Further discussion of Hypnosis goes here

[Schuyler]

This is a thread to discuss the pros and cons of using hypnosis as a technique to, umm, do something useful insofar as alleged abductees are concerned.

 

[runwolf13]

I'd like to clarify even farther than just the idea of hypnosis in abductee cases to include the methodology that the researchers use.

This is my major complaint with Dr. Jacobs. I'm not trying to downplay the discussion of hypnosis as a tool. That's a major discussion point that I happen to have strong feelings about. Yet it seems that as soon as anyone starts talking about methodology, everything goes out the window and the entire discussion goes to the dog.

Is it even possible to have a rational discussion about methodology in UFO research or are we stuck within belief systems that have lead UFOlogy down the path to insignificance over the past 30 years?

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Sorry, but one more quick note on the Emma Woods debate. I just finished listening to the Paratopia podcast and have two quick observations:

1. If Ms. Woods had an issue with Dr. Jacobs' professional behavior, the right forum in which to try that case is with the established oversight bodies at Temple University, or with the local mental health or medical societies there in Philadelphia. I personally do not understand why she apparently went out to various internet sites, podcasts and radio shows to try her case in the public. It sounds as if Temple has looked into these allegations and cleared Dr. Jacobs. I would be curious to know if Emma Woods instigated that investigation at Temple or whether that commenced due to a third party channel (e.g., a complaint from a fellow Temple professor). I personally would want to stay out of the public eye if engaged in such a dispute with Dr. Jacobs.

2. The 30 minute tirade at the end of the Paratopia podcast was uncalled for. Anytime you engage in name-calling or ad hominem attacks it detracts from the strength of your underlying argument. I can understand why various media would want to avoid getting in the middle of these "he said/she said" claims and counterclaims between Ms. Woods and Dr. Jacobs -- most just don't have the resources to properly investigate these situations. From statements made on the Paratopia podcast, it appears that this particular case is being used as a means to strike back at the Paracast and its sponsors due to the apparent bad blood of the past. The underlying arguments get lost in the all the porridge.

 

[skeptoid humanoid]

I remember when regression hypnosis was being used in the early 90's to help children remember alleged satanic ritual abuse, as well as allleged sexual abuse. Many people were aware that the main problem was false memories. When a person is in a hypnotic state, they are very open to suggestion, and imagination. For the same reason hypnosis would best be used to help abductees stop smoking or loose weight.

 

[runwolf13]

Sorry, but one more quick note on the Emma Woods debate. I just finished listening to the Paratopia podcast and have two quick observations:

1. If Ms. Woods had an issue with Dr. Jacobs' professional behavior, the right forum in which to try that case is with the established oversight bodies at Temple University, or with the local mental health or medical societies there in Philadelphia. I personally do not understand why she apparently went out to various internet sites, podcasts and radio shows to try her case in the public. It sounds as if Temple has looked into these allegations and cleared Dr. Jacobs. I would be curious to know if Emma Woods instigated that investigation at Temple or whether that commenced due to a third party channel (e.g., a complaint from a fellow Temple professor). I personally would want to stay out of the public eye if engaged in such a dispute with Dr. Jacobs.

I put far less credibility on the Temple angle than you do. Dr. Jacobs is quite careful to separate his research from the university, and rightly so. He has no academic standing in hypnosis or psychology. His research isn't funded by the University, or at least his research into the abduction phenomenon isn't. Emma Woods, whatever her real name may be, was not a research subject of the University. As such, there was no standing for the administrators at Temple to look into the case in anything but a cursory fashion. The university didn't want to be embattled over a UFO issue, and while some are saying they "cleared" him (I'd like to see sources on that) I suspect they instead found no standing for them to consider. I'd actually liked to be proved wrong on that, so if someone has a source, I'd appreciate it.

From the audio tapes, I got the very strong impression that Emma was quite aware that Dr. Jacobs had no professional hypnotherapy training, was not a licensed therapist and was not offering counseling. I understand that Dr. Jacobs makes people sign fairly strong disclosures to that fact. Again, I suspect that getting the local mental health or medical societies in Pennsylvania interested in the situation would have been difficult under that circumstance.

So what does that leave as the proper venue? The courts? I'm still not sure what the tort is in this case, for either Emma or Jacobs. Someone needs to explain that angle to me a bit better. There doesn't seem to be any serious peer review available for abductee research using hypnosis, a serious drawback to taking it with anything remotely credible. So what's left? Where should she go?

 

[Red]

I think there is an very strong lesson here that if you use hypnosis, you do so at your own peril. I don't feel comfortable taking sides on this, but my concern is that Jacobs had interactions with people who were already psychologically fragile. Did he ever consult with mental health care professionals during his interactions with his subjects to establish protocols to ensure he wasn't doing more damage? If he didn't, then he should take some criticism for that specifically, although I can't say whether I think this should end his career as a researcher. If this was already discussed, I apologize as I was skimming through the thread to catch up.

 

[runwolf13]

I think there is an very strong lesson here that if you use hypnosis, you do so at your own peril. I don't feel comfortable taking sides on this, but my concern is that Jacobs had interactions with people who were already psychologically fragile. Did he ever consult with mental health care professionals during his interactions with his subjects to establish protocols to ensure he wasn't doing more damage? If he didn't, then he should take some criticism for that specifically, although I can't say whether I think this should end his career as a researcher. If this was already discussed, I apologize as I was skimming through the thread to catch up.

What should end his career is his shoddy research methodology that pulls into question everything he's ever researched. He completely removed himself from objective observer and became a subjective participant, violating basic research ethics. That is what should end his "career" as a abductee researcher.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

I put far less credibility on the Temple angle than you do. Dr. Jacobs is quite careful to separate his research from the university, and rightly so. He has no academic standing in hypnosis or psychology. His research isn't funded by the University, or at least his research into the abduction phenomenon isn't. Emma Woods, whatever her real name may be, was not a research subject of the University. As such, there was no standing for the administrators at Temple to look into the case in anything but a cursory fashion. The university didn't want to be embattled over a UFO issue, and while some are saying they "cleared" him (I'd like to see sources on that) I suspect they instead found no standing for them to consider. I'd actually liked to be proved wrong on that, so if someone has a source, I'd appreciate it.

From the audio tapes, I got the very strong impression that Emma was quite aware that Dr. Jacobs had no professional hypnotherapy training, was not a licensed therapist and was not offering counseling. I understand that Dr. Jacobs makes people sign fairly strong disclosures to that fact. Again, I suspect that getting the local mental health or medical societies in Pennsylvania interested in the situation would have been difficult under that circumstance.

So what does that leave as the proper venue? The courts? I'm still not sure what the tort is in this case, for either Emma or Jacobs. Someone needs to explain that angle to me a bit better. There doesn't seem to be any serious peer review available for abductee research using hypnosis, a serious drawback to taking it with anything remotely credible. So what's left? Where should she go?

On one hand, people claim that Ms. Woods is fundamentally in control of her mental faculties and has been warned through adequate disclosure of Dr. Jacobs' lack of credentials and the attendant risks, but on the other hand they are crying aloud about the travesty of the situation. I strongly suspect that the local mental health boards or Temple University would in fact take a very keen interest in this given that facts at hand. I do not believe that Ms. Woods' only recourse is to go public through all available UFO media. Indeed, I suspect it undercuts her case, and is not a route I would recommend if I was advising her.

 

[runwolf13]

On one hand, people claim that Ms. Woods is fundamentally in control of her mental faculties and has been warned through adequate disclosure of Dr. Jacobs' lack of credentials and the attendant risks, but on the other hand they are crying aloud about the travesty of the situation. I strongly suspect that the local mental health boards or Temple University would in fact take a very keen interest in this given that facts at hand. I do not believe that Ms. Woods' only recourse is to go public through all available UFO media. Indeed, I suspect it undercuts her case, and is not a route I would recommend if I was advising her.

Why would Temple University, a place of academic freedom, take an interest in the private, part time, non-university, legal activities of a tenured professor? I'm still not clear on that point of view. I'm also unclear on why a state Mental Health Board would be interested. He was not providing therapy. Now, if the tapes show that he is providing therapy, that's another matter. They may be interested. But you've got to include the UFO angle. Not "conspiracy," as others have tried to paint it. But just a general reluctance to become involved anything to do with it.

As for her being aware of the "risks" when she entered this agreement, you're completely ignoring the dynamics of the situation. You've got a man who claims to have the answers to her problems. She is desperate for answers. They quickly become engaged in a powered exchange relationship, where he has the power. That's a powerful situation, and one that can be abused. Exactly how much abuse can be debated, but to ignore the potential for abuse is to discount thousands if not millions of similar situations found every day across the world. From Spouse Abuse to con artist to cheating spouses, the range of similar power exchange abuses is long.

 

[runwolf13]

On the issue of Hypnosis as a research tool, I'm curious. Can someone give me the methodology used to authenticate an alien abduction memory through the use of hypnosis? What tools, in addition to hypnosis, do researchers like Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs use to verify what they learn through hypnosis? How do they compensate for cultural contamination? Have their methods been put up against any type of peer review? Please help me here, I honestly want to know why hypnosis is a valid and useful tool for research.

 

[David Biedny]

In the process of researching paranormal topics, if you assume that the regular rules of engagement apply - peer review? Authentication? - you're sorta missing the point, IMO. There is no body of approval, no standardized procedures, no analytical rubricks, no lab procedures guide, there's the desire to put oneself out on a limb and fucking flail.

There are no fully credible people in the "field", just those one is more likely to trust, to differing degrees. There are nothing but opinions, and some scant data. That's it - to look for something more solid than that strikes me as a fool's errand, which is precisely the reason I've withdrawn my opinions and significant participation from the show.

dB

 

[runwolf13]

In the process of researching paranormal topics, if you assume that the regular rules of engagement apply - peer review? Authentication? - you're sorta missing the point, IMO. There is no body of approval, no standardized procedures, no analytical rubricks, no lab procedures guide, there's the desire to put oneself on a limb and fucking flail.

Of course I assume that regular rules apply, and why should I not? Science routinely investigates fields in which there exists, prior to the initial research, "no body of approval, no standardized procedures, no analytical rubricks, no lab procedures guide" and they then go out and "put oneself on a limb and fucking flail." Yet, when they are finished with their initial research, they have guidelines, they have a method of approval, they have standards for future investigations... all of which may change on further investigations and research.

Hypnosis as an abduction research tool has, as I've been reminded here multiple times, a 30+ year track record. What are the standards used in that field after all that time? You're saying that because it is paranormal we just chuck out the idea of standards and rely entirely on personality of the researcher? If that's really what you feel is an acceptable state of affairs, then we'll have to respectfully disagree. It is beyond time to stop treating esoteric research as some sort of separate reality and start integrating hard research techniques and methodology into the field.

So, if I am "missing the point" please illuminate the point of the research.

 

[pixelsmith]

I was heavily involved with hypnotism in the 70's and actually went on a "road show" type tour with a pretty good hypnotist. The road show was geared towards the funny/odd side of hypnotism. ie: suggesting the subject quack or think the person next to them is naked, etc. I didn't participate in that stuff, I was there to shove a 12" stainless steel needle thru my arm without any bleeding, or I would make one arm feel icy cold and the other arm very warm, or act as a beam with ankles on one chair and shoulders on another then the 280 lb 6'4 hypnotist would stand on my belly and talk about hypnotism for a few minutes. I watched him perform hypnotic suggestions for weight loss, stopping smoking, etc and also past life regression. That is where he sort of lost me. It seemed a bit fake. People will not do anything they would not do without being under hypnotic control, but they can imagine pretty wild stuff and verbalize it.
I still use self hypnotism once in awhile to help control bleeding from a cut, or to calm myself when agitated, etc.
I do not think hypnotism is the best tool for Abduction research.

 

[runwolf13]

I was heavily involved with hypnotism in the 70's and actually went on a "road show" type tour with a pretty good hypnotist. The road show was geared towards the funny/odd side of hypnotism.

Okay, I understand that you don't think hypnotism is the best tool for Abduction Research, however I want to ask a question more about this "road show." The people who did make people quack and the like, did they have a normal regular procedure they went through? Every road show I've seen, the hypnotist used similar methods to hypnotize the volunteers. Did the hypnotists on your tour use some sort of regular method?

I'm also curious, since you mentioned that you use hypnosis on yourself, do you have a standard method of inducing the hypnosis? I'm not suggesting you have a 1, 2, 3 method, but is it somewhat standardized as to how you do it?

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Why would Temple University, a place of academic freedom, take an interest in the private, part time, non-university, legal activities of a tenured professor? I'm still not clear on that point of view. I'm also unclear on why a state Mental Health Board would be interested. He was not providing therapy. Now, if the tapes show that he is providing therapy, that's another matter. They may be interested. But you've got to include the UFO angle. Not "conspiracy," as others have tried to paint it. But just a general reluctance to become involved anything to do with it.

As for her being aware of the "risks" when she entered this agreement, you're completely ignoring the dynamics of the situation. You've got a man who claims to have the answers to her problems. She is desperate for answers. They quickly become engaged in a powered exchange relationship, where he has the power. That's a powerful situation, and one that can be abused. Exactly how much abuse can be debated, but to ignore the potential for abuse is to discount thousands if not millions of similar situations found every day across the world. From Spouse Abuse to con artist to cheating spouses, the range of similar power exchange abuses is long.

Perhaps you should listen to the tapes. Dr. Jacobs states in his 'professional' opinion his 'diagnosis' is that Ms. Woods has multiple personalty disorder, or MPD (a serious Dissociative Identity Disorder under DSM IV), for which she needs treatment. He tells her this while she apparently is under hypnosis, which reduces her ability to put his statements in the proper context. She also alleges this on her website. While we certainly do not have all the facts, based upon the evidence available it appears as if Dr. Jacobs de facto may have been acting as a mental health practitioner, whether wrapped in the guise of hypnotic counselor or not. Sounds like something a local mental health board would certainly take an interest in exploring further. Additionally, I am unfamiliar with the Pennsylvania State Law (as well as common law & case law) governing mental health practitioners, but I do know many States have such legislation which also may give her a private cause of action (in addition to the State itself potentially taking action). To claim that 'going public' is her only or best course of action is simply irresponsible. Ironically, when Dr. Jacobs had Ms. Woods sign the disclaimer, he probably never anticipated de facto acting as a mental health profession, only hypnotist, but at some point he very well may have crossed the line.

Re: Temple University, do we have a full accounting of how Dr. Jacobs presented himself to Ms. Woods during their multiple years of working together? Do we know whether he used Temple University resources during their years of interaction? Perhaps he did keep their activities completely separate from the University-- supposedly Temple has cleared him of wrongdoing, or at least determined they don't have a dog in the fight (this needs to be confirmed). Nonetheless, it may not be as cut-n-dry as you characterized, unless you are intimately familiar with all the facts of the case. Again, best to stay out of the media until this is run to ground -- going public certainly undercuts her credibility and presents material for anyone looking to discredit her.

Regarding the 'dynamics of the situation', sadly life is full of circumstances where parties have disparate power. Sometimes markedly disparate power. She may have in fact been desperate for answers. However, there is no evidence of coercion or mental incapacity, and she could have chosen to seek the opinion of a qualified professional (as the disclaimer may have in fact suggested). She is an adult and chose to go forward. Again, ironically, Dr. Jacobs' disclaimer won't shield him from most types of legal action if de facto he was acting as a mental health professional without the proper license (cf., hypnotist who works with someone to stop smoking).

 

[Gene Steinberg]

When you listened to the tapes, did you consider that segments may have been edited and/or removed? What makes you think you're hearing exactly what happened? I'm not rendering a judgment, but it's a sensible question to ask.

 

[pixelsmith]

Okay, I understand that you don't think hypnotism is the best tool for Abduction Research, however I want to ask a question more about this "road show." The people who did make people quack and the like, did they have a normal regular procedure they went through? Every road show I've seen, the hypnotist used similar methods to hypnotize the volunteers. Did the hypnotists on your tour use some sort of regular method?

I'm also curious, since you mentioned that you use hypnosis on yourself, do you have a standard method of inducing the hypnosis? I'm not suggesting you have a 1, 2, 3 method, but is it somewhat standardized as to how you do it?

Yes it was pretty generic because there were typically 4-6 volunteers, the hypnotist would not use drunks but did often times use people who had been drinking. The procedure was pretty basic relaxation techniques. Usually there were 1 or 2 he could not hypnotize in every group. If a person does not want to be hypnotized there is no way you can force them.
I use simple relaxation techniques and "power of suggestion" for lack of a better explanation to help me. It is great for lowering your heart rate. It has showed me just how powerful our mind is.

 

[Red]

Okay, I understand that you don't think hypnotism is the best tool for Abduction Research, however I want to ask a question more about this "road show." The people who did make people quack and the like, did they have a normal regular procedure they went through? Every road show I've seen, the hypnotist used similar methods to hypnotize the volunteers. Did the hypnotists on your tour use some sort of regular method?

I'm also curious, since you mentioned that you use hypnosis on yourself, do you have a standard method of inducing the hypnosis? I'm not suggesting you have a 1, 2, 3 method, but is it somewhat standardized as to how you do it?

runwolf,
Are you asking about induction, which is the prelude to the hypnotic state or are you asking about the hypnotist's technique once the subject goes under?
There are a number of different induction techniques: http://www.psychwww.com/asc/hyp/art/ind00.html
I would think that the technique of a stage hypnotist towards a subject under hypnosis is different than that of a forensic hypnotist who is trying to obtain information that can be used during an investigation or as evidence in a court of law.

The interview with David Andrew really struck me in that he mentioned abductees who had "retrieved" very horrible memories and were in pretty bad shape as a result. Once false memories are implanted they cannot be removed or deleted.
As for what I would like to see in any future research into the abductee phenomenon if it involves hypnosis:
1. If the researcher has no training in psychology, I would like to see that they receive training, with emphasis on false memory syndrome and confabulation. 2. And I would like to see said researcher in active consultation with a licensed psychologist/psychiatrist especially during any long term interactions with subjects, and even more so if the subjects have a prior history of mental illness.
3. During any long term interaction with subjects with a prior history of mental illness, ongoing periodic psychological assessments should be done on subjects to ensure their continued well-being.
4. To ensure that the researcher remains impartial and is not polluting the data, he/she should use a third-party forensic hypnotist to perform all sessions with the subjects.
5. All potential subjects should undergo an initial background/psychological assessment. Some people may not have the coping skills to be involved in this sort of research or may be stressed from a highly-charged situation in their personal life. Serious consideration should be done to determine if certain people should be excluded, either temporarily or permanently.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

When you listened to the tapes, did you consider that segments may have been edited and/or removed? What makes you think you're hearing exactly what happened? I'm not rendering a judgment, but it's a sensible question to ask.

Gene, you're spot on, which is why Ms. Woods shouldn't have gone first to the media, but rather should have opted for some more formalized process (State mental health board, the State courthouse, Temple University's internal review committees) that can consider the evidence in an deliberate way and in its totality. Unfortunately what is out in the public very well may present a prima facie case of wrongdoing, recognizing it tells only one side of the story.

David Jacobs' reputation very well may be ruined regardless, and I'm sure he is exploring a case of slander against Ms. Woods. This actually makes for a rather interesting State Bar Exam question given the range of issues presented.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The legal question also limits what Jacobs would be able to say publicly about the matter, but I do want his insights into his methods for investigating abductees. We'll be getting more information about this soon, I'm sure.