The most interesting thing about this year's visit to the Brisbane RNA Show (I am feeling more formal for the annual report this time around) was the hypnotism show by Shane St James. He's a son of Martin St James, the famous Australian stage hypnotist, who I recall as a child (or teenager) having quite a run on TV for a time. (I thought he had died, but his website seems to indicate he's still with us. In fact, it notes he's had 20 children, the latest son at the age of 77 only last year!)
I've never been to this type of entertainment before, and I didn't really know that there was anyone out there still making a living this way. The public fascination with it had moved on, I thought, although there were a large number of people there yesterday for a show which I didn't think had much publicity.
I remember from some of the old TV series that St James the elder featured one guy as a regular subject who was supposed to be particularly hypnotise-able and particularly funny in the some of the things he would do. However, after seeing him a few times over several weeks, I recall my father saying "this guy's faking it - he's just acting for fun" and I remember suspecting the same thing. With these type of shows, familiarity does breed contempt.
So, how did this one go? It was very much in line with my (somewhat fading) memories of the old TV shows. A bunch of people are self selected from the audience and (allegedly) hypnotised en mass, but there was no secrecy about the hypnotic induction method. (I seem to recall M St J - or perhaps another TV hypnotist - doing it in secret, so as to not accidentally hypnotise anyone at home.) When it's done, there are clearly some on the stage who are not feeling under the spell (so to speak) at all. They leave the stage when the hypnotist notices, leaving the "live" ones up there.
The things they do are the old fare - pretending to be anything from a typewriter, a musician, or famous singer or actor. At the end, it's the "when this music plays, you will do this...." routine.
As entertainment, it's not bad in small doses, I guess. Even if one is completely cynical about whether there is any "real" altered state in the minds of subjects, the enthusiasm with which some of them will do ridiculous acts can be fairly amusing, even if they are just "playing along" in some sense or other.
Being the enquiring, and perhaps not very suggestible, mind that I am, this naturally led to me Googling around today about the scientific status of stage hypnotism. Given that even therapeutic hypnotism has a very uncertain standing amongst researchers, I expected that no scientist took stage hypnotism seriously.
And it would seem from the Wikipedia article on the topic that this is true:
Due to stage hypnotists' showmanship, many people believe that hypnosis is a form of mind control. However, the effects of stage hypnosis are probably due to a combination of relatively ordinary social psychological factors such as peer pressure, social compliance, participant selection, ordinary suggestibility, and some amount of physical manipulation, stagecraft, and trickery.[10] The desire to be the center of attention, having an excuse to violate their own inner fear suppressors and the pressure to please are thought to convince subjects to 'play along'.[11][page needed] Books written by stage hypnotists sometimes explicitly describe the use of deception in their acts, for example, Ormond McGill's New Encyclopedia of Stage Hypnosis describes an entire "fake hypnosis" act which depends upon the use of private whispers throughout:
It was indeed clear (he doesn't really attempt to hide it) that Shane St James talks off microphone to some of the people he gets to do certain things. Is it all a matter of extroverts being able to be made relaxed enough to put on what they would otherwise consider an embarrassing performance?[The hypnotist whispers off-microphone:] “We are going to have some good laughs on the audience and fool them… so when I tell you to do some funny things, do exactly as I secretly tell you. Okay? Swell.” (Then deliberately wink at the spectator in a friendly fashion.)[12]
The Wikipedia article notes that some stage shows use plants in the audience. I would not think there were any obvious ones in the show I saw yesterday.
The odd thing about stage hypnotism, however, is that it has caused enough concern that it can affect some people that it is banned or regulated in some countries. A woman sued a stage hypnotist successfully in 2001 in the UK, and I can't recall where, but I have read or seen something some years ago by (I think) a researcher saying that stage hypnotism was somewhat risky for its unintended effects. There is a bit of an explanation of a 1990's UK enquiry into stage hypnotism after a couple of controversial cases to be found at this website. Googling around, it seems that some suggest that Scientology uses what amounts to hypnotic methods, which I guess would not be a surprise.
Anyhow, the whole topic of hypnosis is a bit of a puzzling one. While it is more-or-less understandable that deep relaxation akin to sleep might help a person ignore pain, for example, the reason as to how it helps some conditions is much more of a mystery. For example:
The early report by Sulzberger[2] on the efficacy of suggestion in treating warts has since been confirmed numerous times. Numerous reports attest to the efficacy of hypnosis in treating warts.[31, 32] In a well-conducted randomized controlled study by Spanos et al[33] that serves as a typical example, 53% of the experimental group had improvement of their warts 3 months after the first of 5 hypnotherapy sessions, while none of the control group had improvement. Hypnosis can be successful as a therapy for warts.I believe there is even a well attested case of hypnotherapy working to remove warts on just one side of a patient's body, although I can't find a good internet reference for that yet. I find that a particularly hard to fathom result, if (as I think it is) true.
By co-incidence, I see that the New York Times yesterday had a fascinating article about the "nocebo effect" - where warning patients of possible side effects of medicine or treatment helps ensure that they will develop the problem:
In a curious study, a team of Italian gastroenterologists asked people with and without diagnosed lactose intolerance to take lactose for an experiment on its effects on bowel symptoms. But in reality the participants received glucose, which does not harm the gut. Nonetheless, 44 percent of people with known lactose intolerance and 26 percent of those without lactose intolerance complained of gastrointestinal symptoms.In one remarkable case, a participant in an antidepressant drug trial was given placebo tablets — and then swallowed 26 of them in a suicide attempt. Even though the tablets were harmless, the participant’s blood pressure dropped perilously low.
That second case certainly is reminiscent of aboriginal deaths caused by "pointing the bone," isn't it?
The article goes on to note a less surprising example of the effect:
All of this certainly ties in with the idea that quite a large proportion of people are very "suggestible", and as such should stage hypnotism really be seen as tantamount to mere acting? A bit hard to say, I think.The nocebo effect can be observed even when people take real, non-placebo drugs. When medical professionals inform patients of possible side effects, the risk of experiencing those side effects can increase. In one trial, the drug finasteride was administered to men to relieve symptoms of prostate enlargement. Half of the patients were told that the drug could cause erectile dysfunction, while the other half were not informed of this possible side effect. In the informed group, 44 percent of the participants reported that they experienced erectile dysfunction; in the uninformed group, that figure was only 15 percent.
Finally, I hope that the hypno-duck at the top of this post (whose photo I took yesterday - the poultry and bird area is always a favourite place to visit) is not making any reader drowsy.