[ExI] Physics versus psychology

[Keith Henson]

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'd say it's just lucky [sic] that we happened to discover a
>>> particular exploit of human awareness and learning that hypnosis is
>>> possible under certain conditions (set/setting, prior experience,
>>> willingness, etc.)
>>
>> You are at the wrong level.
>>
>> Taken that hypnosis exists, then why do human have it at all?  Why was
>> it selected in the human past?  I.e., how did it contribute to
>> reproductive success?
>>
>> Or is it a side effect of some other trait that did contribute to
>> reproductive success?
>
> Please explain what you mean by hypnosis.

It is discussed here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis

> I'm imagining the stage
> performance of making people thing they're a chicken or a clinical
> suggestion to quit smoking.  Are you talking about how this would be
> useful for a population that it would be exploited or cultivated?

No.

What I am asking is how this particular psychological trait became
established.  If indeed it did and is not dependent on some other
psychological trait that does confer reproductive advantage.

". . . most subsequent scales measure the degree of observed or
self-evaluated responsiveness  to specific suggestion tests, such as
direct suggestions of arm rigidity (catalepsy). The Stanford, Harvard,
HIP, and most other susceptibility scales convert numbers into an
assessment of a person's susceptibility as 'high', 'medium', or 'low'.
Approximately 80% of the population are medium, 10% are high and 10%
are low. There is some controversy as to whether this is distributed
on a “normal” bell-shaped curve or whether it is bi-modal with a small
“blip” of people at the high end.[19] Hypnotizability Scores are
highly stable over a person’s lifetime. Research by Deirdre Barrett
has found that there are two distinct types of highly susceptible
subjects which she terms fantasizers and dissociaters. Fantasizers
score high on absorption scales, find it easy to block out real-world
stimuli without hypnosis, spend much time daydreaming, report
imaginary companions as a child and grew up with parents who
encouraged imaginary play. Dissociaters often have a history of
childhood abuse or other trauma, learned to escape into numbness, and
to forget unpleasant events. Their association to “daydreaming” was
often going blank rather than vividly recalled fantasies. Both score
equally high on formal scales of hypnotic susceptibility."

> If
> so, I think BillK's example is a decent explanation:  those who ready
> accept dominion from a strong leader are rewarded with breeding
> opportunity

Is hypnosis of the kind above related to breeding opportunities?  Can
you cite research on this point?  Far as my extensive reading into
this area goes, most primitive strong leaders have lots of breeding
opportunities without providing them to followers.

> while those who oppose the dominant leader are challenged
> - winning the challenge probably involves ostracism from the group

Really?  Any cites on this?  Social groups do have turnover at the
top, if for no other reason people get old, weak, demented and die.

> (smugly satisfied, but lower breeding likelihood) while failing the
> challenge probably leads to reduced breeding chance too.  The only
> time resistance to hypnosis is advantageous is in the presence of a
> codependent trait for leadership (such as physical size/brute
> strength)

I think you are making a bunch of unjustified assumptions about how
the ability to be hypnotized is connected to other traits.

Is there research showing leaders to be on one end or the other of the
above scale?  Do leaders rank high, low or is there no correlation?

Now, high status is known to be a large factor in reproductive success
among primates.  I have no idea of how or if there is any connection
to hypnosis.

It would be an interesting point to research though.

Keith