Lifting me

Let me ask you a question dear reader. Which do you prefer? Pepsi or Coca-Cola?

I prefer Pepsi, and for a number of reasons. Firstly I definitely prefer the taste, and secondly I find that I find the blue colour of the cans and bottles much more pleasing than the red of its counterpart. That's why I prefer Pepsi over Coca-Cola.

Consider this though. I cannot recall having any preference for one of these drinks over the other prior to 1999.

No this isn't the result of some kind of mental millennium bug (especially as the current millennium began on 1st Jan 2001!), I believe I know the reason behind my change of feelings.

In 1999 I remember seeing a TV advert that featured the Corrs, and a song of theirs that I hadn't heard before "Lifting Me", which was in fact written especially for it. In keeping with the requirement for adverts to be surreal as possible it featured a guy with a sack in the crowd at a Corrs concert handing out cans of Pepsi to complete strangers. When he gets to the front you see a shot of Andrea, the lead singer, reaching down to him and he frantically dives into the bottom of the bag for a can to give to her, only to find that he's just run out. He cries out "Noooooo!", and then wakes up in his bed to find that in true cliché style the whole thing was all a dream.

I remember that the advert had me absolutely mesmerised when I first saw it. I was of course a really big fan of their music at the time, but there was something more. I can honestly say I never had a crush on any of the Corrs per se, but I have always been a fan of slim dark haired girls and that moment where Andrea looks right into the camera had the effect one might expect on a 17-year old male otherwise starved of female attention, not least stirring a whole bunch of assorted emotions up to the surface.


Little did I realise at the time that I was experiencing a form of hypnosis, and that my subconscious mind was being tampered with. Years later, and being familiar with what following post hypnotic suggestions feels like, I am able to recognise what happened for what it really is.

We all like to think we are rational and that the decisions we make in life are based on critical thinking and free will. In reality it is all too easy for the critical part of the mind to turn into the devils advocate for what deeper, unconscious parts of the brain want you to do, especially when gorgeous Irish women are thrown into the equation. After that advert struck such a chord with me Pepsi was always going to be my preferred drink, and it was left to my ingenious rational mind to think of some reasons why.

In my experience the subject always underestimates the amount to which hypnosis is affecting them.

You may think, when the hypnotist tells you that your hand is stuck that you are only pretending, that you are only playing along and that it isn't really hypnosis. Consider this though, when you didn't move your hand perhaps there was another mechanism at play, an unconscious reason why you didn't move it, and that telling yourself you're only pretending is how you rationalise your strange behaviour to yourself.

The hand didn't move; you were hypnotised my friend.

Neurology and models

This topic is one that has come up recently on uncommonforum and much of this post is lifted from my contributions on there, so apologies to any readers who find parts of this familiar.

Consider why is it that only 1 in 5 people will respond strongly enough to hypnosis to, in the words of Kev Sheldrake, "do anything and forget everything", and indeed what is it that prevents the other 4 in 5?

My understanding of this is that it is all about neurology. For the sake of argument consider that all human thinking is made up of a mixture of critical and uncritical thinking. Some people naturally think predominantly in a way which exercises the uncritical parts of the brain, needed for deep hypnosis, much more so than others and thus when they meet a hypnotist the right neurology exists for good response to hypnotic suggestion. This way of favouring a particular way of thinking is a preference a lot like whether or not someone favours their left or right hand; most people naturally favour critical or uncritical thinking to a greater or lesser extent.

To draw an analogy, imagine asking a right handed person to write calligraphy with their left hand and regardless of their eloquence, vocabulary, wit, style and indeed their finesse writing with their favoured hand, the result of their efforts on the paper will be less than impressive. My point is that one will get a similar result when trying to hypnotise someone with a notable preference for critical thinking.

However, given enough time and practice, any right handed person can learn to write with their left hand. If the right hand is especially dominant this may take a long time, but it is always possible. This is why I believe that anybody can be deeply hypnotised given enough practice. It's simply a case of exercising that part of the brain and building up the required neurology.

Now of course I have only been a hypnotist for a year, so it would be extremely arrogant of me to push the above reasoning as any kind of objective truth. I have to stress that this is merely my model, which is based on my limited experience and understanding.

There are those who disagree with this model. For example, Ben White insists that there must be an easier way for someone to improve as a subject; truth be told I want to believe his argument because if it were true it would get me where I want to go a lot faster.

Then of course there's the argument that my model holds true for me, of course it does, merely because it's what I believe.

Joe, on uncommonforum, puts the argument that the reason I do not respond well to hypnosis is that I perceive it as losing my rationality and critical thinking, which is a part of myself that I treasure so deeply it makes me quite unwilling to turn that part off even temporarily. He suggests that I might even be afraid to do that. In this case presumably the belief that I need to learn how to be hypnotised in order to go deep is a mechanism that my subconscious has conjured up that would allow me to, using an analogy, lower myself into the cold water gently.

Given the way the mind works I have to say that I cannot discount this as a possibility. I am skeptical though.

For starters I know of other people who have developed their ability to be hypnotised over time. People who are far less restrained than me, and certainly much more willing to be submissive to another given the nature of their interest in hypnosis.

Secondly, Joe cited a line I wrote in a recent blog post:

"When I first tried to be a hypnotic subject I really wanted it to work, I will also confess that I was afraid that it would too, which was part of the excitement of it."

This line, separated from the context I wrote it in, can easily be taken out of context. Even so, I will admit that perhaps there is an element of fear in the excitement that I associate with the idea of experiencing deep hypnosis. There's an element of fear in my feelings about rollercoasters too; that's why I have a deep seated desire to go and ride on them, as many as I can!

There's a ride at Drayton Manor Park in Staffordshire called Apocalypse that, once you're helplessly locked into the harness, will lift you 54 metres above the ground, tilt you forward and have you plummet earthwards in a terrifying freefall. It scares the crap out of me, and yet I lose count of how many times I've gone back for more!

I do not believe that fear is an inhibiting factor for me.

I do value the way in which my mind works, including my critical and analytical nature, because over the years I have learned to feel good about who I am. In my opinion to do so is crucial to living a happy life. That, however, does not mean that I am not interested in or driven by the prospect of expanding the scope of my abilities and bettering myself.

So I may be building neurology I don't yet have, or I may be learning to trust a part of my mind that already exists, maybe I really am slowly overcoming some alleged inexplicably well hidden deeply held fear, or even something else yet again. Perhaps this is all just a question of terminology. At the end of the day whatever the label I or others choose to attach to the way in which my abilities as a hypnotic subject are developing what it is that really matters to me is that they are developing.

Expectation

Yesterday evening I had another look at youtube to see if I could come across any other videos of people watching Derren Brown's "control the nation" show.

Derren had said during the show that his video wouldn't work if it was recorded or posted online, but it seems this hasn't deterred a lot of people from watching the show again, and getting stuck again. Needless to say if someone believes the video will work again it will, even though as I've already pointed out the video is just a piece of empty window dressing.

Most impressive though were a couple of videos I found where the individual was watching only the subliminal film, and so skipping all of Derren's vocal suggestions from before and after that were in the original program. In one case this was someone who hadn't gotten stuck the first time around, and yet just believing that the video would work was in itself enough to stick her to her chair!

All of this without hypnosis even being mentioned or any formal induction or trance. Absolutely incredible!

What I think this illustrates is that the suggestions that subjects give to themselves are just as important as those being given by the hypnotist. Build the right level of expectation and you don't even need to say or do anything to hypnotise someone.

Control the nation

Last night Derren Brown went on UK television and performed a routine where he stuck viewers to their seats using a subliminal message video.

I have a great deal of admiration for Derren Brown as a performer and what I saw last night was no exception. What I thought was most impressive though was the way in which he was able to exploit the general ignorance of the vast majority of people to perform a waking hypnosis routine on television, which technically shouldn't be legal.

The program was quite long and the first half was devoted to a couple of "subliminal suggestion" routines, in which he was apparently able to influence the free choice of the people he was talking to. These were very impressive tricks, and I was especially impressed by the one set in Hamley's toy shop in London.

The second half featured the subliminal message video, in which he talked about the technology had been developed and fine tuning the effects of the video, etc. He then gave instructions on how to watch it and played the video. About half of the studio audience were stuck, and he recieved calls from people who had called in and were also stuck to their chairs.

Anybody who knows anything about hypnosis would recognise the incredibly simple way in which this trick was achieved, although hats off to Derren Brown for the delivery. It was very well done.

My understanding of how the trick worked was as follows. The subliminal message video probably didn't contain anything special at all because this trick was actually based on waking hypnosis. The program did a very good job of setting the context and builing anticipation. Derren then delievered all of the suggestions when he gave the instructions on how to watch the video under the guise of "you can expect the following...". The video itself was a useful tool in building expectation, but nothing more.

This routine is little different to the suggestibility tests used by all stage hypnotists and like those tests would not significantly affect the majority of people. A small percentage however (10%-20%) would take on board these suggestions simply because they are just that suggestible. Even 1% of an audience of millions calling in is enough to jam the switchboards. Most impressive was the high percentage (50%) of the audience who responded to the suggestions, although of course we don't know how they were selected or what pre-show work was done with them.

My understanding is that it is illegal to broadcast hypnosis inductions and suggestibility tests in the UK, but as he doesn't mention the H-word he can get away with it. He even asks one of the women in the audience "you're not hypnotised are you?" and she says "no". Of course she's hypnotised, but how would she know that? Few people recognise hypnosis even when they're in it, especially when there's not been a formal induction.

All very well done though, I take my hat off to him.

The show is currently available on 4oD and is all over youtube; definitely worth a watch, as are the videos of peoples responses to it.

Wizard's first rule

Over the last few weeks I have found myself hooked on the music of a band called Nightwish, for which I can thank the influence of my girlfriend importing her music collection onto iTunes on my computer.

Those familiar with my musical taste may be surprised that I might like a heavy metal band as it's really not my thing. However, I do make an exception for Scandinavian symphonic power metal, and in particular I have been listening to their Once album. This is what happens when you mix a metal band with a philharmonic orchestra and a classically trained female singer and overcook the music to almost cliche levels, and the result is frankly awesome in my opinion. Throughout I find myself thinking that perhaps they had forgotten it was a mere album they were working on and thought they were actually making the soundtrack for some epic fantasy film.

This brings me onto something else that I've been hooked on, and Nightwish seems to engender in me, which is reading fantasy novels.

I've recently finished the Black Magician Trilogy by Trudi Canavan, which are pretty good, and spurred on by the mental images of epic journeys across strange lands engendered by Tarja Turunen's singing, decided to embark upon the doorstop that is Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind.


It is clear to me that Goodkind must have a large house with many doors to prop open because having written this book he has produced a further ten volumes to this saga, presumably to allow air to blow all the way through. This is as good a deterrent as any to starting out on the first book, but then I didn't realise this until I was half way through.

Anyway, unsurprisingly the plot of the book turns upon the concept of the the wizard's first rule, which is as follows:

---

"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."

---

I'm not sure how much I agree with the term "People are stupid", but it does remind me of when someone once told me that "the person is intelligent, but people are stupid". I would say that a definition of this generalised stupidity is the rule itself; there is no need to state the stupidity explicitly.

I do think this rule speaks volumes about how people in general behave. The recent events with Dr Chicken Royale, as we now know him, and his letter to Westminster Council show very clearly how this rule can be employed to manipulate people. If one knows how to press the right buttons by using words and phrases that are anchored to the desired feelings within a person it is incredibly easy. Make someone in the council afraid of all the horrible things that their mind, in ignorance, can think of a street hypnotist doing and they will desperately want it to be illegal. Of course fear street hypnosis might be illegal and getting into trouble for failing to act to enforce it as such is just as likely.

I'm reminded of a line from Terry Pratchett's Discworld book The Truth, which is a satire and parody of newspaper journalism:

"A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on."

For a significant number of people resolving that something should be a certain way because of how they feel about it is the first step down the road of proving themselves right through a carefully biased selection and interpretation of the facts available.

As an aside this is why I believe religion will never be eliminated by scientific reasoning, even though the question "does god exist?" is undoubtedly one with a scientific answer. There is an utter absence of any scientific evidence at all for the existence of a supreme being, and all the logical arguments that follow place the odds of one actually exsiting at vanishingly small (it is impossible to completely disprove the existence of anything). However, a great many people want to believe in a personal god giving purpose to their life, want to believe in Heaven and everlasting life, and of course are afraid that hell might exist. For these people the debate is closed before it even starts, their mind is already made up, and as a consequence all the evidence they see subsequently points to their god being real.

Anyone trying to counter the influence of a wizard using the first rule with alternative information expressed in rational terms, regardless of how objectively true those facts may be, will find themselves facing a difficult and sometimes impossible task.

The last part of the first rule is the part that rings most true to me. It states that people "can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool". This to me reads as saying that the more certain somebody is that they are right, the easier it is for them to believe something that is untrue.

The Theism-Atheism debate is quite often mistaken as being one between those who believe devoutly in a god, and those who believe with equal conviction that there isn't, most people being on a scale somewhere between. In fact this is greatly misrepresents the position taken by the vast majority of atheists, which is that they will believe something for which there is evidence; their belief in a god is as strong as their perception of the weight of rational evidence for one.

I think that a more representative scale is based on critical thinking about the matter. People who are willing to believe something purely on the strength of their conviction would be at one end, and those who have no conviction and seek irrefutable objective proof for everything would be at the other. Most people are somewhere in between. It's a scale between two entirely different mindsets, as opposed to opposite ends of the same kind of conviction. On this scale the atheist who is 100% convinced of the non-existence of god is grouped with the hardcore theists, but good luck to you if you try to find one.

Now, moving on to hypnosis, I personally see hypnosis as a naked demonstration of the nature and power of belief over rational thought; without belief hypnosis does not exist. Possibly one reason why so many religious organisations are against it. Pot. Kettle.

Stop me if I'm being a bit controversial. I do enjoy it.

Now, when we turn the wizard's first rule the subject of hypnosis we see a similar spread of approaches in the way people think about it. For example, there are people who really want hypnosis to work on them, and therefore it does. There are arguably people who believe that hypnosis is all powerful are afraid it will work on them, and therefore it does.

I also believe that the better someone is at believing something, at being right as far as they are concerned, the better a subject they are. Sometimes in stubborn individuals this may only take the form of a sort of covert self-hypnosis, and these individuals are able to convince themselves of all sorts of weird and wacky things.

All of this tends me toward consideration of my own beliefs and my behaviours in relation to them. So begin my problems as a hypnotic subject.

When I first tried to be a hypnotic subject I really wanted it to work, I will also confess that I was afraid that it would too, which was part of the excitement of it. My trouble, I think, was that I was and still am someone who is by nature uncertain. I am not certain that I can tell a lie from the truth, and so I investigate further and look for evidence to settle the matter. Much to my indignation my mind appears to be quite unwilling to be fooled through the process of hypnosis, directly at least.

In spite of this however, the biggest lesson I think there is to learn from the wizard's first rule, for someone used to critical thinking, is that a significant number of people do not usually think in the same way and certainly nobody does all of the the time. No matter how much you value intelligent discussion and criticality, it is an unfortunate fact of life that such rational processes do not sell products or ideas half as well as manipulating the irrational part of other person's mind. This is something which anybody in advertising can tell you.

If you want to influence others, or indeed hypnotise them, appealing to their irrational side is the way to get results. Given this kind of motivation almost anyone will believe almost anything, and they probably won't even realise it's happening.

Hmm, perhaps Nightwish signed a covert deal with the publishing companies...