iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 12/09/2026

Three subjects successfully tricked the interrogator by pretending to either hesitantly or involuntarily offer up a false answer. I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille. (nerd humour, I guess.)

Bonus very-uncreepy script about how one of the "girls" hilariously almost spilled the beans on how to make a new secret type of fuel. For propelling rockets. From [Watkins 1947].

Decades before "The Manchurian Candidate," this tense, climactic episode leaves audiences awed. Because some people say that these demonstrations are ecologically invalid, witness the Lt Col's testimony that the man's grip was strong, and dangerous, and maybe lethal! The astounding irony of it, thinking his Lt Col, who is certainly the sort of person you'd rope into a demonstration like this, was a dirty [redacted] soldier! Casual era-appropriate ethnic slurs from [Watkins 1947, "Antisocial compulsions induced under hypnotic trance"], in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. It doesn't say who the peer reviewers were.

000

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 12/09/2026

Attempt 4, involuntary signalling, was inspired by a hypnotherapy technique (for "asking the unconscious"): when the subjects hear their number, they'll twitch. Two subjects cunningly inserted false cues. Scored 5/26, rated most-difficult by subjects (likely b/c it's just an ideomotor suggestion).

It works better to have your hypnotic subjects choose their own involuntary tick, because you don't know how they feel about their limbs twitching or how uncomfortable they are in that chair. From Erickson & Rossi -- no, from [Field & Dworkin 1967].

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 12/09/2026

Attempt 3, "Shame!", told subjects they feel real guilty about lying to Dr. Bad Cop for their silly little secret. I had fun imagining this one read out. Scored 2/26, but rated 3rd most-difficult by subjects, the sociopaths. (j/k, all these would involve subjects speaking, a relatively complex act.)

"How dare Dr. Good Cop ask you to lie for him! Aren't you angered by his presumption? And aren't you ashamed to be his accomplice?... no, you're not, just relax." From [Field & Dworkin 1967].

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 12/09/2026

Attempt 1, "What number did you pick?", scored 0/26. Attempt 2 told subjects to forget they're supposed to conceal something and now to see their number "at the back of their throat" and moving forward to the tip of the tongue and when it passes their lips they'll say it! Scored 1/26.

How to cancel hypnotic suggestions: "All right, forget all that, just relax." (It's always seemed weird to me how that's supposed to work, as though the cancellation is a tiny alteration in reality to the subjects, unlike the suggestion.) From [Field & Dworkin 1967].

Inspired by this script, totally not a creepy fantasy of violent misogynistic abuse, in [Watkins 1947].

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 12/09/2026

a couple from the "experimental psychologists are jerks" file, and a warning from Orne about ecological invalidity. Undeterred, F & D got 26 undergrads, ran 'em through SHSS:A, woke them to pick a number from 0 to 9 not to reveal to Dr. Bad Cop (they switched off), re-induced, and went to work.

Stories from before ethics committees had to sign off on experimental designs, I guess. As recounted by [Field & Dworkin 1967].

Ecological invalidity: "the laboratory is a pseudoreality situation in which subjects feel protected no matter what they are asked to do," unlike a real situation with real consequences.

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 12/09/2026

"Strategies of Hypnotic Interrogation" [Field & Dworkin 1967] tackles "one of the most fascinating questions in research on hypnosis." Their lit review: some rejected skits for a B-movie about a charismatic & likely very sexy army doctor who hypnotises soldiers in the Pacific theatre [Watkins 1947],

Field & Dworkin tactfully accept Watkins' explanation that he used only the best hypnotic subjects for his amazing demonstrations that totally happened.

Pause for laughter. From [Watkins 1947].

(Continuation.) Those military men are putty in his hands. From [Watkins 1947].

110

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

But you can get other effects from looking at a block of text. Try picking a spot in the middle to gaze at; I find it helps to use a 'relaxed gaze'. Do you see changes in how the block looks, in word size or spacing, or what words you can see/read? I get a 'wallpaper' effect where the text starts to

Words, words, words: A block of text from a study done on trilingual speakers of English, Arabic, and Hebrew -- for your convenience as a visual example, not a covert attempt to sneak another 3k characters in. (Really.)

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 21/08/2026

our visual hardware was not built to make sense of. Try this image. Keep your gaze fixed on the central dot. Soon the appearance of the filled region starts to change, and then change a lot. Don't worry if your eyes move; just go back to the dot & know you can now recreate the effect more easily.

A beige rectangle inside a white field, with a small black central dot. (The beige is HSL 60/30/70, or in MSPaint's RGB, 175/175/120.) When I keep my gaze fixed on the dot, I see the rectangle edges start to become less defined, the light regions blur together, more and more, shifting. If I can hold my gaze long enough, eventually everything away from the black dot can look like it's the same colour!

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 12/08/2026

Some people can have extraordinary, psychedelic (lit. "mind-manifesting") experiences via hypnosis, the fearsome stuff of mythic shamanic 'journeys to the spirit realm' and 'possessions.' It sounds fascinating. That's what I'd want to do, if it could be done. ("Mindless toy" sounds more achievable).

From [Cardeña 2005, "The phenomenology of deep hypnosis"], a study about the self-hypnotic experiences of 12 virtuosos.

110

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 11/08/2026

Resolving to not entertain thoughts about their behaviour during a future hypnosis experience led to increased suggestibility for low suggestible subjects in [Schweiger Gallo et al. 2012, "Furnishing hypnotic instructions with implementation intentions enhances hypnotic responsiveness"].

Difference in pre- and post-test behavioural HGSHS [12 items] scores. The "hypnotic instruction" is a short informational tape based on [Gorassini 2002]'s very condensed version of CSTP. It contains "information designed to dispel common misconception about hypnosis" and instructions "to make each suggested response (not just wait for it to happen); and to simultaneously adopt each suggested depiction of reality." The control group was given word search puzzles to occupy their time.

Difference in pre- and post-test felt involuntariness HGSHS [12 items, rated 0 = "not at all involuntary" to 3 = "involuntary to a great degree"] scores. The "hypnotic instruction" is a short informational tape based on [Gorassini 2002]'s very condensed version of CSTP. It contains "information designed to dispel common misconception about hypnosis" and instructions "to make each suggested response (not just wait for it to happen); and to simultaneously adopt each suggested depiction of reality." The control group was given word search puzzles to occupy their time.

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 08/08/2026

go about trying to bend rods of iron or to walk through walls or to do other futile things just because someone suggests an attempt. Are there people, then, who pass this challenge by refusing to try out of a (sincere, deluded) belief that there's no sense in trying? The answer is "yes, there are."

"Tremblers" (16/20 subjects) passed the arm-rigidity challenge by activating both biceps and triceps. "Non-tremblers" (4/20) did not activate biceps (but apparently "Non-Tremblers maintained sustained [triceps] contraction throughout"). Some non-tremblers encountered "an inability to initiate the motor command" to bend their arm, and at least one "reported not trying at all... because it felt impossible from the outset."

000

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 04/08/2026

imagery *caused* hypnotic response had encountered setbacks, and a more modest role was proposed: when the subject's *attention* becomes absorbed in goal-directed fantasies they fail to notice that they are in fact voluntarily enacting their hypnotic responses. Consider an arm rigidity challenge...

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 04/08/2026

The central metaphor of the Carleton Skills Training Package [Gorassini & Spanos 1986, "A socio-cognitive skills approach to the successful modification of hypnotic susceptibility"] is that hypnosis is like a game of make-believe. Snoopy sits on his doghouse, pretending he is a WWI flying ace after

Pre- and post-training stats for the experimental groups. CURSS is a 7-item scale. Objective scores reflect behavioural response (e.g. the subject's arm rose a certain amount) [7 pts], subjective scores report experienced response to suggestion (e.g. the subject's arm felt light) [21 pts; each item is scored between 0 and 3, 'not at all' to 'to a great degree'], and objective-involuntariness scores report successful behavioural responses that felt involuntary to the subject [7 pts]. In the main treatment group, "Information + Model," pre- and post-training averages increased greatly: objective scores, from 2.3 to 5.3; subjective scores, from 6.2 to 11.1; involuntariness scores, from 0.9 to 3.2. The control group did filler tasks for the same duration (objective scores fell 2.2 to 1.5), and the 'Practice alone' group just practiced more hypnotic suggestions for the same duration (objective scores unchanged).

110

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 28/07/2026

Notes: Reported intentional (effortful) GDFs were uncommon in the standard group, and rare in the modified group. Automatic ("just popped into their minds") GDFs were in between, but same frequency in both groups. Intentional goal imagery was common, and automatic goal imagery was not measured.

Key: CURSS objective (e.g. subject's arm was raised), out of 7 pts. CURSS subjective (e.g. subject felt their arm to be lighter), out of 28 pts (for each item, 0 = "not at all" and 4 = "to a great degree"). Involuntariness (behavioural resp "seemed to happen by itself," or for challenge items "whether they could have done it if they wanted to"), out of 7 pts. Belief (subject reported believing e.g. their arm actually had become lighter), out of 7 pts. [Involuntariness and belief scores for items not behaviourally passed were set at 0.] Goal imagery (subject intentionally imagined e.g. their arm rising, or their arm being lighter), out of 24 pts (same scale as subj scores, but amnesia item was not scored). GDF is number of items reported using "any circumstances they imagined that, were they actually to have occurred, would have generated the suggested responses," out of 7 pts. [Goal imagery and GDF scores did not require items to be passed. GDF scores appear not to include failed attempts to generate imagery.] Passive resp means neither intentional imagery nor behaviour, out of 7 pts. Columns: "Instruction" is group with standard imagery wording, "No instruction" is group without imagery in suggestion scripts.

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 28/07/2026

Result, this remarkable chart: in the modified group, 12 subjects scored 0 (no behavioural resp to any sugg), but in the standard group it was 35! (That's about 9% vs 27%.) That's a lot of people who may have walked away thinking they're no good at hypnotic responding for no good reason!

Distribution of CURSS scores using standard script (using imagery instructions) vs modified script (without imagery instructions). The means were 2.1 and 2.75, respectively. Total number of study participants was 259. CURSS [Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale] has 7 items: 2 ideomotor, 2 challenge, 2 perceptual, 1 amnesia. One of the perceptual items is to pet a hallucinated kitten!

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 28/07/2026

"Spontaneous goal-directed imagery was significantly correlated with behavioral response, but intentional imagery was not" in [Comey & Kirsch 1999]. A goal-directed fantasy (GDF) is a story a subject imagines that explains a hypnotic response, e.g. pulleys or helium pumps for arm-raising.

Spontaneous GDFs correlated with behavioural and subjective responses, involuntariness of response, and belief in the reality of suggestion contents. "Passive responding" means neither intentional imagery or voluntary behaviour. One possible reason for weak correlations is the presence of distinct subtypes of responders (eg, some people benefit from imagery and fantasy, but some people do not).

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 22/07/2026

...for either (CT) reduced critical thinking [an aspect of mental relaxation], (AB) increased absorption, or (RX) more [physical] relaxation. Group RX actually saw decreases in responsiveness, average -0.87 change in behavioural response and -0.23 change in responses felt as involuntary

Script addition for 'reduced critical thought' group: "Some people find that they respond better to these tests when they avoid thinking critically. Allow yourself to let go completely... don't question what you're being asked to do and experience... just go with the flow...," etc.

Script addition for 'increased absorption' group: "Some people find that they respond better to these tests when they are very focused.... Let your attention narrow down... focus only on the things I say... become totally absorbed in what you're doing... let all other things slip from your mind," etc.

Script addition for 'more relaxation' group: "Allow yourself to feel completely relaxed... more and more relaxed... your breathing is slow and regular," etc.

110

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 22/07/2026

Telling subjects to "avoid thinking, don't question, don't analyse, just go with the flow" or to "focus only on the things I say, concentrate on nothing else, become utterly engrossed in this experience" increased hypnotic suggestibility compared to instructions for physical relaxation alone in...

Bar graph of changes in behavioural responses to 8 test suggestions before and after 3 different hypnotic inductions. The vertical axis here is mislabelled (it should read "Objective change").

Bar graph of changes in number of behavioural responses to 8 test suggestions that subjects reported to be felt as "occurring 'by itself'" rather than done "deliberately, to go along with the test," before and after 3 different hypnotic inductions.

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 15/07/2026

and combined (both verbal and lights). Merely being told they'd be highly hypnotisable showed a small effect (~1 point average on a 12-point scale), but getting the light show made a big difference (~2.3 points), and the bogus lights plus verbal reinforcement a bigger one (~3 points).

The increased subjective scores in the experiential groups were also statistically larger than in the control group.

100

indirected @indirected.bsky.social · 15/07/2026

flickering, etc) which, by this clandestine manipulation, appeared to succeed. They were then given items from a well-regarded suggestibility scale (SHSS:C). Result: a large shift toward higher scores relative to a control group (not shown the bogus light show).

Subjects led to believe they'd experienced a perceptual hypnotic suggestion ('experiential' and 'combined') subsequently scored significantly higher on the Stanford C scale of hypnotic suggestibility.

100