Beyond The Veil:
Mind Control, Mis-Direction, and the Illusion of “Hypnosis.”
N.B: References in this text have been formatted as notes instead of according to the Harvard system.
N.B: References in this text have been formatted as notes instead of according to the Harvard system.
Attempts by the CIA or other agencies to harness hypnotism for mind-control have long been a popular source of conspiracy theories. From “Project Artichoke” in the ‘Fifties, through MK Ultra in the ‘Sixties to “The Control of Candy Jones” in the ‘Seventies.
I shall explain from a hypnotists viewpoint how this topic has been skewed – deliberately or otherwise - in such a way as to emphasise unrealistic claims whilst mis-directing attention away from any genuine possibilities in mind-control that might have been found. Ultimately, that the only “minds” “controlled” by the CIA using the myth of “hypnosis” were those of the conspiracy theorists themselves!.
One: The Conspiracy of Theorists.
The allegations of work in this field are invariably made from the stand-point of those who lack substantive experience of the ultimately circumscribed and ephemeral character of extreme hypnotic behaviour.
“Hypnotherapists” , I mean those who have taken courses and are accredited “practitioners” but who do not also have direct experience of these “boundaries”, generally require virtually no substantial overt behaviour from their “hypnotised” subjects. Their assumption that such behaviour can be elicited is therefore never challenged. The extreme aspects of hypnotic behaviour – having strangers perform fellatio on an umbrella for example ( see Plate 2 ) - are only witnessed, if ever, in a stage hypnotists show. They have no relevance to hypnotherapists, who merely expect a client to lie back, relax and listen or speak.
Yet such “hypnotherapists” retain as a matter of faith their unchallenged, untested belief that the mere fact of inducing the appearance of a supposed state of “hypnosis” represents a real change in the subject that would facilitate grandiose suggestions.
Other, pseudo-academic self-styled “experts” in this field – the kind of people who pop up to prate on TV shows - invariably only repeat what they have read in books or studied in seminars. Books written and seminars given by other such “experts.” A circus of repetitions.
There is only one profession in which the limits of hypnotism are truly and publicly tested. That is stage hypnotism. Stage hypnotists seek to utilise every possibility made available by “hypnosis.” Why wouldn’t we? It’s our business to do so.
Moreover, it is upon the work of stage hypnotists that the entire array of popular belief in the supposed power of “hypnosis” is based.
What is not widely understood is that all the antics extracted from participants are induced without any reliance upon such a thing as a “state of hypnosis”.
To understand how hypnotists create the illusion of “hypnosis” requires some information about the scientific dimension of the topic.
Two. Matters of fact.
The true experimental examination of hypnotic “phenomena” began in the late Nineteen twenties under the auspices of the American behaviourist Clark. L. Hull. First at Madison, then Yale.
Hull’s team of researchers conducted a large series of ingeniously designed experimental studies. Recounted in detail in his book, “Hypnosis and Suggestibility, An Experimental Approach” [1].
In general, each hypnotic “phenomenon” experimentally examined turned out to be either illusory or much less impressive than hypnotists would claim.
Other researchers who came from a medical background and had a poor grasp of the fundamentals of experimental design were more likely to obtain findings that merely reflected their articles of faith.
An example of this type of pseudo-scientific researcher was Jack Watkins, who was employed by the U.S. Army to examine the possibilities of using hypnotism for military purposes. He ran some very famous demonstrations of the power of hypnotism to force secrets out of people, induce self-destructive obedience and even make soldiers perpetrate attacks on their own officers [2]. From a layman’s point of view, these demonstrations are dramatic indicators of the “power” of “hypnosis.” From a scientific point of view, they lacked essential requirements for validity: non-hypnotised experimental control subjects, statistically significant numbers and repeatability. Indeed, while some attempts at replication failed it was also discovered possible to induce non-hypnotised people to do the same things under matching circumstances [3]. From a stage hypnotists point of view, Watkins’ “stunts” are strikingly evocative of the very things we do in a show: inducing people to behave as-though in a state of “hypnosis.” More about which later.
The next authoritative series of studies into hypnotic “phenomena” were conducted by Theodore X. Barber at Colgate University [4]. These experiments were thorough, systematic, and exacting. They invariably uncovered a stunning absence of any evidence for the reality of so-called “hypnotic phenomena.” Some of the experiments were classics of ingenious design, cunningly devised to outmanoeuvre “faking” subjects. My favourite is the DAF experiment.
“DAF” is Delayed Auditory Feedback. A staple claim of hypnotism is that a person can be rendered so deaf they will not hear a pistol fired beside them. A claim repeated all over hypnodom, by almost every “hypnotherapist” and “expert” you can name. Milton Erickson spent a veritable month-of-Sundays trying to prove it, with pathetic results [5]. Barbers approach was simple: A person who can hear is almost incapable of coherent speech whilst being fed a delayed feedback of their own words through earphones ( DAF ). Hypnotise the subjects, induce hypnotic “deafness”, obtain their demonstrable avowal that they cannot hear, then subject them to DAF. Clearly, if hypnotic deafness were as “real” as hypnotised people behave as though it is, they would be able to continue reading aloud from the prepared text. Unfortunately, no! No matter how vividly a hypnotised person may pretend that they cannot hear, under DAF they react the same as when normally able to hear. QED, hypnotic “deafness” is without basis in fact.
This study was first conducted in 1964. Which doesn’t stop “experts” continuing to repeat the assertion that hypnotic deafness is a reality, including the story about the pistol, some even claiming that they were there in person at such an event! One of the most respected “experts” in clinical hypnotism was the late David Waxman. He was repeating this unsupported claim in print as late as 1989 [6].
Barber has been widely misunderstood and his work misrepresented. The phrase “role” which he used to describe the condition of being hypnotised, as opposed to the conventional notion of a “state” of hypnosis has been traduced in the phrase “role play.” The connotation being one of “playing around” or merely pretending. This reflects a deep ignorance of the social-psychological meaning of the term “role.” If we say that a man who is a good father enacts the “role” of father that does not mean that he is only playing at or pretending to be a father! What it means is that under certain circumstances, he will often automatically, unconsciously or even involuntarily behave or react in ways that are appropriate to the role of “father” and distinct from what would otherwise have been the case. The role is in effect an encultured programme of cues and responses.
Out of this period of research emerged a “new paradigm.” Instead of the discredited view that hypnotism induced a “state” of “hypnosis” with a physiological basis, it became understood that the subject was responding to unconscious psychological stimuli. Barber likened it to becoming sucked into a movie and reacting as though the story and characters were real. Another Theodore, Theodore.R.Sarbin, developed further the idea that the subject is conforming to a social construct, a “role” [7].
A third psychologist, Graham Wagstaff at Liverpool later emphasised the realisation that the effect of hypnotism is to modulate not one thing ( “hypnosis” ) but many things ( being common social psychological influences including roles ) [8].
Some research has in recent times utilised FMRI and PET scanning of the brains of hypnotic subjects. Particularly work by John Gruzelier at London [9]. Such studies have been seized upon as evidence for a physiological basis for a state of “hypnosis” by many who have clung to that concept but who have not actually understood the work. These studies reveal how “highs” or very responsive subjects react to hypnotic suggestion with different patterns of neural activation to poor or “low” responders. We already know that only some people are able to respond strongly to hypnotic suggestion. Whilst another minority show no response at all. Clearly, the one group ( “highs” ) run different “strategies” of response to the other group ( “lows” ). The scanning of their brains identifies what the physical correlates of these differences are. It doesn’t tell us whether the behaviour elicited is more “real” or not. By comparison If we scanned the brain of a musician playing a piano it would “light up” very differently to that of someone asked to play a piano without ever having learned a note of music. We would probably also find consistent patterns of different neural activation if we scanned “good” liars by comparison to “bad” liars when they are asked to deliberately lie. It doesn’t mean that the “good” liars are telling the truth!
Indeed, this work confirms the central conjecture of Barber’s hypothesis: that “highs” respond to the hypnotic situation by enacting distinct “strategies” of ideation ( the pianist’s skill ) which “lows” have not learned.
Does this mean that hypnotic behaviour is a lie? Certainly not. If a person repeats a falsehood whilst believing it true, that doe not make them a liar. Hence the distinction between the genuinely hypnotised subject and a simulator or “fake” continues to stand even when we cease to imagine that there is such a thing as a state of “hypnosis”.
A hypnotist may induce a subject to behave in a certain way, such that the effects are experienced as though “in a trance.” In other words, there is still a difference between someone who is “really” hypnotised and one who “fakes” it. That difference largely being that the person who is really hypnotised are themselves caught up in the illusion.
So, in the latter Twentieth Century, the idea that hypnotism entails induction of a state of “hypnosis” of which hypnotic responses are characteristic had been replaced by a new paradigm: that hypnotism entails manipulation of common, normal psychological influences to produce compliance and exceptional ( “hypnotic” ) behaviour, characteristic of which is the illusion of a state of “hypnosis.”
In either view, hypnotism remains the art of inducing and manipulating the process. But in the newer view, no such thing as a state of “hypnosis” is found either necessary to explain the results nor substantiated by them.
Three. The illusion of power.
As a novice to the field I initially argued hard against the scientific evidence. Until the volume overwhelmed my faith in the notion of “hypnosis”. What ultimately tipped the scales was my growing experience as a hypnotist. Martin Orne famously referred to the relationship between a hypnotist and their subject as a “folies a deux.” A shared delusion. I am not one willing to share in other peoples delusions and therefore the mutual self-delusion required for continued belief in “hypnosis” exhibited by some other hypnotists was for me unsustainable. I learned after my first hundred or so subjects to regard everything a person does whilst hypnotised with a bucket or two of the proverbial salt.
More importantly, I learned that the mere fact of “being hypnotised”, the supposed state of “hypnosis” does not of itself enable one to extract any useful or peculiarly hypnotic behaviour from a subject. The induction of “the look” of a state of “hypnosis” is in fact only another screen-for-an-image, another veil, another mis-direction of an observers attention away from the complex work that in practice yields the results that only appear to come from “hypnosis”.
As a stage hypnotist I long ago decided to “come clean” about the fact that the supposed state of “hypnosis” which seems so real when demonstrated in a show is actually an illusion [10]. Actually, this admission was the final stage in a trend going back over a century. In the 1800’s Mesmerists claimed that their subjects could foretell the future, diagnose illnesses and communicate with the dead. Not as an act but a reality. As such absurdity lost credence, the hypnotic performers continued to claim that their subjects could actually become deaf, speak foreign languages and regress to babyhood. Not as an effect but as a reality. As such claims lost their credibility hypnotists continued to claim that their subjects were so under their power that they had no choice but act as though they thought they could speak foreign languages, had gone back to childhood, turned into strip-o-grams, etc. Finally, late in the 20th century, here I was declaring that, ahem, no, in fact all we do, all any hypnotist has ever done, is induce people to do things that normally they would not have agreed to and then interpret that as though being been in a state of “hypnosis” and unbreakably under our control. They may believe it themselves. May swear blind that it was so. But it is still an illusion. A cunningly induced illusion, but not a reality. No more a reality than supposing that David Copperfield really can fly! Like magicians, prestidigitators and other illusionists, our skill requires study and practice, it is a genuine discipline. If there is any doubt as to the subtlety of the method involved, take a look at my book on the matter “The Art and Secrets of Stage Hypnotism” [11].
Four. Theories of conspiracy.
Firstly, it should be apparent that when a body of people organised into societies and associations sustains and constantly reiterates a falsehood for the benefit of their pockets and their self-aggrandisement ( “hypnotherapists”, “experts” ) that this is in itself a conspiracy. The organised “respectable” profession of hypnotism…what Andre M. Weitzenhoffer among others has referred to as the “priesthood” … sustains a façade that conceals the truth, and that is a conspiracy.
But are such hypnotists alone in relying upon the myth of “hypnosis” as a convenient mis-direction or screen-image behind which to conceal the reality of the process?
This leads naturally to the CIA’s work with hypnotism and its possible relevance to “mind-control”.
We must first recognise what hypnotism can not bring to the endeavour before we begin to understand what it can contribute.
A not long de-classified CIA document shows that, in fact, as far back as 1954 the agency did just that [12]. In project Monkey Ward, the man who would eventually oversee some of the agencies most controversial and ambitious schemes such as the plots to assassinate Castro, pharmacist Sidney Gottlieb, sequestered a group of volunteers in a hotel suite and subjected them to several days of intensive testing by consultant hypnotists. Several questions of direct relevance to espionage were addressed. The results were disappointing. Gottlieb’s conclusion being that hypnotism was of virtually no practical use to serious espionage work.
Not that this ended CIA dabbling with The Art. MK Ultra, presided over by Gottlieb, definitely sought to draw on it. By the time “The Control of Candy Jones” appeared in 1976 there was plenty of substantiated CIA hypnotism work to make the story seem all too believable [13]. Except to an experienced stage hypnotist or someone with a thorough knowledge of the academic literature.
To someone with such a knowledge it is immediately apparent that the scenario depicted in Candy Jones is precisely that described by George Estabrooks, another hypnotist employed by the U.S. Army like Watkins, in a chapter of his 1943 book “Hypnotism” [14]. Indeed, it appears as though Bain read Estabrooks or otherwise became aware of his conception of the hypnotic agent, hooked up with TV radio presenter John Nebel, a renowned enthusiast for the weird, who he himself described as a “marvellous charlatan”, and wrote it up as a “true story” with Nebel’s wife Candy in the lead role. To a person used to hypnotising people and familiar with the illusory character of hypnotic behaviour, the resulting story does not ring true at all.
The Estabrooks / Bain scenario and the other allegations accumulated over the years, appear to a practising hypnotist to be so much wishful thinking.
The central proposition that by inducing “hypnosis” every possibility of hypnotism is accessed is simply contradicted by the facts. The possibilities of hypnotism require the chronic manipulation of multiple psychological variables. The irony being that, under such circumstances, no induction of “hypnosis” is required and, in terms of the outdated “trance” stereotype, what occurs is therefore not “hypnotism”.
In other words, could a scenario like that found in The Control of Candy Jones be realised? Debatable. With the right subject and the right circumstances and a gigantic, massively funded and profoundly cunning manipulative strategy, perhaps. Could it be realised by a covert agent posing as a therapist and simply employing stereotyped “hypnosis”, as in the book. Most certainly not.
Let’s face it, a stage hypnotist works with hundreds or thousands of subjects in a year, from all manner of background and profession ( including on my watch, volunteers from management of major corporations and an audience member who was a retired NSA agent from GCHQ ): If by simply inducing “hypnosis” in someone it were possible to obtain such far reaching power over their lives as has been alleged, stage hypnotists – who are usually only motivated by money - would become very wealthy and powerful individuals in no time at all. Just a post-hypnotic suggestion during a phone call could wipe out a debt or obtain services gratis. We could retire young and rich. At least some of us, those not bound by ethics would have. Who are they? Stage hypnotists continue to work into their seventies. The most successful of British stage hypnotists in the mid-twentieth century, Peter Casson, was performing up until months of his death. This fact alone should give anyone pause for thought. It’s like those adverts for books by people claiming to possess the secret of untold financial success. OK, why are they eking out a few dollars by trying to sell books about it? Indeed, one of Britain’s most successful stage hypnotists actually told me that most of his income comes from books and courses of a “how to” nature.
Five. Beyond delusion, beyond the veil.
So it would not be going too far to state that the widespread picture of “hypnosis” in CIA mind control research is in fact a screen-image concealing the reality of what may have proven possible. A screen image that conveniently is repeated and sustained by the very people who would love to unearth the reality and who may well be very critical of what might be revealed, conspiracy theorists themselves. Are those who try to peer beyond the veil really only falling foul of an illusionists mis-direction? Is it the wrong veil?
The important point here is that those who cling to the outdated paradigm of “hypnosis” fail to realise how powerful common psychological influences can be, without “hypnosis.”
To put that another way, when one understands that a volunteer in a hypnotists show can be induced to seemingly exhibit complete obedience, without “hypnosis”, one can begin to recognise that such “hypnosis” is a red-herring. To give you an idea of the kind of thing that would have interested Gottlieb and his colleagues: at a show in a pub in Monmouth, England, I suggested to a young man that a bar-stool was a bomb and that he was a UXB operative. He took the item of furniture, carried it a quarter mile to a major highway ( shadowed by an observer ), crossed to the other side, threw it in the river Usk and returned fifteen minutes later, reporting earnestly that the bomb was now safe because water had flooded the detonators!
How this differs from the “hypnosis” model is in the realisation that (a) merely as a result of inducing supposed “hypnosis” he would not have complied, whereas (b) as a result of being subjected to a long, drawn out and complex setting up of circumstances, he was given a “stage” upon which not merely to comply but spontaneously elaborate.
Or, as has frequently been remarked by other commentators, if you want to induce a person to carry out complex acts on the basis of being hypnotised, don’t bother seeking to induce “hypnosis”, rather, encourage them to think that they are in a hypnotic “experiment.”
We must ask, were these rumours of “mind-control” through “hypnosis” themselves a cunning mis-direction? Were the only real victims of CIA “mind control” in effect those saps who fell for the illusion?
All text copyright (c) 2011 by Alex Tsander. All rights reserved and aggressively policed. Any infringement shall result in a C&D notice and its publication at the "Chilling Effect" site. Infringements will result in those responsible being publicly identified as plagiarists.
Citation is welcome but if you do wish to use any of the text you must contact the author first.
References:
1.
Hull, C.L. “Hypnosis and Suggestibility, An Experimental Approach.” Appleton Century Crofts. 1933.
2.
Watkins, J.G. “Anti Social Compulsions Induced Under Hypnotic Trance.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42. 1947.
3.
Orne, M.T and Evans, F.J. “Social Control in the Psychological Experiment: Antisocial Behaviour anf Hypnosis.” Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 1, pp 181-200. 1965.
4.
Barber, T.X. Spanos, N.P and Chaves, J.F. “Hypnotism, Imagination and Human Potentialities.” Pergamon. 1979.
5.
Erickson, M.H. “A Study on Clinical and Experimental Findings On Hypnotic Deafness, 2.” Journal of General Psychology, 19. Pp 151-167. 1938.
6.
Hartland, J and Waxman, D. “Hartland’s Medical and Dental Hypnosis.” 3rd edityion, edited and re-written by Waxman. Balliere and Tyndale. 1989.
7.
Sarbin, T.R and Coe, W.C. “Hypnosis: A Social Psychological Analysis in Influence Communication. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1972.
8.
Wag staff, G.H. “Hypnosis, Compliance and Belief.” Harvester Press. 1981.
9.
Gruzelier, J.H and Warren. “Neurophysiological Evidence of Reductions on Left Frontal Tests with hypnosis.” Psychologica Medica. 1993, Feb.
10.
“Hypnotist Say’s Others Should Come Clean.” The Stage and Television Today. 1995. January.
11.
Tsander, A. “The Art and Secrets of Stage Hypnotism.” summit other. 2006. ISBN 0-9550731-6-2.
12.
Gottlieb, S. “Monkey Ward.” CIA memo, 1954. 20th January. “Top Secret” reduced to “Confidential” 1977, 6th June. De-classified 2002, 21st January. Freedom Of Information Act case number 1995-00057.
13.
Bain, D. “The Control of Candy Jones.” Circus Books. 1979. Bain, 1976. ISBN 0-7088-1539-1.
14.
Estabrooks, G.H. “Hypnotism” Dutton. 1943.
15.
Tsander, A. “Beyond Hypnosis: Hypnotism, Stage Hypnotism and the Myth of Hypnosis.” Summitother. 2005. ISBN 0-9550731-8-9.
16.
Kline, M.V. “The production of Anti-Social Behaviour: New Clinical Data.” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 20. 1972.
All text copyright (c) 2011 by Alex Tsander. All rights reserved and aggressively policed. Any infringement shall result in a C&D notice and its publication at the "Chilling Effect" site. Infringements will result in those responsible being publicly identified as plagiarists.
Citation is welcome but if you do wish to use any of the text you must contact the author first.
The above text, combination of references and compilation of bibliography is Copyright (c) 2011
by Alex Tsander, all rights reserved.
If you wish to re-publish I will be likely to consent but such consent must be obtained from me in writing (albeit in E-mail) in advance. I am very particular about copyright enforcement and any transgression will at the very least result in a C&D dispatch and its posting at the Chilling Effect site as well as notification of platform providers. Transgression of my copyright has in previous instances lead to the removal of entire web-sites.
by Alex Tsander, all rights reserved.
If you wish to re-publish I will be likely to consent but such consent must be obtained from me in writing (albeit in E-mail) in advance. I am very particular about copyright enforcement and any transgression will at the very least result in a C&D dispatch and its posting at the Chilling Effect site as well as notification of platform providers. Transgression of my copyright has in previous instances lead to the removal of entire web-sites.
