Is hypnosis a clearly verifiable, quantifiable, reliable and definable state?
Hypnosis and NLP Training South Africa Call 071 863 7398
According to Barnett Hypnosis is a process, not a state.
The IMDHA definition of hypnosis does not contain the word ‘state’ and refers to it as an “educational communication process”.
However there are many references to the State of hypnosis and hypnotic states in the SAIH training notes.
Barnett states that hypnosis should not be regarded as a clearly definable state compared to, for example, anesthesia. There is no similarity between the two.
However “states” such as the Esdale state may make this claim a little more difficult to understand for the general observer. There may be a process to get there, but what ‘state’ is the subject in when they are in the Esdale state?
In addition to this, some people have been anesthetized by the use of hypnosis, thus compounding the confusion, as there are phenomena within hypnosis that appear to be similar to anesthesia.
Trance in my opinion is a state, and hypnosis as a whole includes a lot more than just a state. The fact that hypnosis includes an induction, deepener, and trance termination means that there are various stages through which clients are taken and perhaps different “states”.
Some of the difficulties in understanding hypnosis may well be due to stage hypnotism; especially where people are told to sleep. It is then not unreasonable that the layman will attempt to draw a parallel between the sleep state and the “hypnotic state”.
The stage shows relies on a small minority of the population who are able to switch off their critical conscious mind and are deeply hypnotizable. This could mean that some people can achieve the “state” whilst others are not able to.
Many experts still regard hypnosis as an altered state of consciousness.
There are other researchers who have taken this idea even further, and who claim the process is nothing more than suggestion and that hypnosis does not exist.
In order to give this answer the attention it needs, I have explored this controversial question more deeply and will refer to some additional research on the matter.
Barnett’s definition only refers to Barnett’s opinion, and there is certainly a debate in terms of what hypnosis is, and whether it exists.
Does the subject pass through any type of unique state during the process of hypnosis? The induction process, especially with some individuals, certainly seems to indicate that the subject is moving through some sort of state.
There seems to be many references to the Trance state as well as the Hypnoidal state (William S. Kroger, Michael D. Yapko 2007), but nothing has attracted more debate than the attempt to identify the hypnotic state.
I have used the expression “trance” and “hypnotic state” to mean the same term, whilst “hypnosis” I regard as involving a state, as well as various procedures and processes.
There are two questions with two different answers:
- Is Hypnosis a clearly definable state?
- Is Hypnosis a state at all?
According to Barnett; Hypnosis is not a clearly definable state, although it is possible to observe a process of hypnosis.
My opinion is the following:
Hypnosis is a process which involves a subjective state of trance or a hypnotic state which the subject, depending on their “hypnotisability”, will experience at varying degrees. This is not meant to be an exhaustive description of hypnosis, only a reference to the hypnotic state. I have deliberately avoided the use of suggestibility as some “non state” researchers believe that hypnosis is nothing more than suggestibility.
In order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the hypnotic state is a clearly definable state or not, it might be useful to create the hypothesis that it is a clearly definable state, and see if it withstands our attempts to discredit such a notion.
Definable: To identify somebody or something by a distinctive characteristic quality or unique feature. In terms of the context I would understand this to mean “as opposed to other states” (such as a normal waking state). For something to be
definable it must be capable of being shown clearly. The corollary to this is that should the “thing” being defined, not be totally separable from something else, then it is incapable of definition or independent existence.
Verifiable: Scientific and irrefutable. Statements of facts are verifiable. Facts can be verified as to whether they apply, or are true or not. The observation is held against a definition of the object or process being studied, therefore the thing has to be capable of being defined. This is a binary process, and one would refer to “verifying whether something exists or not”. It “is” or it “is not”.
In science it is often easier to prove that something “is not”, as all one needs to do is attack one premise of the definition. If one part of the definition fails or does not apply then the definition and category cannot hold true. If hypnosis is defined as “A” plus “B” plus “C”, and we manage to show that “C” does not apply to the thing we are studying, then irrespective of everything else it is not hypnosis. This is why the non-state theorists will always be at a distinct advantage when presenting their argument.
Quantifiable: To be quantifiable it must be capable of measurement. Whereas someone can verify that there is such a thing as gravity, one would then need to quantify or measure how much gravity there is, and what effect it has. To be quantifiable a thing must be measured in “units”.
Reliable: Dependable and consistent. This is one of the criteria in defining whether something is scientific or not. The results from the study of gravity are consistent and reliable, and can be repeated under controlled laboratory conditions on a consistent basis. The study of turbulence is trickier, and elements of Chaos theory are applied to it. The study of turbulence and weather is not a reliable science, neither is Chaos theory.
Hypnosis and the hypnotic state will always be tricky to define to the satisfaction of the scientific community.
The words, “definable”, “verifiable”, “quantifiable” and “reliable” are all words one would use in a scientific context, and perhaps even in those sets of pure sciences capable of mathematical interpretation. It is commonly accepted that sciences lose their ability to be “pure” as they move away from a mathematical model approach.
Hypnosis is rather similar to the study of psychology, and it is very challenging to use mathematical proofs and scientifically reliable observations when involving human behaviour. No behaviours are totally repeatable under laboratory conditions.
The study of people interacting with each other as well as psychology in general becomes a very slippery topic; especially when examining empirical evidence. Psychology is by and large not regarded as a pure or natural science but rather as one of the social sciences.
Can Hypnosis or a hypnotic state be clearly defined? No.
There are some characteristics or tendencies that are observable when a ritual (such as hypnotic induction) is performed. These characteristics and responses can be observed.
Hypnosis is not a mind state and cannot be defined by the presence of a particular mind state. Changes in brainwaves may occur during hypnosis, but this does not define the hypnotic state.
Certain brainwave states such as Alpha and Theta states, normally associated with hypnosis, are achievable through other means such as meditation and sleep. Their presence cannot be used alone to “verify” the existence of hypnosis or define it.
In addition, once an induction has taken place, a suggestible subject may act out suggestions which require access to more energetic states, (such as panic, or worry), or deeply relaxed states such as deep sleep. This would result in a “hypnotised person” accessing different brainwave states.
In fact, when seeing sleeping hypnotized people on stage, we should be guided by the fact that they are reacting to the suggestions of the hypnotist rather than actually sleeping. Humans move between these various mind states throughout the day anyway, and just because they happen to exhibit these brainwaves is not indicative of the fact that they are hypnotized.
Further measurement could be made of the observable characteristics of subjects who have claimed to have been in a hypnotic state. These behaviours or signs include:
Change in breathing pattern
Red eyes
Postural slumping
Lacrimation
Fluttering of eyelids
Body warmth
Response to suggestion
Relaxation of facial muscles
And other physical changes or responses
These are only outward physical changes and could only demonstrate a casual relationship between what I am doing, (i.e. inducing a trance) and what the subject is doing. This is not demonstrative causation.
These reactions would have to hold true all of the time for all people; which they clearly do not. The Stanford and Harvard hypnotisability Scales clearly show difference responses between various people who have been guided into hypnotic trances.
Some people exhibit some of these responses, and some people very few, if any at all. All clients can do is report their own experiences which cannot be “verified” in any way.
We might try to conclude that the hypnotic state has been achieved, when certain hypnotic phenomena are available (such as arm catalepsy), but this is unreliable as all people differ in this regard.
As an example, I have experienced very few of the classical phenomena associated with the hypnotic state, yet I have had a series of profound learning experiences and relaxation experiences. I am doubtful that I would have had these experiences had I not been guided into my own special ‘state’.
Is hypnosis (hypnotic state) verifiable? No.
If it is incapable of being defined, then it cannot be verified, as there is no definition or standard with which to compare the observations. The argument stated above supports this and there is no need to repeat the reasoning.
Is Hypnosis quantifiable? No, however…
There are no units of measurement which would stand the onslaught of scientific enquiry; especially against the arguments of people like Barber (Barber, Theodore X. Psychological Reports, Vol 16(3, Pt. 1), 1965, 809-844). However, empirical observation and studies have demonstrated that there are significant common experiences which can be grouped together to quantify the “hypnotisability” of a subject.
Attempts have been made via various measuring instruments such as the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility and the Hypnotic Induction Profile to measure hypnotisability. There have been varying degrees of success.
These instruments are used to assign a score of “how hypnotisable” one person is, in comparison to other people tested by the same instrument in laboratory conditions.
My own opinion is that laboratory conditions are not the most conducive to relaxation. Having an inexperienced psychology major drone on from a script (as these tests are conducted) is not the best way to induce a subject.
What has been discovered is that there are in fact certain indications (including biological as well a behavioural) as to the hypnotisability of an individual, and this would refer to the readiness, preparedness or ability to enter into “hypnosis”. This might even open up an argument to support that some people are already in a hypnotic or trance state, and are therefore more flexible or compliant with the hypnosis process.
Once again I suggest that certain people can access this hypnotic state more easily than others, and that attempts to group “all people” and apply the same rules will always end in different conclusions.
Is the Hypnotic state “reliable” or are there “reliable” ways of studying it? No
Some of the “indications of hypnosis” are common to other states that we experience every day. Even the existence of the overt hypnotic phenomena is often inconstant, and there is no way of standardising and accommodating for differences in a population group.
Although the definition of the hypnotic state may be vague, “the absence of evidence is in no way evidence of absence”. I firmly believe that there is a hypnotic state.
Some scientists argue that there are no reliable and verifiable ways to measure or define consciousness; however they have used a conscious thought process to arrive at that conclusion.
So the last remaining question: Is Hypnosis (Trance) a state at all?
There are a group of ‘non- state’ theorists who believe that hypnosis and the hypnotic state simply do not exist.
They claim that hypnosis is nothing but;
“multiple task-specific factors derived from normal cognitive,
behavioural and social psychology, such as social role-perception and favourable motivation (Theodore R. Sarbin)
Active imagination and positive cognitive set (Theodore X Barber),
response expectancy (Irving Kirsch),
and the active use of task-specific subjective strategies (Nicholas Spanos)”
(Source http://hypnosis.co.tv/ accessed 22 April 2011)
It could be loosely classified within the category of altered states as it once was. However ‘non-state’ theorists such as Barber (1976) contend that there is no evidence that the condition is any different from the waking state. He does not deny the “power of suggestion”, but simply denies that hypnosis is a prerequisite for this. Barber states that there is no difference between the EEG of a person who is awake and a person who is hypnotised.
There is a circular futility to Barbers argument. He contends that there is no such thing as a hypnotised person, yet claims to have studied one with the assistance of an EEG. One also questions whether the use of an EEG is conducive to the relaxation necessary for a significant level of hypnosis.
Another group of the ‘non-state’ theorists believe that the expectation to be hypnotised and social strata are more important (Kirsch and Council, 1989) than the technique or process. Expectation is a component of a successful process, however its influence can’t be used to discredit or disprove the state.
One of the fundamental aspects of the debate is the question as to whether subjects who are not suggestible can be made to be suggestible.
The ‘non-state’ theorists have managed to demonstrate some modifications of suggestibility (Gorassini and Spanos,1986; Sach and Anderson, 1967).
The ‘state’ theorists do not believe this to be possible, as they do not hold that suggestibility is a skill that can be learned, but is rather an inherent capacity which although varies from person to person does not change in any one person over their lifetime.( Adolfo Cangas Díaz and Marino Pérez Alvarez, 1998).
I lean towards the conclusion reached by the ‘state’ theorists.
Before I continue perhaps it would be best to agree on what we mean by “state”.
State: This word presents one of the biggest challenges. Until defined correctly in the correct context, then no discourse can be satisfactorily entertained.
There are many definitions of the word ‘state.’ In my opinion, the following two definitions have the most relevance:
State: the condition of a person or thing, as with respect to circumstances or attributes
State: a particular condition of mind or feeling: to be in an excited state.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/state accessed 23 April 2011)
In order to be a state or in a state a “thing” must be in a state of “something”.
There are a number of contexts in which the word “state” is used in the context of hypnosis. I have dealt with mind states and I shall now focus on states of consciousness.
States of consciousness. Hypnosis was referred to for many years as an altered state of consciousness. I find myself being more comfortable with this definition than any other.
In the past, hypnosis was mistakenly regarded as being lower down on the scale of consciousness and akin to sleep. This type of thinking was perpetuated by casual references to waking and sleeping states. (Tart, Charles T. Oxford, England: Doubleday. (1972). ix, 589 pp.)
In my considered opinion, the hypnotic or trance “state” is a state, which is not clearly definable to the casual or scientific observer. However each individual can discern the difference between trance and a normal waking state for themselves. It is therefore a perceived state. In a majority of cases the scientific observer will be able to see some phenomena which were not present when the subject was not in trance.
Using scientific criteria I would have to concede that the hypnotic state is not “a clearly definable state”, (worthy of the associations with the strict meanings of “verifiable”, “quantifiable” and “reliable”)
At best, hypnosis can be defined by the casual observer more of “what it is not” rather than “what it is”. It is not a normal waking state nor an unconscious state.
I agree with the ‘non-state’ theorists in that the state can be amplified by the expectation, attitudes and social pressures of the person being hypnotised. I believe that I can learn to allow myself to be hypnotised, (self hypnotized or with assistance) to a certain degree.
My own experiences of hypnosis includes seeing people who are highly alert and open to suggestion as well as being slumped over in a relaxed, calm and unique state. These may be moments within a process; however, I have seen these people in a state which I cannot fairly claim was familiar to me in any way before I began to learn about hypnosis.
In conclusion, I don’t believe that hypnosis can be defined as a “clearly definable state” in an objective scientific and measurable way. However we can observe outward or overt characteristics and behaviours which imply that that the subject is undergoing a process of hypnosis.
There is a hypnotic state, however it cannot withstand the application of strict scientific criteria and it remains a largely subjective experience.
Of course, the lack of the ability to study hypnotic states as a definable state in no way implies that the state does not exist. There are many other facts of life which have been relegated to the category of “things we know but cannot prove”.
In closing, my own example of why probability theory cannot be proven perhaps shows why the hypnotic state will not be proven. There are parallels between observing hypnosis and probability theory in practise.
Probability theory is one of the sciences which has all of the attributes of consistent empirical observation and statistical measurement, but cannot withstand the onslaught of scientific questioning.
We know for instance that, ceteris paribus, flipping a coin 1000 times would result in approximately in a 50 / 50 result of heads and tails, (subject to a standard deviation of the square root of the observations). This means that if you flip the coin 1000 times you will (probably) end up with a result of 500 plus or minus the square root of 1000 which is a range of 468 to 531.
It cannot be proved, but it is highly unlikely that the results will fall out of those brackets.
I believe that the hypnotic state is something akin to probability theory; if I do certain things, then a certain number of people will act in various ways and will experience a profound sensation that something has happened that is very different from their normal experience of life. I see this happening in some people and I call it a ‘state’.
Just don’t ask me to prove it.
Do you feel that you need to see more information on hypnosis or NLP? Call me to hear how else we can assist you in achieving your goals quickly. You can call now on 071 863 7398 or mail me immediately at miles@lifeshifts.co.za Or look at more options at the South African Hypnosis Website. Personal Hypnosis and NLP sessions available in Port Elizabeth and throughout South Africa.
