Please help me understand...

[RobDude-new]

I'm a cynical person - but at the same time; a lot of the functioning of our bodies seems...silly to me. People are sick because they are too fat; because their bodies store fat, even when they have too much. It seems like we should be able to control these things that we do - and that's how I ended up here on a hypnosis site.

I've been reading a bit and I see people talking about how easy it is to change breast size/eye color through hypnosis and - well, I am having a lot of trouble believing it. When I look on google I find a lot of results, but so many of them seem 'cheap' and 'shady'...

Can someone point me in the direction of some controlled scientific studies that show things like breast enlargement through hypnosis/change of eye color/etc/etc?

[Merlin]

If we always limit ourselves to controlled, scientific studies,
We will never explore the possibilities.

[Terry (existing)]

Well my cynical friend, I find your post insulting, so tell me why I shouldn't? You ask us for information, to "prove" what we say on this board through the investigation of "experts". It so happens that many experts are members of this board, and earn their living from both therapy and training, yet you expect us to do a search for you to confirm that what we say is true. In what way is that NOT insulting? I consider myself an expert in body sculpting, but it took years of research and hard work to get there, and you demand proof that what I can do is valid only because some other expert says so? An expert by the way, who has not done the research I have, and couldn't do what I do without my guidance. I've got just two words for you, and neither is complimentary.

[Stoic]

I view it like walking, we don't exactly understand how we walk at the age of 10, yet we still walk. Does it make it any less valid that we can walk just because we can't explain its every component to the smallest degree?

Until we have a better understanding of the human mind, its components, and their interactions we will not be able to give you the "analytical progressive" answer that you seek. Until then all we can say is "I walk" and you can see it too, matter of fact you walk all the time. Just hard to see with unwilling and cynical eyes. Maybe one day...

The above are the opinions of an untrained monkey.

[MarkyV]

If you need some references to search for - you might start with the following:

Williams, J.E. (study of 1974)
Willard, R.D. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis (1977)
Wilson, D.L. MD (1979 book -Natural Bust Enlargement With Total Mind Power")

It would appear to have success with breast enlargement, you will have the best chance if you name begins with 'W'

There are others - but they don't fit into my 'W' theory :)

[Poodle]

My name doesn't start with a "W" and I can do it better than most, excepting of course Terry. That's an aspiration worthy of any hypnotist to have.

[Jack]

Rob, you are quite right to look for some corroboration. Only a gullible fool would accept the words of someone they have never met and know absolutely nothing about.

There are many supposed hypnotists who post on this board who would have you do that. Ignore the mystery merchants who belong to a bygone age and ask for evidence. If there is no evidence forthcoming discount the opinion give as just that, and opinion only, without substantiation and treat it accordingly.

You will find nothing about eye colour change through hypnosis, as far as I am aware, but quite a bit about breast enlargement. Wendi's site has a list of research papers.

Jack

[teadaze]

Hi Jack,

>Only a gullible fool would accept the words of someone they have never met and know absolutely nothing about.

Why else would someone want to come here? I would not have learnt very much here if I hadn't accepted the words of someone I do not know.

In my opinion only a fool would ignore anything that did not fit into their belief system, without investigating claims which they think may be false. There are posters here who are so arrogant and think they have no more to learn and, in my opinion, are worse than those at the other end who accept everything they read. At least they are moving somewhere. Being inspired by an unbelievable claim is by no means gullible...it shows imagination and an open mind.

I think people are so frightened of being tricked they have to size up every claim before they can even talk about it in a civil manner. Its sad.

There are posters here who make me think of a four year old toddler throwing a tantrum - fingers in their ears, screaming, shouting 'no, no, no!'. If a person is so confident in their own beliefs why can't they sit still and listen patiently?

[Terry (existing)]

Don't know what you read Jack, but the poster certainly pissed me off and good. Anyone who starts a post with "I am cynical" is challenging the veracity of all who reply to the post. My veracity, and good name is priceless, and therefor not for sale, and I allow no-one to doubt me, since we each have the right to communicate or not with whom we choose, and were there is doubt, there is no reason to communicate and be insulting.

[skip]

Hi Jack,

As one of the people I respect, but with whom, I also disagree about body changes, I cannot help but wonder, what you thought of my post in the 'eye color change' thread?

I'll repeat it for you here, for youre convenience.

The key point I suppose would be when does gullibility, cease to be a liability, and become an asset, and when does shurity cease to be an asset, and become a liability?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

skip

Reprinted post:

I briefly participated in the eye color change thread, a bit here and there. Mostly I sort of sat back and watched.

It didn’t hold much interest for me, because my mind is already made up. My belief is, "We can do it." Now I don’t know specifically how, although I have some ideas.

I've never tried it.

I have done other things that lend credence to my belief for me.

The extensive reading and study I have done supports it.

The work with cancer patients I have done, and that I have read about, supports it.

The work I have done with body modification (body changes, including weight loss, breast enlargement, allergies, skin problems, warts, etc) supports it.

So I have enough for me.

BUT

Reading the threads, and following the discussions, it became apparent that what was enough for me, and perhaps others, simply wasn’t enough, for some very smart, dedicated, caring individuals.

And I began wondering, what would be definitive evidence? What would be enough?

The most obvious answer was simply, a study, with hundreds to thousands of participants, a significant number of whose, eyes defiantly showed lasting change in color. And another study or so, duplicating the results. Perhaps reported in Lancet, Nature, or some other recognized publication.

Well apparently that hasn’t occurred.

Or has it occurred? And we just didnt recognize it, because it happened in a form that wasnt exactly stand pat?

I recalled someone stating that one of the participants didn’t know enough about cell biology to even make the argument intelligently. Or something to that effect.

And I wondered, "Doesn’t know enough, or knows too much? And not enough about other disciplines?"

And I wondered, since I am sure the supporting research is out there, what form would that supporting research take?

Well do the drills to get the skills, right?

In other words; read the research yourself, and find out what those folks are up to, and if it supports your belief, or not.

And I found some VERY interesting stuff.

But each of the papers tends to talk about one and only one very narrow slice of cellular biology, and it takes someone to synthesize the individual research, and make sense out of it, as it relates to our ability to body morph.

Would it make any difference to you, if you knew that cellular biology, actually biology as a whole, is currently going thru a philosophical change, due to discoveries, that trends away from strict adherence to gene control, and more into genes acting, or not, in response to enviornmental pressures?

In other words genes might do specific things, but it is the cellular enviornment that turns the gene on or off.

HF Nijhout 1990 "Metaphors and the Role of Genes and Development" Bioessays 12(9): 441-446

Would it make any difference to you, if you knew that we manufacture new genes every day, in response to the enviornment?

Wu, X; J Feng et al 2003 "Immunogloben Somatic Hypermutation: Double Strand DNA Breaks, AIDs and Error Prone DNA Repair" Journal of Immunology P 23-4

Blanden, RV and EJ Steele 1998 "A unifying hypothesisfor the molecular mechanism of somatic mutation and gene conversion in rearranged immunoglobulin variable genes." Immunology and Cell Biology 76(3) 288

Diaz, M and P Casali 2002 "Somatic immunoglobulin hypermutation" Current Opinion in Immunology 14: 235-240

Gearhart, PJ 2002 "The roots of antibody diversity" Nature 419: 29-31

Would it make any difference to you if you knew, The new science of Epigenetics has made it clear that two mechanisms determine the use and passing of heredity information. If you focus only on the blue prints (genes) as scientists have done in the past, then you have missed the most important determinant?

Dennis C, 2002 "Altered States" Nature 421: 686-688

Chakravarti, A and P Little "Nature and Nurture in Human Disease" Nature 421:412-414

I could go on, and on, but I have done enough for you.

Yes I said FOR YOU, because I was already convinced from my own experience.

You naysayers can forget the "There is no research supporting your belief ..."; actually ALL the recent research (10 years or so) supports my belief, not yours.

If you want more I can offer about 200 more papers for you to peruse, but we both know you wont read them.

Ive done my bit and more.

It is those of you who believe we have no research, it is those of you who believe that we are gene controlled, it is those of you, who believe the genetics is more influential than the enviornment, who has no research to support your unfounded belief.

Now I know there will be someone out there who wont have the gumption to check the research I offered, who wont spend the effort to educate themselves, but who will post here, and say, "Yea well if you can do it, why havent I seen it in ..."

It is no skin off my nose. I have done more than enough for me, and enough to get you started learning it for yourself.

[Merlin]

It kinda depends on if you'd like to explore and learn something, or just do what is safe.

Often, it feels safer to be a follower than a leader.

[Jack]

Hello Teadaze,

You make my point. You do not accept opinion without investigation, so I am unsure what point you are trying to make.

There is a difference between being inspired by a claim and swallowing it without evidence. Nothing wrong with the former, but the latter is indeed a fool and lives as a legend in the dreams of salesmen, dictators and a few flim flam people posing as therapists and making unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims.

Terry, I think - and I suppose I am mindreading - that the poster was not trying to piss you off but was merely asking for verification, or may have been qualifying what he/she later made enquiry about. I don't think it deserved a flaming.

Skip, I understand from whence you are coming and I will read and digest your thread before coming to a response, since it is late here and my bones grow weary.

Jack

[teadaze]

Hi Jack,
I always accept opinion with or without investigation. If someone makes a claim which seems unbelievable to me I play with it and pretend that its true. If the idea really doesn't fit with what ive read or know I usually forget about it. Its pretty childish, i realise, to accept something without evidence I just learn a lot by doing it. So yeah, if you like I am a fool. Its quite fun being a fool though :-)

[Don]

Not a fool at all, Teadaze, simply someone who follows deductive reasoning rather than the inductive reasoning used by Jack. Some people demand one rather than the other, however both are perfectly valid.

For more information on the difference, see:

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.htm

[Jack]

Hello Skip,

You make some interesting and valid points in the piece you wrote on eye colour, which I missed, or would have replied to earlier.

As I judge it the overall thrust of your argument is that there is more proof that hypnosis can change eye colour than that it is improbable that hypnosis can change eye colour - which is the main thrust of my argument.

The difference between us is that you believe it is absolutely certain that hypnosis can change eye colour(since you have made your mind up), and I believe that the probability of this belief being true is small. Note I do not use the word 'impossible' anywhere, only the word 'improbable'.

I use this word because nothing is impossible, as far as I know. I know this because I know that I do not know enough to make a statement that 'x is totally impossible' Similarly, I also know that my flawed intellect does not stretch far enough to make a statement like 'x is absolutely and totally true'.

It is acceptable that you might start from the baseline that whatever it is 'we can do it'. Nothing wrong with that; it is what has propelled humanity along over several million years. You cite your experiences over a lifetime, and that also is fair enough. I was a little disappointed that you said 'my mind was already made up', which indicated that no further argument might change it, and at that point wished that I could have such certainty since it would make life so much easier.

But I do not have certainty.

What I have is an allergic reaction to wild claims, and a desire to see at least one valid example of the substantiation of any such wild claim.

Like you I have worked with body modification, but because I can remove a wart does not mean that I have replaced a missing limb with hypnosis, and neither have you (correct me if I'm wrong), nor in my experience has anyone else. So, just because we have experience of plumbing does not mean that we can fix the storm porch when the roof falls in or paint the Sistine Chapel.

Like you I have read extensively, but because I have done that does not mean that I know everything, and without knowing everything there can be no certainty, only opinion, informed opinion yes, but still only opinion. If that is enough for you to be certain, as you say, well, that is enough for you.

Like you I have worked with cancer patients and seen marvellous results from hypnotherapy and guided visualisation. I have also seen many people die whilst using the same methodology. Neither tell me that eye colour change using hypnosis is probable, even marginally so.

You cite several research papers which point to the apparent ability of genes to respond to environmental factors and I have no beef with any of them. I do not see how they are helpful to your argument but rather support mine that certainty is a moveable feast changing as new information becomes available.

You see Skip, I have this unsupportable belief that genes are not the end of the story but rather the beginning. That pretty soon we will find that genes are composed of other entities that inform genes of their function and possibly modify it, and that like the flea on the elephant's back this could conceivably go on ad infinitum. In a physically undefined and metaphysically unquantifiable universe everything might be possible, so it might be possible that your certainty is absolutely and totally correct. It might be possible that eye colour can be changed by hypnosis. It might be possible that if I lose a leg I can grow another.

It's just not probable.

If anyone chooses to believe that it is then they are entitled to do so, but to propound it as though it were fact right now is irresponsible, misleading and possibly fraudulent.

Give me one valid, documented instance in which eye colour was changed by hypnosis and I will re-assess the foregoing paragraph.

Just one.

Jack

[Jack]

It kinda depends on whether you are trying to fool all of the people all of the time.

Often, it feels easier to use unsubstantiated opinion rather than logic and reason.

Jack
It kinda depends on if you'd like to explore and learn something, or just do what is safe.

Often, it feels safer to be a follower than a leader.

[skip]

"Give me one valid, documented instance in which eye colour was changed by hypnosis and I will re-assess the foregoing paragraph."

I dont think you need to reassess.

In fact I agree with you.

I dont like wild, unsubstantiated claims, either.

And I too believe we are more at the beginning than at the conclusion.

And, like you, just because my mind is made up, doesnt mean it is closed. :)

My point is, the 'scientific' research supports the notion that we can. Whether we have or not is a separate issue.

So in my view, when Merlin says she has done it, or anyone else for that matter, I do not sense that the claim is too too wild, even though unsubstantiated.

cheers, and I appreciate your thoughts,

skip

[Poodle]

If it were not possible, why would a person with MPD change eye colour? That right there seems to be proof to me. If her mind can do it to suit the particular personality she is at the time, then why, oh, why cannot we? Are we not the "directors" of the mind. I have not done it nor do I need research to tell me it is possible as I have seen what the mind can do.

Merlin says YES and I believe her on what I personally have witnessed. It's also interesting that some of the personalities need corrective lenses to correct "perfect" vision which the mind has decided to interpret as not perfect vision.

I know when I first officially studied hypnosis and hypnotherapy I thought what a bunch of BS IN MANY OF THE CLAIMS!! Everyday my mind becomes more open and I truly believe all we have to do is IMAGINE! Imagination is the key ingredient. Who cares what science says about us. They haven't a clue yet how hypnosis even works. Open your mind and believe in the possibilities.

[Jack]

"
My point is, the 'scientific' research supports the notion that we can. Whether we have or not is a separate issue.
skip

Theory and practice are often different things. It matters not whether the theory is from a scientific or a lay source, it is still a theory. Propounding a theoretical observation as if it were fact is still irresponsible, misleading, possibly fraudulent and the action of either a charlatan or the misguided.

I understand the desire to believe without proof - believe it or not I have the same desire - but it is too easy, it is intellectually lazy and ethically sloppy to simply accept claims that have no provenance.

It is probably a reason why hypnotherapy has remained in the backwaters of the healing arts for so long.

Jack

[parsa]

Jack,

To my understnading, the papers Skip mentioned are not theory papers but exactly "research supporting the notion that we can", which is totally different from just pure theory.

And frankly even in the history of science between the time a theory is developed and the time it is known as a fact, there are many experimental observations that some scientists take as 'pointing' to the theory being a 'fact', while a second group thinks the first group is fantasizing.

And often without the "belief" of the first group of the theory being a fact, even if not publicly stated, and hence their hard work, the theory wouldn't have been proven a fact through experimental observation.

[Jack]

Parsa, I was not disagreeing with what Skip said, merely mentioning that theory, whether supported by empirical observations or not, is just that and until there are valid instances of the observed being true, then it remains theory and as such should not be propounded as fact, as in the case of eye colour change by hypnosis of which, to my knowledge, there are NO valid instances of its occurence apart from those instances mentioned as hearsay.

I thought I had made that clear. The debate is about whether unsubtantiated claims should be propounded as fact. Now, I cannot see how any reasonable person could possibly regard eye change colour by hypnosis as fact, since it patently is not.

But if those who say black is white wish to do so, no amount of reason will persuade them otherwise.

Jack

[teadaze]

Hi Jack,
when is something allowed to be called a fact? Lets say that you know for sure that it is possible to change eye colour through hypnosis having done this before...would you think that it was a fact? What about everyone else?

[Terry (existing)]

Teadaze, something becomes fact FOR US when we see such evidence that is undeniable to us. Two plus two equals four, but only because we all agree that this is so. Some of us take the attitude that since we have done things that might seem impossible to others, we have no right to question things we have not yet done, and probably have no intention of trying. To me it is foolish to argue about eye colour changes, since I can conceive of no reason why anyone would spend time or money on such, when they can purchase tinted glass to do the same job at much less cost, and have it changeable any time they wish. However, Jack sees it differently, and fair enough, but why spend valuable time arguing when that time would be better spent helping someone with a serious problem. Then again, I stir up more controversy than anyone else on this board, so it feels strange to me to be acting in the role of peacemaker, except that I do value the interchanges we have, and learn from them, so I would much preffer to see us using our time to better effect. When I tell you that I have developed new systems, or report on a growth that suddenly disapeared, I assume that my word is good, and that nobody assumes me to be a lier. Why then should I assume that of someone else? Merlin not only says it can be done, but if I read correctly, that she has done it. That is good enough for me, so I see it as time to move on to better things that have real value to others. On the other hand, who am I to tell others they are wasting time, just because we see things differently?

[Jack]

Hello Teadaze,

A fact, on this occasion, is an instance of something occurring that is undeniable not only to us as individuals but to peer review.

An occurrence of something on an individual basis is a fact for the individual, but has no verifiable basis unless it is observed by others.

Years ago, I was convinced, as so many enthusisatic and well meaning folks appear to be here, that hypnotherapy held the answer to every single malady which affected mankind. Thirty years later I know that not to be true; although hypnotherapy is a wonderful treatment modality for many conditions, it is not the Holy Grail.

Terry, I know you think this is a waste of time, but I only pursue it - possibly pointlessly, I accept - because I am passionate(still) about this marvellous art/science hybrid and hate to see it descend once more into the pit of mystery and shamanism from which it ascended so recently. Opinion and speculation without verification is ok to enable exploration but at some point there has to be a shift from possibility to probability to actuality. That has not occurred with hypnosis/eye colour and it still remains outside the bounds of actuality.

But, I realise that there is an emotional aspect to this debate, so I will desist from further comment. The argument is exhausted and people must make up their own minds.

Jack

[Connie]

It's NOT the holy grail? Damn. Think I can get my money back, for the training I've yet to receive but already paid for?? :p

Maybe it IS the holy grail, but it needs fresh eyes to poke into that pit of mystery.

[Terry (existing)]

I suspect we will always be in need of fresh eyes, and fresh minds in this business, it is too large and all encompassing for even many generations to comprehend. Perhaps we never will, but we can all have fun trying, and if we screw up a few times, so what? We are all entitiled to make mistakes, and if we don't it is likely we are not doing enough...

[Unreg]

As the cliche goes : "The mind is like a parachute, it won't work unless it's open........." And as the rationalist response goes : "And there's also such a thing as having a mind so open that your brains start to fall out........"

(Myself, I believe that Merlin believes that she can change eye color. http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )