I've CC'd this to sci.psychology.misc as well.
http://tinyurl.com/yca4weg
If you've never seen the TV show Mind Control with Derren Brown, I
highly recommend you Google it. Some examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qGlMG71EeM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnWxO_sSUDU
Most episodes show suggestion, or "hypnotism light". The show is
packed with Derren demonstrating feats of suggestion. Part of the art
of the mentalist is knowing how to choose a mark - you need to be able
to pick someone who's mind isn't on high alert. You could drug someone
and hypnotize them in a weak minded state, I suppose, but I don't
think that's what you're asking about.
In general, suggestion doesn't work to make an alert person do
anything against their will. Suggestion has to be slipped in on the
down low.
I think that's incorrect, but it depends on how you define 'alert.' I
doubt that suggestion works at all on the comatose. I think it's safe
to say that re-programming the brain is an active process. For
example, open focus biofeedback deliberately increases awareness. It
is a highly suggestible altered state. So is meditation which, in its
broader sense, includes all forms of rhythmic exercise. Regardless, I
think most people are much less self-aware than they imagine.
I also seriously doubt that drugs are helpful, though people often
claim that they were under their influence when they did something
they later regretted. Unless the drug user has mastered the drug, the
altered state it induces is uncontrolled. It's not clear to me that
that helps the 'hypnotist.'
The anecdotal evidence also suggests that there's no need to slip "in
on the down low" as you put it, either. That's useful if you want to
gaslight someone, though. ;>).
Anyway, as I said before, I don't believe this area has been
competently studied, yet. Using words like 'generally' is premature at
best. If we can't observe both what the subject wants and what the
'hypnotist' suggests, blanket statements may never be appropriate.
You can get a certificate in hypnotism - my grandfather (an MD) had
one. It is well studied in the sense that the methods can be taught to
others. The methods are scientifically explainable and repeatable.
And we, in the sense of the person being hypnotized, can observe what
we want versus what was suggested. Even then, I would call your reason
into question if you think that this shopkeeper desired to accept
plain paper instead of money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vz_YTNLn6w
Now, that's what I wanted to know and see. Need to find out someone in
India who teaches hypnotism to that level.
Surely what he was doing is illegal, but I am sure he would have
returned all that he brought.
Any explanation for this one????
It's an old scam. There are many variations on the same theme. As I
said, slipping in on the down low is useful if you want to gaslight
someone.
By the way, it works in many situations. The brain seems to hardwire
certain behaviors like tying shoes, putting a key in a lock, giving
directions and taking money. Intermediate events that happen while the
brain is processing an automated loop are perceived incorrectly. On
the other hand, he didn't take control over the victims; he exploited
a known vulnerability in the way the brain processes information.
Milton Ericson's technique of rapid induction was based on
interrupting another automated behavior: shaking hands.
In the video we saw above, people counted the notes and were possibly
seeing what they expected to see. Can we know more about this
*vulnerability* you are talking about.