Talk:Self-hypnosis

Hetero-hypnosis

...is a weird phrase. Allo-hypnosis might be a better coinage for traditional (non-auto-)hypnosis. 104.228.82.126 (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

commercial link

The Weblinks link to "Self Hypnosis recordings" has now been removed two times on the grounds of being basically advertisement for a commercial offering. Both times the deletion has been reverted. So since this does not seem to work, what do you do now? --88.74.46.153 (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

mythical

it is impossible to hypnotise one's self. listening to prerecorded audio is called 'being hypnotised' not hypnotising one's self.121.91.181.36 (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

IMPOSSIBLE

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HYPNOTISE ONE'S SELF. ANY PSYCHOLOGIST WILL TELL YOU THAT. so that means that the first sentence of this article stays, but the rest has to be moved to a NEW ARTICLE or under HYPNOSIS METHODS. PLEASE READ THE FIRST SENTENCE THIS PAGE IS MESSED UP DOESN'T ANYONE SEE THAT?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.157.182 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you use bigger fonts maybe you'll manage to convince yourself this time.Pronoein (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see projections projected to emphasize one's personal worldview.

Shout more, it improves your point, when logic fails.2607:FB91:E0D:1BF:5C87:AE0D:D960:FC85 (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Very terse article, surely more should be said?

There's practically no discussion of possible applications and feasibility of self-hypnosis, or methods by which it is achieved - the only information other than anecdotal historical background seems to effectively say "someone reviewed some studies which showed that self-hypnosis is a correlated with hypnosis. But the experience may be different". Could someone please give some more insight and expand the article? Destynova (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Feasibility is highly variable, to put things kindly.

Most fail, garner cherry picked data and call it a day and write a paper that gets eventually retracted.

Got more peer reviewed data, we're all ears.2607:FB91:E0D:1BF:5C87:AE0D:D960:FC85 (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hypnotic spiral

A common tool for anyone to experiment with the effects of self hypnosis is a Hypnotic Spiral also used by Hypnotists the world over.

As a novice editor may I please suggest that many readers could benefit from an impartial ( but subjective ) experiment to see for themselves how self hypnosis "feels". Much more could and should be said as you say.

Here is a simple spiral which may give some readers an actual insight into the effects of self hypnosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencedwolf (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

contradiction

the second sentence and the section "uses" are in contradiction. either listening to audio is self-hypnosis or it isnt, but it cant be both --46.115.56.12 (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning-Up

It looks like this article could use some general "cleaning up" by someone with expertise in the field of psychology. How does one flag the article as such?

Also, 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. 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. If you CAN note such evidence, then please post it! I gather that Wikipedia is good for that sort of thing.  :-)

Also, 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. 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. (Regardless of how absurd or concrete the claims may be, this isn't an article about theology!)

2 cents, paid in full.  :-D

Dmutters (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree it needs some work. I think Braid's anecdote is unhelpful. 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. 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.

After 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). If the underlying hypothesis is the same then there is bound to be a lot of overlap. For instance, there could be some mention here of the use of a post-hypnotic suggestion to help bring about a state of hypnosis. 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. 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 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.

Perhaps the biggest issue with this article is that it assumes that hypnosis is a real and testable phenomenon. 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. For balance, I'll try to correct that.

Ophir (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that having someone with expertise in psychology to look at this article would help. The whole article seems vaguely "rah-rah!"ish. Sentences like "Self hypnosis makes one more yielding than normal" help remove the article from feeling solidly-based. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does "statuvolence" redirect here?

Not mentioned or defined in article. 86.159.197.174 (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Going by this at OxfordDictionaries.com, "statuvolent" is a rare adjective "Affected by or inducing statuvolism (self-hypnosis)." with origin "Late 19th century. From classical Latin status state + volent-, volens, present participle of velle to will, after statuvolism." Similarly, "statuvolism" is defined as a historical noun "A state of trance brought about by one's own efforts; self-hypnosis." with origin "Late 19th century. From classical Latin status state + vol-, stem of velle to will + -ism; coined by W. B. Fahnestock." --77.173.90.33 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Move and Rewrite

I am in the process of improving and restructuring this article, and in preparation, I am moving the section entitled'Andrew Salter' to the article dedicated to that subject, for the following 2 reasons: Firstly, this article actually mis-prepresents what Salter said in the cited article. Alter alleged explicitly that, according to him:

"By autohypnosis is meant  the ability  to induce, upon  ontself, the trance  of sleeping hypnosis together  with  such of  its  phenomena as may be desired...In autohypnosis not only does the 'subject'  hypnotize himself and  administer  the suggestions to  him­ self, but he also has complete control of the trance  state  at all  times...So much for  what autohypnosis is.  Now let us see what  it is not. It is not  the  same  as the self-hypnosis... nor is this definition of autohypnosis quite  identical  with autosuggestion..."

It is therefore quite inappropriate to include a section on him whilst claiming he was the first to write about self-hypnosis, when what he wrote about was something he sought to distinguish from it.

2. Andrew Salter is not cited as a notable contributor to the field of self-hypnosis in scholarly or scientific literature. Therefore, to place him alongside others who are is further misleading.

I am not arguing that Salter is not notable! Only that the subjects for which is he notable do not include self-hypnosis.

It seems to me the most respectful thing to do, therefore, is to move the section on him from this article to the Andrew Salter article, as part of the restructuring and expanding of the article on self-hypnosis.

Request change name to Dhyana

The original is called Dhyana in Orthodox and Heterodox religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism and practiced during meditation. This is still in use, more widely and more intense (as they have forms and stages) than the clinical term self hypnosis. One can look up from Tantric to Sadguru Isha meditations even ISCKON around the world and Gurus who visit foreign land for Dhyana sessions for every race/nationality/religion too, methodology of worship based on mantra or nirguna/saguna form (also on wiki, means formless God or God in form), focus on central point of forehead between eyebrows. Similarly yoga nidra has a clinical term non sleep deep rest, but as natural language is much more in use the wiki article uses yoga nidra. Also because no one edited it. But I feel a name change is required here. Bitter Writer (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not something limited to any religion, so using a religious term is inappropriate. --Khajidha (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)