I think the most bizarre thing about this story is that the Daily Mail actually seem to be more cautious about how they label this entire
event. The Daily Mail’s title of the story was:
They still refer to ‘trance’ and then refer to the shopkeeper who “falls into what appears to be a trance-like state”- which is not really what hypnosis is, ‘trance’ and ‘hypnosis’ are not
synonymous.
Mr Haider, the shopkeeper is quoted in this story as saying “It was late and I was tired, I’m not sure but it was like I was hypnotised.”
Oooookaaaayy…. Sooooo, if he had experienced hypnosis before, he would know what hypnosis was like and would be able to say without doubt, “I was hypnotised” but he says that he is not sure, so he clearly has not been
hypnotised before. If he has not been hypnotised before, how does he know that what went on in his shop was anything to do with hypnosis? It is perhaps how he might imagine hypnosis to be based on popular myth and misconception.
Hypnosis is collaborative. It is a cognitive skill. You must actively participate in it. You are not a wholly passive recipient of it. it is not done TO you. It is not done ON you. In fact there are much
better ways of getting people to do things they do not want to do than using hypnosis. Most thieves use fear and threats of violence to take money from shops, which definitely alters the mindset of the shopkeeper.
From looking at the evidence, a lot of distraction seemed to be used. Not just by looking at the footage, but lets look at some of the other quotes. Mr Haider the shopkeeper goes on to say “He said his wife was in
trouble and needed someone to help her.” This smacks of distraction. He goes on to say “He was touching my stomach saying "my wife is pregnant" - it’s an old trick of the professionals.”
If it’s an old trick, why classify it as hypnosis?
This next bit is crucial….
He then
says;
'I was thinking, what should I give to him? Maybe he wanted water, tonic water?
'I feel really shocked by it. I thought, "why is he touching me?" But by that time it was too late.'
He was shocked, he was slightly confused, he was distracted….
Ok, some of these elements might be considered hypnotic in some quarters… But
it is tenuous at best to say hypnosis was somehow being wielded to commit a crime.
The thief also acted totally usually and was calm, he assumed the outcome, which could be angled as a hypnotic behaviour and quality (a la Clark Hull, 1993) and he clearly had a degree of expectation, which again could be attributed to the hypnotic theory.
But the shopkeeper had no
expectation about it and that is how expectation is explained in hypnosis, that the recipient had expectation.
One of the other clips on the Daily Mail page is titled “Police Baffled at thief who apparently ‘hypnotised’ victim - to me, there is very little that is apparent to suggest hypnosis, but I appreciate them putting the word in in quotation marks.
And this is
the point, isn’t it?
The word hypnosis builds intrigue, gets readers interested, and sensationalises the story…
But at what cost?
It perpetuates popular nonsense, myth and misconception about the field of hypnosis and what it is really about.
Some might argue that there is no such thing as bad
publicity for the field of hypnosis, and it’ll enhance the perception that people know it to be powerful, but I think that is fairly weak too. It misleads and creates a false impression that in my opinion puts as many people off what we do than actually promotes our field.
These are my thoughts, do go and look at the clip if you've not already seen it, let me know if you disagree or have a different take on the story. I think the
sensationalist use of the word 'hypnosis' is what really makes this story grab headlines. I will be back next week.
