Funny, I just read that article this morning before I read Brad's post.
I also watched Penn & Teller's Bullsh!t episode on Hypnosis: http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/68147/detail/
Proponents of hypnotism regular cite "evidence" but rarely cite any significant scientific studies (without bias) that back up the claims.
It seems to me that some people need "permission" to lose weight, quit smoking, even to achieve orgasm!
Where are the studies in the New England Journal of Medicine (or any other non-hypnosis friendly journal) that bear out the claims and provide hard quantitative data that prove the efficacy of hypnosis to truly "cure" people of what ails 'em?
Heck, I'd be happy to see the hypnotist community actually come to an agreement of just "what" hypnotism "is"...
I like Brad, and admire his thinking, but I have to ask, what exactly does this mean:
Research has shown that belief in hypnosis is irrelevant to its efficacy. However, you do have to be willing to commit to the process fully.
Some would say that you can't fully commit *to* the process unless you believe *in* the process. Substitute "commit to" with "believe in" and you have two contradictory statements.
Of course, one can commit to the thought that UFOs, Bigfoot and the Yeti exist, but that doesn't mean that they do. Only rational proof of existence separate reality from the supernatural... Then again, hypnotism is often about wish fulfillment.
Still an open (and not very sleepy) mind...