.

Having said that, I am conscious of and concerned about manipulation and overt spiritualism, which is one reason I would choose, if forced to do so, a less traditional “spiritual” setting like an LDS Sacrament Meeting over a Protestant revival or another charisma-soaked service (like what happens with classic instances of services that include “speaking in tongues”).

Finally, it is important at a site like this to avoid what people who simply read would consider sensationalized, hyperbolic terminology – and equating typical LDS prayer and missionary work with hypnosis is exactly that.