Yer Thoughts On Hypnotic Regression

[sepultallica]

a while back, my girlfriend went through a phase and took some psychology courses. she thought that she wanted to get a degree in psychology but ultimately failed all of her classes. upon learning this, my first thought was how in the hell do you fail psycology? there are no wrong answers. i'm no fan of psycology but during her phase, she mentioned that her class was covering hypnotic regression. i had heard of hypnotic regression before but never really gave it much though. but the other day, i was thinking of some practical appications for it and i was astounded. imagine honing the ability to regress to any point in your life and be able to visually see events transpiring. the possibilities are almost endless. if hypnotic regression were possible then its application would be priceless. i don't know much about the human mind but from the things i've heard of regression, it could be a powerful tool. is the brain like a computer where you have limited memory space? can information be compressed like a computer and be extracted by triggering a memory? we've all heard the saying that we only use a fraction of our brains. we've also heard contrasting theories on the matter. if we do only use a fraction of our brians, is it possible to condition our minds so that we are able to access this stored potential apply it?

 

what are your thoughts on the subject?

[Glider]

Originally posted by sepultallica

a while back, my girlfriend went through a phase and took some psychology courses. she thought that she wanted to get a degree in psychology but ultimately failed all of her classes. upon learning this, my first thought was how in the hell do you fail psycology? there are no wrong answers.

I don't mean this unkindly, but your girlfriends' failure is evidence to the contrary.

i'm no fan of psycology but during her phase, she mentioned that her class was covering hypnotic regression. i had heard of hypnotic regression before but never really gave it much though. but the other day, i was thinking of some practical appications for it and i was astounded. imagine honing the ability to regress to any point in your life and be able to visually see events transpiring. the possibilities are almost endless. if hypnotic regression were possible then its application would be priceless.

In what way?

i don't know much about the human mind but from the things i've heard of regression, it could be a powerful tool. is the brain like a computer where you have limited memory space?

Not really. We don't 'record' information like a computer or a video. We store cues. Recall is a reconstructive process (hence the unreliability of eyewitness testimony). For all intents and purposes, our memory capacity is limitless.

can information be compressed like a computer and be extracted by triggering a memory?

As I said, we store cues rather than actual trains of events like a video. In that, I suppose you could say memory is 'compressed'.

we've all heard the saying that we only use a fraction of our brains.

We only consciously use a fraction of our brains. However, the entire brain is in use. We never use the part to which we have access to its full potential though.

we've also heard contrasting theories on the matter. if we do only use a fraction of our brians, is it possible to condition our minds so that we are able to access this stored potential apply it?

To a degree, yes. There are two main processes to memory; encoding and recall. In order to remember something, we first need to have it in memory. i.e. we need to 'capture' the salient information and encode it in long term memory. This means we need to recognise its salience, register the information consciously, and understand it (we cannot remember that which has no meaning for us). Recall is a different process and the one that most often fails. It has been argued that (pathology or trauma aside) we never lose encoded information from long-term memory, we lose only the trace for it.

 

The way to remember any given piece of information is to ensure we have as many traces linked with it as possible (e.g. it must link to other stored information, the more links, the greater chance of recall). There are methods and techniques for improving recall. Mnemonics for example. In essence, these revolve around you training yourself to a) pay attention to the information, b) form as many immediate links to it as you can. For example, if you wanted to remember the reference "Shachter and Singer (1962)" who proposed the cognitive labelling theory of emotion, you could picture a Singer sowing machine in a shack. This gives you an immediate link to the information using imagary. This technique is often used (with some success) to learn languages, or at least to help build vocabulary.

 

what are your thoughts on the subject?

I have none. Hypnotic regression comes mainly from the counselling/therapy (the pink and fluffy) end of the Psychology spectrum, so I know very little about it.

[blike]

How much of hypnotic regression is suggestion though? What I'm saying is that I think it would be pretty easy to have false memories..memories either suggested by the psycologist, or memories your brain conjures up on its own. For instance, my brother swears he remembers something that happened many many years ago when he was around 1 year old. What I think has happened is that he has heard the story told so many times that he has actually set up the scenario in his brain and now thinks its a memory. I could be wrong, maybe he does remember, but I doubt it.

 

Indeed, regression would/does have its practical applications. I say 'would' because I'm not sure how much it is used. It could be especially useful to lawyers who have witnesses but don't remember important details. I doubt that memories that are brought back using hypnotic regression would be considered valid testimony in a court of law though.

[Glider]

I think you're right. I think it's extremely unlikely that anyone could remember events within their first year. Firstly, not too much makes sense enough to be remembered (i.e. we have no cognitive 'hooks' to link events to each other and form the traces that would allow us to recall them), and secondly most experiences would be overwritten due to the huge amount of neural development going on in the first year of life (programmed cell death, synaptic formation, reinforcement and extinction etc.). Most people don't begin to remember stuff until between 2 and 4 years old, and even then, the first memories tent to be 'flashbulb' memories, and not trains of events.

 

As far as I know, in therapy, it's used to re-experience old trauma so that the individual can work through it, this time accompanied and guided by a therapist. I have absolutely no idea of its efficacy. There is a huge problem with false memories though, as has been evidenced by the cases brought brought falsly against 'abusive' parents, that were subsequently refuted and thrown out of court. The therapists had been (without intent in most cases) planting the suggestion of childhood abuse whilst the subjects were in a state of altered/increased suggestibility. In light of that, I would doubt the validity of any testimony gained under hypnosis. The bottom line is, even if you could access a memory under hypnosis that couldn't be got at under normal conditions, the memory would still be a reconstruction of events as the subject percieved them to be, not necessarily events as they happened. The original encoding of the memories would still have been subject to the individuals' own perspectives and subjective interpretation. The police are getting heavily into 'cognitive interview' techniques though. These have been shown to be useful.

Having said all that, whilst hypnosis may be flawed as a method of recall, it's very effective in modulating pain. I think it's because in these cases, it's working on a much deeper (preattentive) level, and doesn't involve conscious reconstruction of past events, but the 'reinterpretation' of a novel event.

[sepultallica]

sorry glider, i don't know how to quote on this board yet but my girlfrien's failure is evidence of what?

[blike]

If you just want to quote one person, just hit "quote" at the bottom of their post. If you would like to quote more than one person, check the "quote" box in the upper right-hand corner of their post. When you hit reply, it will be automatically quoted for you

 

Originally posted by sepultallica

sorry glider, i don't know how to quote on this board yet but my girlfrien's failure is evidence of what?

 

He's saying your girlfriend's failure is evidence that there are wrong answers in psychology.

[sepultallica]

Originally posted by blike

If you just want to quote one person, just hit "quote" at the bottom of their post. If you would like to quote more than one person, check the "quote" box in the upper right-hand corner of their post. When you hit reply, it will be automatically quoted for you

 

 

 

He's saying your girlfriend's failure is evidence that there are wrong answers in psychology.

 

it worked. cool. the whole part of there not being any wrong answers was meant as a joke.

[Glider]

Aha! My error. It was hard to tell, the 'no wrong answer' thingy being followed so closely by "I'm no fan of Psychology". It's just that I meet so many people who genuinely believe there are no wrong answers in Psychology.

 

Unfortunately, many of these are undergraduate Psychology students, which is a bit odd, if you think about it.

[sepultallica]

Originally posted by Glider

Aha! My error. It was hard to tell, the 'no wrong answer' thingy being followed so closely by "I'm no fan of Psychology". It's just that I meet so many people who genuinely believe there are no wrong answers in Psychology.

 

Unfortunately, many of these are undergraduate Psychology students, which is a bit odd, if you think about it.

 

you had some good points though. some stuff i hadn't known. and from the sound of it, you know what you're talking about.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Glider

Unfortunately, many of these are undergraduate Psychology students, which is a bit odd, if you think about it.

Based on the psychology students I've met, no - it's not odd at all.

They were all complete slackers, constantly denying their failure and pretending they were intelligent because they could memorise things that other people told them were facts.

 

Every one of them.

[Dudde]

I'm not sure I have much faith in psychology students' ability to learn...I think even I know more than half of them:-p and I barely graduated high school^_^

[Glider]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Based on the psychology students I've met, no - it's not odd at all.

They were all complete slackers, constantly denying their failure and pretending they were intelligent because they could memorise things that other people told them were facts.

 

Every one of them.

I agree, I was being ironic.

 

Originally posted by Dudde

I'm not sure I have much faith in psychology students' ability to learn...I think even I know more than half of them:-p and I barely graduated high school^_^

 

I have a theory. I think that many people choose Psychology as a 'cop-out' degree; an 'easy option' for people who just 'want a degree' but don't want to work too hard for it, and have no real interest in the subject. Combine this with 'widening participation' and you have the recipe for a room full of barely literate slackers; people who can't string a sentence together, let alone a coherent argument and couldn't give a toss anyway. Then, with all the student support mechanisms that are in place, they are encouraged to blame everybody and everything but themselves when they get crappy grades (widening participation has a lot to answer for).

 

On the upside, a few years ago, the British Psychological Society decided that it was tired of graduate psychologists who couldn't understand research (which, after all, is the backbone of Psychology), so they stated that for a degree to be recognised by the BPS, the student had to have taken, and passed a full course of research methods (two years, at introductory and advanced level). This increased the drop-out rate significantly (which I consider evidence in support of my theory). Even now though, many students appendicise research methods, believing that "I'm taking Psychology, but they make us take research methods", when, in fact, it's the other way around. Research methods is more the essence of Psychology than any other module. The other modules are mearly introductions into the different aspects of Psychology, and everything they learn in them was gained through the application of research methods.

 

However, this doesn't apply to all Psych. students. There are those with a genuine interest, and real ability. Those who understand the science and actually want to apply what they learn and take up some facet of Psychology as a career. It is a shame that they appear to be the minority though. Although I have no basis for comparison, I suppose this problem must exist in many subjects, where those students with a genuine interest and aptitude for the topic constitute the smaller portion af any class. It does piss me off that so many consider being 'a graduate' a ticket to a job, but have no interest in the subject they are taking. Why can't they bugger off and do 'media studies' or something?

[Sayonara]

Most of them appear to believe that Psychology is Media Studies...

[blike]

I think what happens is a lot of people take Intro to Psychology at either the highschool or college level course and think that all of psychology is fluffy and pretty like it is presented. Another factor is that people want to be in a scientific field, but don't want to bother with the traditional "hard" sciences. I guess they view psychology as a semi-science. Then they get into advanced pscyhology courses and realize that it is a real science and its much much harder than their slacking self realized.

 

This happened to a friend my freshman year. She wanted to major in psychology because she loved the highschool course we took. The first semester psych class went really well (intro). However, the second semester focused more on clinical methods and she bombed out and changed her major.

[sepultallica]

Originally posted by Glider

I agree, I was being ironic.

 

 

 

I have a theory. I think that many people choose Psychology as a 'cop-out' degree; an 'easy option' for people who just 'want a degree' but don't want to work too hard for it,

 

so then my sarcasm pertaining to no wrong answers is correct?

[NSX]

So as you go further into Psychology at the University level, does knowledge in BIO play a major role?

ie. Brain behaviour, hallucenogenics, etc. (Since these affect the way that we think / respond)

[NSX]

So as you go further into Psychology at the University level, does knowledge in BIO play a major role?

ie. Brain behaviour in terms of Biology, hallucenogenics & its affects on the brain chemically, etc. (Since these affect the way that we think / respond)

[Skye]

My girlfriend did psychology too, she did an experimental psychology subject during honours and the other girls that she was working with didn't want to touch the rats. I could imagine them in a clinical practice, "My God you're CRAZY."

 

Psychology courses usually do some study of the brain, what you are able to do depends alot on the course and where you study.

[Glider]

Originally posted by blike

I think what happens is a lot of people take Intro to Psychology at either the highschool or college level course and think that all of psychology is fluffy and pretty like it is presented. Another factor is that people want to be in a scientific field, but don't want to bother with the traditional "hard" sciences. I guess they view psychology as a semi-science. Then they get into advanced pscyhology courses and realize that it is a real science and its much much harder than their slacking self realized.

I think you're right. The harder end of Psychology comes as a bit of a shock to many students, especially those who thought it was all about women in long gypsy skirts and dripping with 'empathy' saying "...and how do you feel about that?" (I admit freely that I am biased against the 'pink and fluffy' end of Psychology).

 

This happened to a friend my freshman year. She wanted to major in psychology because she loved the highschool course we took. The first semester psych class went really well (intro). However, the second semester focused more on clinical methods and she bombed out and changed her major.

It happens a lot. It's a shame because in many cases, I think if they stayed and applied themselves, they might actually find it quite rewarding.

 

Originally posted by sepultallica

 

so then my sarcasm pertaining to no wrong answers is correct?

Hehehe...If it were, the drop-out rates would be a lot lower!

 

Originally posted by NSX

So as you go further into Psychology at the University level, does knowledge in BIO play a major role?

ie. Brain behaviour, hallucenogenics, etc. (Since these affect the way that we think / respond)

Absolutely. My first degree was in Psychological Science. This is essentially 40% Psychology, 40% physiology/neurology & 20% Research methods and statistics, but even the straight Psychology degree has psychobiology at introductory and advanced levels as core modules. Also, optional modules such as psychopharmacology, clinical psychology.

 

 

Originally posted by Skye

My girlfriend did psychology too, she did an experimental psychology subject during honours and the other girls that she was working with didn't want to touch the rats. I could imagine them in a clinical practice, "My God you're CRAZY."

 

Psychology courses usually do some study of the brain, what you are able to do depends alot on the course and where you study.

This is true. The emphasis on the biological component is increasing too. It never made sense to me that people could study Psychology and not be tought anything about the brain. Admittedly this is partly driven by a bias toward my own degree compared to straight Psychology degrees. However, the trend now is increasingly towards the neurological bases of behaviours and psychopathologies. Even social psychologists are now using functional Magnetic Resonance Imagers (fMRI) in their research. As a point of interest, recent research using these imagers is providing huge amounts of information concerning the neurological bases of emotion, and is leading to a slow but sure return to a (modified) form of determinism. Many people resist this, but I think that's down to human vanity (as Nietzsche said). Nobody like to feel that they are not in complete control of themselves.

[matter]

I've been reading a book, not because I believe in its theories, but because I want to read the theories. It's written by a man who has a doctorate in counseling, or something. It's a book of case studies he's done involving hypnosis to bring back memories from the unconscious about past lives. I really think it's kind of wacky and the guy scares me, like some sort of cult leader. His subjects all talk about souls, and he mentions souls throughout the book and talks about them matter-of-factly. This book is totally bogus right? He says he thinks when we die our souls enter the spirit world, and then choose a new life to start, and that each life we take is a life that is meant to educate our souls through experience. How could a Ph.D talk about this type of thing? Does anyone know about hypnosis? I tend to think that hypnosis is not a reliable source for any type of information. He says that during a hypnotic trance people can't lie. Is that true?

[YT2095]

people can in fact lie under hypnosis.

no one knows what happens to us after we die, only what happens to our bodies, (maggot meat). and anyone that protests to KNOW what happens after death is lying!

Hypnosis CAN be reliable to a point, although I would never submit any of it as evidence in a law court, I`ve done a form of self hypnosis on myself quite regularly, often when I`m dropping off to sleep, I might have had a song on my mind all day long but don`t know all the words, but during this near sleep time, if I stay relaxed and don`t get excited that I can actualy hear the song word for word perfectly, it works

ok, granted, it`s not a past life or fancy pants kinda thing to do, but it does work quite reliably and so in that sense I rate it as a workable tool.

[aman]

The amount of people that died in history is probably near the amount alive today. When the poplation reaches 10 billion, does that mean a lot of people will get an empty soul and have to start over? Or will there just be a lot of out of luck empty people?

This could be a kink in the idea.

Just aman

[matter]

I really don't understand that part. Nothing is mentioned about new souls, or where souls come from. I'm only four chapters in. A majority of the book doesn't seem to make sense, and the author just attributes that to humans not being able to grasp the idea of a non-physical dimension.

 

I want to know how accurate hypnosis is, not from someone who has a Ph.D in counseling and uses hypnosis for therapy, but from someone who has studied the brain.

[Sayonara]

aman said in post #22 :

The amount of people that died in history is probably near the amount alive today.

Depending on what you define as "human", the dead outnumber the living about 30 to 1.

 

So do we get extra dense souls, or does it just mean uber-scary zombie situation?