"... the more intelligent a person is, the easier it is for [them] to be hypnotized."

I've always assumed that this statement was simply part of the hypnotic performers' spiel to make their participating subjects more likely to be compliant/hypnotised and have always admired the astuteness and theatre of it. So I was a a little surprised to see it stated as part of an answer in one of the FAQ's stickies here where no subjects are being primed for being hypnotised.

Is one of those things that hypnotists have heard themselves and their colleagues say so often that they've forgotten it's just part of their show or is this actually a true statement?

Of course, in a performance whether it's factually true or not really doesn't matter one way or the other. (Not to me anyway )

So it's purely from an academic point of interest that I find myself wondering if there actually is any accepted body of of evidence, drawn from experiments in peer reviewed journals, that supports a correlation between intelligence and susceptibility?

All the extracts and studies I've read, mostly many years ago when I was at university studying for my Bsc Honours degree in psychology and the odd article I've read since, found the correlation between intelligence and susceptibility to be, at best, inconclusive. Where some aspects of some kinds of intelligence appear to have a significant correlation it is usually along differences of sex with the other sex cancelling out those differences. And the positive correlations for one sex in some experiments shows the opposite correlation in other experiments. This meta-analysis also seems to support the general idea of inconclusiveness of those experiments that show no correlations at all.

It'd be interesting if there is a body of other experimental evidence, that I'm not aware of (and I'm definitely not aware of the vast majority of it) that does show a link or correlation.

Of course if there isn't any evidence of correlation between intelligence and susceptibility it doesn't mean hypnotists ought to stop mentioning one exists as part of a show, It's theatre after all... and the audience understands and accepts that the make believe is part and parcel of the theatre experience.

But also interesting is the idea that this might be genuinely thought of as being true simply from having repeatedly said it.

It is one of those things I say to help. Everyone likes to be thought if that way so why not? True or not never occurred to me thigh I suspect it is.

It's very difficult to find proper statistic numbers on anything related to hypnosis. Considering we can't even agree on what hypnosis is, and also considering the types of reputations hypnosis has had over time, science hasn't really come up with a way to test it on a level that brings in statistics-worthy numbers.

My personal opinion is that it is not directly related to intelligence, but instead is related to the ability to trust the hypnotist, focus on instructions, imagination, and ability to relax.

I think the focus and imagination is what folks have mashed into one and called "intelligence". But in my experience, all of those factors have to be there for a good hypnotic session, particularly for performances where people make feel put on the spot and nervous. The only subjects I ever have any trouble with are folks who can't/won't relax and focus.

From what I can recall most of the articles I read on intelligence as a correlate weren't directly focussed on either hypnotism or the hypnotic state per se. They mostly dealt with susceptibility as measured by some predetermined scale and in doing so they neatly avoid the issues of having to define hypnosis or get bogged down with arguments that often surround it.

So any relevant info on intelligence being correlated to susceptibility, or to hypnosis, or even to compliance, or anything similar would be worth a mention.

I would have thought it must surely be healthier for the person speaking the words to know if what's being said is just a useful theatrical device or if it's also actually true.

Healthy? I am afraid I am not sure what you mean by that.

Considering the question has not been answered, but people have been doing successful stage hypnosis shows for decades, I honestly don't think it matters if the person doing the show knows whether that statement is truthful or not.

Heck, I've seen stage hypnotists who do shows, who don't believe hypnosis really exists.

I don't care if it is true or not. All that matters is the show and I don't hand out an IQ test to volunteer. The MOST important aspect is willing. Everything else can vary.

If you enjoy theoretical discussions great, but as a practical matter is is not really relevant.

Yes you've got it exactly Danny.

It's not any thoughts to do with the show or hypnosis that has piqued my interest. In the context of a theatrical performance of hypnosis I couldn't care less whether saying something like, 'the more intelligent you are the more susceptible you're likely to be to being hypnotised' is true or not.

But what is interesting to me, purely from an personal point of view, is whether or not the hypnotists that repeat this sort of phase do so; because it's a useful theatrical device in their show but which they know is actually not true; or whether they say it because; it's a useful theatrical device which they happen to also believe is genuinely true.

And the reason I find this interesting is because if there's never been any evidence to suggest it's true where do they get the believe that it's true from? Even more interesting (to me at least) is the (speculative) thought that they might believe this is true solely because they've heard themselves and their colleagues repeat it so many times. If this were the case (and I've no idea if it is or not) it would mean that this theatrical device has been unwittingly promoted from fiction to truth and given a life of it's own.

Of course if there is peer reviewed evidence that this is true then my interest would vanish because the belief that it's true would have a straightforward explanation.

WitchDocChris; in the most benign way, I find this is a bit of an 'unhealthy' prospect because coming to believe that, something you've said for theatrical effect is true simply because you've repeated it many times seems to me to be an strangely odd way for someone's brain to work.

I can understand if others don't find such rather abstract ponderings as interesting as I do of course. I'm continually annoying my wife, and (she claims) driving her mad, by asking her for her opinion on such things. Maybe my brain works in an unhealthy odd way too.

Any info that might make my interest in this vanish is welcomed... as is info that might deepen my interest in it.

I can tell you exactly why I use it. It HELPS. It is a plot device that allows for some peer preasre in a way. EVERYONE likes to be thought of as intelligent. So when people come up and volunteer, if they are told that it is easier to do this if you are intelligent, then it makes them more WILLING. That is the bottom line. Who wants to be thought of as "less intelligent"?

It is the same reason I tell the there are 3 types of people who can not be hypnotised. Children, those who are cheically impaired, or those with a mental impairment which makes it difficult to concentrate and follow directions. Why do I mention that? Simply because once you volunteer who wants to be thought of as one of those 3 groups by being sent back to your seat?

Any time during the show you are ALWAYS talking to different groups. Those who may volunteer, those who are skeptical, those who just want to watch, and so on. So your words will mean different things to different groups of people. If you want to volunteer that is sort of guidelines and a borderline threat to be sent back. If you are watching it is informational.

EVERY word in my show is scripted with this in mind.

Yes Danny.... that's a well fleshed out reiteration of the comments I made regarding it being an astute theatrical device that helps the show.

But when hypnotists refer to the correlation between susceptibility and intelligence outside of the theatrical setting, in a non performance situation, the explanation that it helps the show and makes the subjects more wiling isn't relevant or pertinent as there is no show, audience or subjects.

I think it's pretty straight forward to see why it helps a show.... more interesting, to me at least, is that it's mentioned outside of a show setting too.

As I previously said in this thread, it's even stated as if it's a fact in the FAQ section of this area of the Café where, rather ironically, it's given as one of the the answers to common myths about hypnotism. This is the sort of use of this phrase that interests me as there are no subjects lined up to be hypnotised and no show. It's just information about hypnotism. In such an 'environment', if it's just a theatrical device it's surely an extraneous thing to mention.... unless that is, it's also actually believed to be true.

So it could be that it is true, (if it is let me know) or it could be that those that some hypnotists have fallen into an equivalent trap of 'believing their own publicity', or (and I've only just consider this) it could be like a sort of 'ground bait'. So even when there's no show and no performance situation this fact (or myth) gets put out there into the world on the off chance that someone who hears or reads it ends up in an audience in one of their shows at some point in the future .

Of those possibilities the first doesn't (so far) seem to have anything to support it and the last one seems a like a real stretch. That leaves the 2nd possibility or any others I haven't thought of.

For the sake of readability, it would be nicer to make your sentences shorter. I put the quoted text into the Hemingway app (because it confused me), and it was deep red. Look for yourself: http://www.hemingwayapp.com/

Otherwise I enjoy such discussions, but it is really hard to follow the intent of your Posts Sealegs. Sorry for steering this thread off-Topic for a Moment.

First define intelligence as you mean it here.

By the way for something to be "reiterated " you have to have said it first.

That aside to badger until you get the answer you want makes little sense.

RealityRocks. You are right of course. Shorter sentences do make things easier. I've been aware of this handy and easy writing technique since I was a kid but obviously I haven't applied it here. So thank you for the reminder. I'll try and keep my sentences shorter from now on. That way hopefully I'll make more sense.

Apologies to Danny and anyone else who felt my latter posts in this thread were badgering. As RealityRocks pointed out, my overly long sentences can cause the point I'm focussing on to get lost. I thought that's what had happened in this thread. I didn't realise that in trying to steer the thread back on track I was coming across, to some, as badgering.

I really don't mind if the thread eventually ends up heading off in some other direction. Threads often develop in all sorts of ways and they can be all the more interesting and informative for that. But I had hoped that this one might stay on track long enough to find out if anyone had any insight regarding what hypnotists really believe about intelligence (however they define it) being correlated to susceptibility.

But if there's nothing forthcoming here on the Café, no worries. I can always simply wait until I'm working with my hypnotist friends and ask them directly.

But you can't say "however you define it" and arrive at an answer. That is lazy. How it is being used in context will affect the answer.

Intelligence as defined by an IQ test or the ability to follow directions and concentrate? You have to define it so we are all talking about the same thing.

Well the context I'm interested in is any context that isn't part of the performing environment.

And with regard to being lazy.... I'm not the one saying intelligence correlates to susceptibility. Hypnotists are saying that. So it's not laziness that prevents me giving a specific definition. I simply don't know what what their definition is.

However I can narrow down what it must be from the scientific journals I've read. All the studies that I can recall, that have looked into the correlation of intelligence with susceptibility, have measured intelligence either using general IQ tests or tests that measure Social Intelligence. So unless hypnotists are inventing their own definitions of intelligence maybe be we can infer that they are talking about general IQ or Social Intelligence or some kind of mix or combination of the two.

So now that that's sorted and we are all talking about the same thing does that help? I can't see that it does. But if someone can please post.

It's a shame that even with the fashionable trend of dividing intelligence into a multitude of 'types' there isn't one based on the ability to, 'follow directions and concentrate'. If there was it might provide a possible explanation for my question.

But this is an performance forum. Why Would you expect such context here, especially when its specifically stated against the forum rules and policies?

Oh it is not sorted at all but thanks for trying.

Apparently psychologists are the ones who are talking about different intelligences and their definition.

http://whitneyjohnson.com/there-are-so-m......ligence/

Care to revise your statement?

So I still say that a proper definition is needed to discuss. But as a purely intellectual exersise it is pointless.

Mindpro: I read through the rules before making my original post in this thread. I have just read through them again. I can't see that any rules are being infringed by the topic or content of this thread. Maybe Danny with comments like 'Thanks for trying' is getting close. There is a rule that says be nice.

Well I thought that I might find some interesting discussion here. But I sense that rather taking my interest in this as being genuine there is a desire to want to see me as some sort of unwelcome trespasser.

So I think I'll just leave you lads to it.

I'll simply ask my hypnotist friends what they think when `i speak with them next.

Did you read the linked article?

Yes I read it. It briefly describes several types of intelligence from one of the theories of intelligence. There are many recognised theories of intelligence that break intelligence up into different types. Some of these types overlap between theories. Others have types of intelligence that are specific to individual theories.

I got the impression that I was expected to be surprised that psychologists have been instrumental with creating and using these theories. My only surprise is that I was expected to be surprised by this.

If any of these recognised theories included a type of intelligence that was based on the ability to follow directions and concentrate then, as I said, that would have been of interest to me and very relevant to this thread. It seems likely that such a description of intelligence would correlate pretty directly with susceptibility because the ability to follow directions and concentrate is known to be a factor in the susceptibility to being hypnotised.

But as far as I'm aware of there are no such recognised descriptions of intelligence. However just because I'm not aware of any doesn't mean there aren't any. I'm not certainly not aware of the current literature, or even that much of old literature for that matter. So if there is a theory that includes such a type it would be interesting to hear about it and read about it.

But if there is no intelligence of this type we are, by default, left with all the other types of intelligence from all the other theories of intelligence. And none of these, as far as I'm aware, has been shown to support the idea that intelligence and susceptibility are correlated. So it doesn't matter which definition is being referred to. They are all equally as unable to shed light on any correlation. And they are all equally unable to offer any explanation of where a genuine belief of the link between intelligence and susceptibility might stem from.

That's why it doesn't matter which definition of intelligence is used in this discussion.

Of course you can always create your own definition. So lets do that and that way we can wrap this up.

Type H Intelligence: definition; This is a type of intelligence as measured by one's susceptibility to being hypnotised.

Perfect. Job done.

Now, like I said, I'll leave you lads to it.