Miscl. Items

IS HYPNOSIS REAL?

Yes, for some people and purposes it's as real as it gets. Ever see a stage hypnotist make volunteers bark, sing like Elvis, "recall" past lives, or believe they are naked? This may or may not require hypnosis. All it takes is a willing subject and a suggestible audience. But painless childbirth and tooth extractions under hypnosis certainly lend credibility to the phenomenon. Experts define hypnosis as a state of believed-in imagination where distortions of perception and memory are possible. So much so that witness' testimony taken under hypnosis is not allowed in most courtrooms.

In the late 1700's Anton Mesmer, a Viennese physician, conducted group seances during which he rather dramatically induced convulsive seizures called crises, which ironically had a healing effect on the body. Participants, mostly wealthy society women with minor hysterical complaints, were placed in a suggestive atmosphere of heavily draped rooms and soft music, and would hold on to metal bars extending from a wooden tub. Allegedly, the action of the magnetic fluid in the tub realigned imbalances in a person's magnetic equilibrium and led to bodily cures. The scientific establishment was skeptical, for if the subjects didn't know they were being "mesmerized", the magnetic fluid alone had no effect. Ignoring the benefits of the power of suggestion, mesmerism was banned and disappeared for more than half a century.

Mesmerism reemerged under the new name of hypnosis in the 1800's, when the English physician James Braid took note of the sleep-like element of the trance and named it after Hypnos, the Greek god of sleep. He was the first to realize that the power to respond to suggestions resided in the person being hypnotized, and not in the hypnotist. In 1885, Scottish surgeon James Esdaile performed 300 operations using hypnosis as a painkiller. For some, the operation was relatively pain free. Who are these people? About 85 to 90 percent of the population have hypnotic ability. Nearly 10 percent can become so deeply hypnotized that major surgery is possible without the use of anesthesia. About 50 percent can gain pain relief from hypnosis. Those most able are 9-10 year olds and those least able are senile or schizophrenic. Typically, individuals who are highly hypnotizable have rich fantasy lives and become easily immersed in novels and cry watching sad movies. Hypnotic susceptibility tests often include questions such as, "As a child did you have imaginary playmates?" and "Do you get totally engrossed in novels?"

Under hypnosis it is unlikely that you can be made to do anything against your will. Post hypnotic suggestions to quit smoking or reduce eating can only be helpful if you are motivated to do so. Those susceptible to hypnosis may be able to reduce test anxiety, improve athletic performance, alleviate headaches and asthma, increase breast size, and treat skin problems. For example, one woman, who suffered from open sores all over her body for more than 20 years, was asked to imagine herself swimming in shimmering, sunlit liquids that would refine and restore her skin. She was told to practice self-hypnosis, picturing her skin as smooth and unblemished. At the end of the treatment, her sores were gone. Even at a two-year follow-up, her skin had remained clear. Hypnosis can pose various dangers. Hypnotized subjects might respond to suggestions of falling off a cliff by having a heart attack, or when told to imagine being 6 years old, painfully reliving a childhood trauma. Side effects such as headaches, anxiety, and dizziness may also occur. It's not a good party trick, but in professional hands hypnosis can indeed be useful to those who are susceptible.

Comment on Non-Intervention:

Dear Professor Maas,

Hello. I'll start by trying to remind you who I am. I met you this morning
in lecture towards the back of the hall. I'm Steve from Syracuse, as we
discussed in our brief conversation. The reason I'm writing you, though, is
because today's lecture really hit home.

While you were speaking about "bystander nonintervention," and the tendency
of people to be less likely to help as their numbers increase, I had a
moment of personal reflection on two tragedies that have taken place within
the last 2 years within my family. The first took place on November 3, 1997,
when my 23-year-old cousin, Jenna Grieshaber, was stabbed and strangled to
death in Albany, NY. For several months she was stalked by a paroled
convict, and to keep him busy and away from her, she let him walk his dog
when he came by. One time after he walked her dog, he entered her apartment
and attacked her. She was able to struggle free long enough to dial 911, and
screamed and yelled to the dispatcher what was happening before her
assailant ripped the phone from the wall. Minutes later, two policemen
arrived at the scene, but did not enter the house. They were afraid of
Jenna's large dog which was barking inside, and somehow must have
rationalized the situation in their heads in such a way that the situation
didn't seem serious enough to knock down the door. I realize after today
that if, perhaps, there had been only one policeman, this awful incident
could have been much less severe. Perhaps you've heard of "Jenna's Law," a
law passed earlier this year which requires violent felons to serve 6/7 of
their term before becoming eligible for parole. The law was named and
created in honor and remembrence of my cousin, so that such violent people
may be detained longer.

The second incident has been even more traumatic for my immediate family, as
it involves my 22-year-old sister Carla, a recent graduate of the University
of Rochester. Last December, a young man tried to carjack my sister by
intentionally ramming his bike into her car at an intersection in downtown
Rochester at about 6:00 one Friday night. Apparently it went wrong, however,
as the young man fell onto the car, broke the windshield, and rolled off the
other side. My sister, stunned at what had happened, got out of her car to
see if he was okay. Her assailant then stood up and shot one bullet through
her left side, going between ribs and narrowly missing her lungs and heart.
He then fled. Carla, obviously stunned and disheveled to find herself on the
ground and bleeding, quickly realized that nobody was going to help. There
were people all around the area, as it was only early evening and it was a
relatively busy intersection. My sister, whom I realize now to be an
incredibly strong woman, stood up, got in her car, and drove two miles to
the emergency room with a broken windshield, unable to move her left arm.

Nobody went to my sister to help her. Nobody called the police that evening.
Finally, after five long days with no leads and no suspects, a woman called
the police and told them that she had seen the whole thing and could
identify the assailant. Five days after the incident, a woman finally broke
the diffusion of responsibility. I can't think of a better example of the
principles which you described today.

Today, my sister's assailant is serving a 5 year prison term, ironically
tried and sentenced under Jenna's Law.

Obviously, these two events have been extremely traumatic for myself and my
family. Perhaps I would be an interesting psychological study on the
aftereffects of random violence--even now, 9 months later, not a day goes by
that I don't think about what happened to Carla or how it changed me.
However, should you feel compelled to share either or both of these stories
with the class as examples of this principle, please do so with my blessing.
Like I said, I can't think of a better example.

Thank you for "opening my eyes" for the first time this semester. I look
forward to more revelations as the semester progresses.