Editorial

In addition to the usual array of interesting papers and reviews, this issue of the JSE features a debate that I consider especially noteworthy. The topic of the debate is hypnosis and the participants in the dialogue are all recognized authorities on the subject. However, the backgrounds and perspe...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Stephen Braude
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SSE 2012-06-01
Series:Journal of Scientific Exploration
Online Access:http://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/482
id doaj-3d11f5361e374488b88bdb56932973ac
record_format Article
spelling doaj-3d11f5361e374488b88bdb56932973ac2020-11-25T03:13:56ZengSSEJournal of Scientific Exploration0892-33102012-06-01262EditorialStephen BraudeIn addition to the usual array of interesting papers and reviews, this issue of the JSE features a debate that I consider especially noteworthy. The topic of the debate is hypnosis and the participants in the dialogue are all recognized authorities on the subject. However, the backgrounds and perspectives of the participants are also quite different, and so the discussion of the issues is commendably broad and wide-ranging. I’ve often wondered whether JSE readers noticed and were puzzled by the fact that hypnosis has received little (if any) attention in the pages of this Journal. It has certainly puzzled me. Granted, unlike some of the phenomena (or alleged phenomena) discussed in the JSE, the existence of hypnosis is not generally disputed. However, the process and nature of hypnosis, and the implications of hypnotic phenomena for our understanding of the mind, remain acknowledged mysteries. To be sure, a small number of researchers cling obdurately to the belief (associated perhaps most often with Nicholas Spanos) that hypnosis is nothing but social compliance or role-playing designed to please the hypnotist.1 But the transparent absurdity of that position becomes clear as soon as one considers some of the more dramatic hypnotic phenomena—for example, failing to register pain during major surgery (e.g., limb amputation, the removal of 100-lb scrotal tumors [yes, that’s right], and the removal of toenails by the roots), and also the prevention of well-known involuntary responses to other noxious stimuli, such as ammonia placed under the nose and needles inserted in the mucous membranes of the eyes. Clearly, the subjects in these cases aren’t simply complying with the wishes of the surgeon by (say) feigning a lack of pain. These are paradigm cases of genuine and profound—and poorly understood—altered states, and they’re quite different from the non-reactions to relatively mild pain (e.g., hands in ice water) considered by Spanos. .....http://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/482
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Stephen Braude
spellingShingle Stephen Braude
Editorial
Journal of Scientific Exploration
author_facet Stephen Braude
author_sort Stephen Braude
title Editorial
title_short Editorial
title_full Editorial
title_fullStr Editorial
title_full_unstemmed Editorial
title_sort editorial
publisher SSE
series Journal of Scientific Exploration
issn 0892-3310
publishDate 2012-06-01
description In addition to the usual array of interesting papers and reviews, this issue of the JSE features a debate that I consider especially noteworthy. The topic of the debate is hypnosis and the participants in the dialogue are all recognized authorities on the subject. However, the backgrounds and perspectives of the participants are also quite different, and so the discussion of the issues is commendably broad and wide-ranging. I’ve often wondered whether JSE readers noticed and were puzzled by the fact that hypnosis has received little (if any) attention in the pages of this Journal. It has certainly puzzled me. Granted, unlike some of the phenomena (or alleged phenomena) discussed in the JSE, the existence of hypnosis is not generally disputed. However, the process and nature of hypnosis, and the implications of hypnotic phenomena for our understanding of the mind, remain acknowledged mysteries. To be sure, a small number of researchers cling obdurately to the belief (associated perhaps most often with Nicholas Spanos) that hypnosis is nothing but social compliance or role-playing designed to please the hypnotist.1 But the transparent absurdity of that position becomes clear as soon as one considers some of the more dramatic hypnotic phenomena—for example, failing to register pain during major surgery (e.g., limb amputation, the removal of 100-lb scrotal tumors [yes, that’s right], and the removal of toenails by the roots), and also the prevention of well-known involuntary responses to other noxious stimuli, such as ammonia placed under the nose and needles inserted in the mucous membranes of the eyes. Clearly, the subjects in these cases aren’t simply complying with the wishes of the surgeon by (say) feigning a lack of pain. These are paradigm cases of genuine and profound—and poorly understood—altered states, and they’re quite different from the non-reactions to relatively mild pain (e.g., hands in ice water) considered by Spanos. .....
url http://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/482
work_keys_str_mv AT stephenbraude editorial
_version_ 1724645677578846208