Banner lermanet.com - Exposing the con | www.lermanet.com

Hubbard the Stage Hypnotist Series

Hubbard, the Master Stage Hypnotist! Index

The Anderson Report
on Hypnotism
in Scientology

Use of the "Confusion Technique" in scientology

Hypnosis in scientology - The Gradation Chart Revealed - LINK

Hubbard Denounced by Inventor of the E-Meter

Hypnosis Demonstration and Collective on Hubbard's Use of Covert Hypnosis - Exposed

Dianetics in the 1952 Journal of Hypnosis and Instantaneous Hypnosis" by Harry Arons

scientology's Source of the "E-Meter Stress Test" and More From 1943 - George Estabrooks

A Comparison of Hypnosis and Auditing from Ex-Member who Became a Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist

Hubbard's own statements about Hypnosis from his books and Scientology official publications.


The Rape of the Mind by Joost Meerloo 1957 - LINK


books scared them - canada library association poster thumbnail


charles manson thumbnail link to

Charles Manson had a scientology e-meter at Spahn ranch"



Visual Fraud Tour


Help for Scientologists


Humor


Scientology's Scandals!


Support lermanet.com


Resources & Related Links


How to Get Involved




Links to information related to this article

Pattern of Lying to Smear ex-members and critics


Terminology FAQ Definitions for Scientology Lingo by ex-member Martin Hunt

About L Ron Hubbard's Death

Mysterious Death of L Ron Hubbard (links to LRH will, and autopsy)

Long time member Vaughn Young's 1st hand account, of Death of LRH

Chapter 4 of the book, A Piece of Blue Sky by ex-member Jon Atack about Hubbard's Death

Chapter 5 of the book, A Piece of Blue Sky After Hubbard

Bare Faced Messiah - Chapter 22 Missing, Presumed Dead

Time Track 1986

Deaths in Scientology

Why are they dead?

Quentin Hubbard Coroner Report, and background by Ex-Flag Cramming Officer Dennis Erlich

Secret Lives Transcript with images

Use of PC File data against it's enemies Scientology Matrix article by Ex-member

More for Scientologists

spacer

Hypnosis is "What Works" in Scientology

A post to the Operation Clambake forum at Xenu.net:
Thu Nov 22, 2001 5:06 Hypnosis is "what works" in Scientology by Don Carlo

A scientist who unlocked the medical potential of hypnotism died today: Ernest Hilgard.

QUOTE: The Hilgards went on to examine the susceptibility of potential subjects to hypnosis, concluding that the most important factor is an ability to put aside reality and absorb oneself in fantasy, as when reading a novel. By conducting experiments with groups of people showing different levels of susceptibility, they discovered that the more susceptible a person is to hypnosis, the more effective the technique as an analgesic.

In 1959, they developed what became known as the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, a system of measurement still used by medical practitioners to determine a person's likelihood of being hypnotised and to what degree; this can indicate whether the technique would be useful as pain relief or to help cure people of habits such as smoking.END QUOTE from

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=006406929545839&rtmo=LShNiGtd&atmo=rrrrrrrq&pg=/01/11/22/db01.html

My comment: This guy was a real scientist. The Stanford scale made me remember the July 2001 Scientific American article: QUOTE:

To study any phenomenon properly, researchers must first have a way to measure it. In the case of hypnosis, that yardstick is the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales. The Stanford scales, as they are often called, were devised in the late 1950s by Stanford University psychologists André M. Weitzenhoffer and Ernest R. Hilgard and are still used today to determine the extent to which a subject responds to hypnosis. One version of the Stanford scales, for instance, consists of a series of 12 activities--such as holding one's arm outstretched or sniffing the contents of a bottle--that test the depth of the hypnotic state. In the first instance, individuals are told that they are holding a very heavy ball, and they are scored as "passing" that suggestion if their arm sags under the imagined weight. In the second case, subjects are told that they have no sense of smell, and then a vial of ammonia is waved under their nose. If they have no reaction, they are deemed very responsive to hypnosis; if they grimace and recoil, they are not.

Scoring on the Stanford scales ranges from 0, for individuals who do not respond to any of the hypnotic suggestions, to 12, for those who pass all of them. Most people score in the middle range (between 5 and 7); 95 percent of the population receives a score of at least 1.

What Hypnosis Is

Based on studies using the Stanford scales, researchers with very different theoretical perspectives now agree on several fundamental principles of hypnosis. The first is that a person's ability to respond to hypnosis is remarkably stable during adulthood. In perhaps the most compelling illustration of this tenet, a study showed that when retested, Hilgard's original subjects had roughly the same scores on the Stanford scales as they did 10, 15 or 25 years earlier. Studies have shown that an individual's Stanford score remains as consistent over time as his or her IQ score--if not more so. In addition, evidence indicates that hypnotic responsiveness may have a hereditary component: identical twins are more likely than same-sex fraternal twins to have similar Stanford scores.

A person's responsiveness to hypnosis also remains fairly consistent regardless of the characteristics of the hypnotist: the practitioner's gender, age and experience have little or no effect on a subject's ability to be hypnotized. Similarly, the success of hypnosis does not depend on whether a subject is highly motivated or especially willing. A very responsive subject will become hypnotized under a variety of experimental conditions and therapeutic settings, whereas a less susceptible person will not, despite his or her sincere efforts. (Negative attitudes and expectations can, however, interfere with hypnosis.)

Several studies have also shown that hypnotizability is unrelated to personality characteristics such as gullibility, hysteria, psychopathology, trust, aggressiveness, submissiveness, imagination or social compliance. The trait has, however, been linked tantalizingly with an individual's ability to become absorbed in activities such as reading, listening to music or daydreaming.END QUOTE from

http://www.sciam.com/2001/0701issue/0701nash.html

freethinker

Joined: 31 Aug 2001

Posts: 373

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:06 am

I have a little experience with hypnosis, and about the best bit of information I can give you is that you really can't hypnotize somebody unless they THINK that it will work; many believe it to be a state of temporary dissociative disorder, where the subject is simply playing the part of a 'good hypnotized subject' (not unlike the regular 'appeal to authority' seen in doctor's offices where the patient assumes the part of an unquestioning patient). The more defiant the person, the less likely it is to work; the more independent the mind, the less likely the chances of the subject getting hypnotized. For instance, several studies have found that those who are strong believers of the paranormal or miracle-related phenomenon are far easier to hypnotize; not from any intelligence deficit as many claim (though many DO in fact, score lower on intelligence tests), but from their unwavering ability to accept the claims that miraculous powers are present in the world and that human will can be swayed by such powers, which leads to easy susceptibility. Such is the power of madmen and charismatic leaders; people with features and skills that would be perceived only as being other-worldly by an easily-swayed dogmatic crowd.

I-Loki
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2002 6:42 pm

Sometimes "The Wizard" would draw back the curtain - just a bit - and show us some of the mechanism he had constructed to lure the curious into his Land of Oz. To keep them there, supporting the illusion, he had to make them apprentice wizards, capable of and eager to duplicate his own mentality; that is, he had to "clone" his own personality and disseminate it. At this, he was quite successful. Here's how he did it, in his own words:

BEGIN FAIR USE QUOTE from Scientology 8-8008©1953 by L. Ron Hubbard:

"The MEST universe is very real, but any hypnotist can instruct an hypnotised subject into the construction of a universe which has tactile, sight, sound and any other manifestation possesed by the MEST universe, and who is to say then, that the hypnotised subject is not perceiving a universe?"

END FAIR USE QUOTE.

Indeed. And it can seem quite real. It probably did to LRH; after all it was his own perception that he projected on to his disciples. In that sense at least, he was an honest man.

But he was at the same time a master mind manipulator, a HYPNOTIST of consummate skill, and only those of his subjects who were unusually well-endowed with strong personalities in their own right have been able to awaken from the spell he cast.

Cocoon, E.J., Mouth Breather, Bernie, RIG, et al: Looky here, you lot! This is especially for you:

Moral of the Story: DO NOT "feel my finger"!
Feel YOUR OWN finger. DO NOT let me "help you with that"! You already KNOW, better than I, what your problem really is and what you need to do about it. The answers, ALL of them, are already and always within you yourself. You are your own best guru, and no one else is as likely to care for you and tell you more truth than YOU. I have great confidence in you and your native ability and worthiness, and I don't charge you a penny for telling you so.

"Trust me..." Wink


My Exit page for Scientologists and ex-members

Home | F.A.Q.'s | Legal | News | Support lermanet.com |