I really like watching Penn and Teller's show titled %^&&#$%^ where they debunk things like alternative medicine and extreme pet hording.

However, I recently stumbled across an episode that seemed strange to me. It was an episode on hypnosis. While I agree with the part that hypnosis cannot change physical aspects (growth of organs, healing cancer etc.), it has been successfully employed to remove phobias, even allergies and appetite etc.

From my study of earlier hypnosis literature as well as the medical hypnosis works (NLP included) and having observed some hypnosists do wonders like eliminate pain, I find Penn and Teller's stance a bit extreme. Their stance is that hypnosis is a mutual fantasy between practitioner and participant. They dismiss everything in a hypnosis demonstration as the participant "Playing along". Claiming stage hypnosis works because the participants want the spot light.


I am sure at least Teller (who happens to have a huge library on magic books) would know that spotlight and playing along is not the sole reason hypnosis works. it might make the spectator willing to be hypnotised. But an entire genre of entertainment and therapy is not based on an unspoken contract of "playing along".

I would love to have your opinions regarding this.

Is it still playing along when they are playing along but think they're not playing along?

The way they put it, it seemed that they meant the spectators were consciously playing along. You can see the episode to find out more.

Old argument. Still no point.

But wouldnt people educated in this field like I suppose P&T are, know any better?

I have seen the episode and I enjoyed watching them draw their conclusions.
People have been trying to prove or disprove the existence of hypnosis for a long time.
It's just like all the other arguments, including:
Everybody can be hypnotised vs. Only (insert percentage) can be hypnotised.
Trance vs. No trance.
Who cares? It makes no difference to my performance or the performances of anyone I teach. For me, it's kind of one of the main points of a show.
Most stage hypnotists (not necessarily knowingly) raise many of these questions during their show anyway.
A hypnotist show would be very different if we knew for sure the answers to all of these questions.
As I've said before, I dislike but kind of understand all the geeky curiosity, but I for one hope we never have all the answers and I'm actually pretty confident we never will.

I think the show picked very specific hypnotists in order to support their claims. Footage of a hypnotist numbing someone's body part and demonstrating that the spectator does not feel pain would not have made Penn look good when he was saying the words "Playing along". Instead they show the snake salesmen of the genre and represent the entire genre in bad light.

I'm surprised there hasn't been plenty more of this kind of debunking.
I think it would have been an easy episode to make, as it's unfortunately so easy to find something negative to say about lots of hypnotists.
There's one working hypnotist who posts here who would agree with P&T.
Why so concerned about it? I think it's a healthy and fascinating aspect of our work.
I regularly perform for sceptics. Some of them do change their minds, some of them don't even believe the evidence when it's presented right in front of them. It doesn't matter.
I'm only concerned if somebody's scepticism prevents them from booking me, but then if it does, I probably wouldn't hear about it!

I am not as concerned as I am disappointed. I just expected P&T to know better. At least Teller.

And posting this thread my goal was just to get working hypnotists' reaction to this.

You are disappointed that they do not agree with you. You have your truth even if it is not proven. They don't agree so what?

Remember it is difficult to seek the truth when you know ahead of time what that truth is supposed to be.

In the end it is a discussion of semantics and nothing more. They play along and delude themselves into thinking something happens or they are in trance. Either way the check clears. Why is it so important to have them validate your opinion?

And by the way Penns knowledge of magic is quite extensive. As is his knowledge of a great many things.

I am disappointed by the lack of research in the episode.

I think you'd be surprised by the number of working stage hypnotists that don't belive hypnosis is real. It's really quite surprising given they work with it professionally.

I've watched two seasons of P$T Bullsh!t.
It's very interesting and fun, but on almost every occasion they did an episode on something I knew about there was no shortage go holes, flaws and/or inaccuracies.

I believe it was in one of the episodes of the show itself that they explain that they on the show that they are televangelists for they're particular worldview. That, IMO, is 100% true.

They are not doing a documentary.

Since I lost 16 inches of belly and managed to keep 15 off for 2 years, I did take their whole "genes decide your body and that's it gyms and diets are scams" episode with a pinch of salt.

I know they are not always accurate. But showing a person who claims cancer can be cured by hypnotists and not showing actual hypnotists who are vocal about limits of hypnosis was unfair.

I am one of them. I have always known that it was a load of crap. I remember arguing with Danny Doyle down in Mexico about it. I tried to avoid the subject but then we all know Danny loves to argue. He said to me, "You don't understand the process". Because of the tact and diplomacy for which I am renowned I declined to tell him that I was thinking, "It is YOU that doesn't understand the process!". However, over the years I have noticed a slight flexibility in his views over the matter. It as if a few doubts have set in and that I may have been right after all. Of course it would be too traumatic for him to admit this so he now brushes the matter away by saying in effect, "it doesn't matter as long as the check clears" and of course he is quite correct in this matter.

However, even though this is true I think it does make for a better show if you know what is REALLY going on. Oddly enough Danny nailed it in his last post which proves to me that he actually thought about my theory for a few fleeting moments which gives me great smug satisfaction that what I said sunk in a trifle, albeit reluctantly and only a trifle.

I DON'T believe it is solely a matter of social compliance. That is part of it certainly but not the whole of it. You can't do an entire show based on social compliance, at least not a strong one. To get the really good subjects out of the woodwork you need the ones who SELF DELUDE themselves they are hypnotised. They con themselves that they are in a state of trance and act in the way they imagine someone in a trance state would act. Now you may say that this IS hypnosis and that is fine with me. A matter of semantics? Well that is also fine with me. Danny would never have agreed with the semantic thing years ago but really believed in an altered state of conciousness. Now he says it is semantics. I take that as a victory!

I do think if you really know what is going on with your subjects you become far more effective. You worry less about "abreactions" and people not coming out of hypnosis because you know they are not in it in the first place. Once you have an insight to human nature you know what is really going on and can do a better show as a result.

Stage hypnotists should be really grateful there are lots of daft people in the world who come on stage and delude themselves they are under hypnosis. I just think it is a great pity that the hypnotists themselves are also in a state of delusion and don't know what is REALLY going on. Well, I just told you so there is no excuse for believing in this claptrap any more.

Penn and Teller were almost right but not quite. I just thought I would finish the job for them.

Penn & Teller made a career out of being outrageous to make money. They don't really care if they are accurate or not. The show looks for subjects to "debunk" and its point of view is like cheap / bad tabloid newspaper looking for sensational headlines. Whether they are true or not doesn't really matter.

Mark on the other hand has made a career of being outrageous to get attention and has very little knowledge about the subject.

There is a lot of research on hypnosis and healing

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=hy......8QgQMwAA

Yea there are good hypnotists who agree with him though. Mark believes what he does so be it.

O n the end it is a matter of semantics. Mark is desperate to be the smartest guy in the room. He ALWAYS ends up at it is a semantics debate. There are lots of threads as proof of it.

Point is who cares? Mark wants attention so he is an obnoxious troll. Has been so since before the internet. He will say he believes anything for the attention. I think he needs a hobby other than a zillion names on the Magic Café.

I may be indeed an obnoxious troll. Danny is merely obnoxious. However, I could teach him to be a troll if he is willing to learn. However, I AM the smartest person in the room. Danny merely thinks HE is!

But I DO believe that hypnosis is hooey and I am entitled to do that. Free speech and expression of opinion you know. Some of the biggest names in the business believe that too. Not just Penn and Teller, but Kreskin, the late and legendary Paul Goldin, Barry Sinclair and others. And Danny for all his bluster half believes it too. I am working on the other half.

Read "They Call it Hypnosis" by Robert Baker and you will get the other side of the picture. It explains far better than I can why people feel no pain under operations, why people lose weight and give up smoking, and why people act like a bunch of nincompoops on stage.

Does it explain why someone needs to go on forums continuously with a new name but the same crap over and over years on end?

I believe there are a lot of good performers who aren't necessarily good hypnotists which extends way beyond the stage.

Give me half an hour and the will and I could find both for and against arguments for just about any subject you care to mention.

If hypnosis did not exist then there would be no arguments about it in the first place.The argument by definition brings it into existence.