![]() Sentences like "Self hypnosis makes one more yielding than normal" help remove the article from feeling solidly-based. The whole article seems vaguely "rah-rah!"ish. Ophir ( talk) 21:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Reply I agree that having someone with expertise in psychology to look at this article would help. A quick look at the Hypnosis article will highlight the debate about the underlying mechanisms and efficacy, although later research showing that some effects are now better-understood, are rarely cited. Perhaps the biggest issue with this article is that it assumes that hypnosis is a real and testable phenomenon. The dangers should be clearly explained to anyone undertaking this approach since a patient who can effectively self-hypnotize might notice symptoms of a serious underlying disease and try to 'auto-suggest it better' without seeking a proper clinical diagnosis or life-saving treatment. ![]() This enables the patient to concentrate on their own affirmations or self-suggestions and dispenses with the need for regular visits to the hypnotist. The hypnotist might suggest to the hypnotized patient that whenever they carry out some particular action or use a trigger word or phrase, this will rapidly bring about the same degree of physical and mental relaxation as they are now experiencing, and this will become easier on each occasion. For instance, there could be some mention here of the use of a post-hypnotic suggestion to help bring about a state of hypnosis. If the underlying hypothesis is the same then there is bound to be a lot of overlap. It is more likely that his perception of the pain was reduced but the casual reader might be misled into assuming that this example of a near- instantaneous cure is indeed possible with hypnosis.Īfter studying the main Hypnosis article (which appears to need some good therapy) I am not convinced that this self-hypnosis article should exist (in its present form). It does not describe what self-hypnosis is or how it was achieved and I feel sure that Mr Braid would know that his painful attack of "rheumatism" was not actually cured by his nine minute intervention. (Regardless of how absurd or concrete the claims may be, this isn't an article about theology!)ĭmutters ( talk) 12:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Reply Īgree it needs some work. Also, speaking from a purely logical standpoint, we can't prove that it is or is not "of evil," so let's make sure to state it as an opinion. :-)Īlso, the comment in the beginning of the article about (self-)hypnosis "(not) being of demons" belongs in a section for public criticism of the practice, rather than in the summary. If you CAN note such evidence, then please post it! I gather that Wikipedia is good for that sort of thing. Therefore, I suggest that it's counterproductive to say that something is/isn't possible unless one can show that there's substantial evidence of a consensus among psychology experts. ![]() How does one flag the article as such?Īlso, I wish to note that, as mentioned in the (general) "Hypnosis" article, few fields are subject to so much controversy and contradictory evidence as the field of hypnosis. It looks like this article could use some general "cleaning up" by someone with expertise in the field of psychology.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |