from the world's big
How hypnotizable are you? There’s a test for that.
Ever lose yourself in a great book or movie? This is a form of hypnosis.
I always loved the hypnotist show at the state fair in the summertime. A smooth talking showman usually asks for volunteers from an attentive crowd. Once, I saw the entertainer choose an intimidating, muscle bound man, who quickly became convinced that he was a pretty, little girl. Another, serious and dowdy woman found herself strutting and clucking like a chicken across the stage.
There are lots of myths surrounding hypnosis, such as, that you can only tell the truth when you are under, that you can be controlled, or that the hypnotist can wipe your memory. These are all false. In fact, such fanfare delegitimizes hypnotherapy, as does Hollywood which often portray hypnotists as con men or villains.
In the clinical world, hypnosis has been used to help people quit smoking, overcome phobias, and control pain. But is there really something at work here, or is it all just the power of suggestion? Despite a body of evidence suggesting its validity, hypnotherapy remains controversial. History can tell us why.
Austrian physician Franz Mesmer was the first recorded figure to utilize hypnosis for clinical aims. The 18th century medical celebrity, from whom we get the term “mesmerize," used it to heal all sorts of ailments. The French crown remained unconvinced, and so King Louis XVI assembled a committee to investigate whether hypnosis held any credence. American ambassador Benjamin Franklin was among them, and lent his name to the enterprise. In 1784, the “Franklin Commission" deemed “mesmerism" devoid of therapeutic benefit.
Franz Mesmer demonstrating his ability to hypnotize subjects.
Despite this, hypnosis was used medically throughout the 19th century. For instance, Scottish surgeon James Esdaile is said to have operated on thousands in India between 1845 and 1851, without the benefit of anesthetic. Instead, he used hypnosis, and is said to have successfully controlled patient pain and brought the death rate down to five percent. Today, the death rate from surgery is 1.14%.
Although the Franklin Commission report besmirched the practice for centuries, by the 1950s, researchers had a body of evidence proving its worth, and even discovered ways to measure hypnotizability. Over 12,000 scholarly papers have been published on the subject over the years, according to Penn State psychologist William Ray. This helped restore the practice's credibility. Ray himself has conducted EEG studies on patients under hypnosis.
One of these concluded that the practice can cancel out the emotional aspect of pain. Neuroscientists recently discovered that pain actually travels two channels inside the brain. It first registers it in the sensory cortex, but its meaning is deciphered in the prefrontal cortex. The emotional center within the latter, acts as a dimmer switch, intensifying or muting pain, depending on the person's opinion of it. Stress and anxiety surrounding pain make it worse.
According to Dr. Mark Jensen, a psychologist at the University of Washington, patients under hypnosis told that their pain is only minor, allows them to interpret it differently, lifting anxiety and despair, and making them feel better. Some experts believe hypnosis can have tremendous therapeutic value to those with chronic pain, in a way free of drugs, invasive procedures, or side effects. But there's also bad news.
French first responders deliver therapeutic hypnotism to a car accident victim.
A Stanford University study, published in 2012, found that not everyone is susceptible. Researchers, using an fMRI, scanned the brains of 12 adults who were highly hypnotizable and 12 who were not. Three specific areas were examined, the default mode network—the holding pattern of the brain, the executive control network, which controls brain and bodily functions, and the salience network—responsible for deciding what is important and what isn't.
This study was led by David Spiegel, MD, professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford. In 1972, he made headlines for undergoing shoulder surgery and refusing pain medication afterward. Instead, he hypnotized himself and reportedly felt little pain. One of his previous studies found that painkiller use dropped by half, among chronic pain patients who practiced self-hypnosis. A recent string of research supports this, having found that self-hypnosis can reduce the pain of childbirth.
According to Spiegel, those who can be hypnotized tend to be more intuitive, trusting, imaginative, and are more likely to get caught up in a movie or book than others. They are also less likely to insist on order and logic in every situation. Even so, the ability to be hypnotized was found less to do with personality and more to do with brain structure, what Spiegel calls a “neural trait." He and colleagues found that participants who were hypnotizable showed greater activity between the executive control and salience networks. Those with a low susceptibility however, saw little activity between these two regions.
Researchers found a drop in activity in a part of the salience network called the dorsal anterior cingulate in the hypnotizable. This tells the brain what to pay attention to and what to ignore. When you're worried, it lights up. But under hypnosis, it tends to calm down. The second thing they noticed was a strong connection between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the insula, which controls heart rate and blood pressure, among other functions. “They fire together, basically," Spiegel said. This means that “your brain in hypnosis is intensifying its connection to your body."
A hypnosis session to help participants quit smoking.
Other regions however saw less activity. The part of the brain responsible for self-reflection, becomes less active. “That's why sometimes people will do embarrassing or silly things in staged hypnosis shows," Spiegel said. “They're not thinking about themselves doing it, they're just doing it." He and his team concluded that, “…altered functional connectivity in [the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex] and [the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex] may underlie hypnotizability."
Take the hypnotism test
Spiegel believes he was on the verge of identifying a brain signature for hypnotizability. About 25% of people cannot undergo hypnosis. There is a test in place to tell, known as the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales. People are rated from 0 to 12 on responsiveness. One's susceptibility can be low, medium, or high. Around 80% of the population fall in the medium range. 10% are in the high range and 10% have low susceptibility. Just like IQ, hypnotizability remains constant throughout the person's life. Some longitudinal studies found that 25 years later, retested subjects had nearly the same scores.
Of course, you probably experience hypnosis all the time and don't even know it. Have you ever been so sucked into a movie that you don't notice what's going on around you? Technically, that's a hypnotic state. You're so hyper-focused that you block out everything else. Those who are more likely to become engrossed in such things are more susceptible to hypnosis. In such a state, what we call a trance, a person can be led by a therapist through specific tasks or to reflect on certain thoughts. At this point, your subconscious is more open to suggestion. But that doesn't mean you lose your will. Both your will and your judgment remain intact.
By understanding this mental state further, we will likely get a better picture of how consciousness and our perception of reality work, Byzantine stuff that will take a lot of time to unravel. However, the Human Connectome Project and other brain mapping studies are likely, over time, make significant headway.
To learn more about the scientific basis of hypnosis, click here:
Sallie Krawcheck and Bob Kulhan will be talking money, jobs, and how the pandemic will disproportionally affect women's finances.
A neuroscientist argues that da Vinci shared a disorder with Picasso and Rembrandt.
- A neuroscientist at the City University of London proposes that Leonardo da Vinci may have had exotropia, allowing him to see the world with impaired depth perception.
- If true, it means that Da Vinci would have been able to see the images he wanted to paint as they would have appeared on a flat surface.
- The finding reminds us that sometimes looking at the world in a different way can have fantastic results.
The study<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc3Mjc2NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTA4MDg2NH0.T-98YvLjS9mUCQkgqHyV43Q7h_JIiubrev-Fp_0j4Pg/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C38%2C0%2C579&height=700" id="58346" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="674799ba34e115a2e9a3e94c366bfc26" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The Virtuvian Man. Christopher Tyler suggests that Da Vinci used his own image as a template for the face in the drawing.
Vitruvian Man, by Leonardo da Vinci created c. 1480–1490<p><a href="https://www.city.ac.uk/people/academics/christopher-tyler" target="_blank">Professor Christopher Tyler</a> of the City University of London's optometry division analyzed six pieces of Renaissance art by or held to be images of Da Vinci, including the famous <em>Vitruvian Man. </em>By looking at the paintings, drawings, and statues and applying the same techniques optometrists use on patients, Tyler was able to conclude that the eyes of the men depicted were misaligned.</p><p> He concluded that, if the images he analyzed were truly reflective of how Da Vinci looked, that the great artist had a mild case of exotropia. </p>
How would this have helped him paint?<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b221010aa7688734d4d6a41f0df5933f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j6F-sHhmfrY?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p><a href="https://shileyeye.ucsd.edu/faculty/shira-robbins" target="_blank">Shira Robbins</a>, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of California at San Diego, who was not involved with the project, explained to <em><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/10/19/leonardo-da-vincis-genius-may-be-rooted-in-a-common-eye-disorder-new-study-says/?utm_term=.d3f44ed91c16" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> </em>how individuals with exotropia often turn to additional information to help understand the world around them:</p><blockquote>"What happens in some people is when they're only using one eye . . . they develop other cues besides traditional depth perception to understand where things are in space, looking at color and shadow in a way that most of us who use both eyes at a time don't really appreciate." </blockquote><p>Dr. Robbins agrees that, if the artworks analyzed accurately depict Da Vinci, then he probably had exotropia.</p><p>If Da Vinci did have a mild form of the condition, which would allow him to focus with both eyes when concentrating and with one when relaxed, Tyler asserts that the famed artist could have viewed the world in two or three dimensions at will, showing him the world exactly as he would need to recreate it on a flat surface. Quite the superpower for an artist.</p>
Does this mean Da Vinci would have been a hack if he had normal eyesight?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc3MjY5NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjYwOTgxOH0.eSu3YBpCuaDj59-4lzSeZ1WgwtV2ETGiWHqczzW3how/img.png?width=980" id="9c323" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="edd4e9e9d9c1156a53242df6288d7cc0" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A graph showing the difference in where each eye is focused for each painting, drawing, and statue used in the study. The larger the difference, the more pronounced the exotropia is in the image.<p>Not at all. What Dr. Tyler is suggesting is that the tendency of people who have exotropia to rely on using one eye to see the world and thereby lose some depth perception allowed Da Vinci to understand better how the three-dimensional objects in the world could be translated into a two-dimensional image on a canvas. This could account for some of Da Vinci's skill in depicting shadow and subtle changes in color, since he would have relied on these details to understand the world. <br><br>His polymathic brilliance extended far beyond art, and nobody is claiming that his ideas for flying machines, tanks, or <a href="http://www.da-vinci-inventions.com/davinci-inventions.aspx" target="_blank">other inventions </a>were at all influenced by a vision problem.</p>
How can we know this? He has been dead for five hundred years.<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c26fc51b0aebbcd6905593015fec79e5"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LRAptNtN9-A?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>There are reasons to be cautious anytime we make claims about people who are long dead. In this case, we have the bonus problem that we aren't 100 percent sure that the images used are supposed to look like Da Vinci. </p><p> That is the major caveat of the idea; all of the images used as evidence of his condition are assumed to look like him. While some of the images, like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Verrocchio)" target="_blank"><em>David</em> by Andrea del Verrocchio</a>, are generally agreed to be based on Leonardo the other pictures are claimed to be reflective of him based only on his statement that "[The soul] guides the painter's arm and makes him reproduce himself, since it appears to the soul that this is the best way to represent a human being." </p><p>Tyler also argues that the portraits he claims are based on Da Vinci share similarities with the images generally accepted to be portraits of him; including similar hair and facial features. This lends weight to the idea that the artist incorporated his own traits into his artwork, including his vision problem. </p><p>Leonardo da Vinci was undoubtedly one of the greatest geniuses of all time. If he had exotropia, then it was merely a minor addition to his artistic skills. It does, however, give us a literal example of how people who look at the world differently can use that vantage point to their advantage to create things we all can appreciate. </p>
Want help raising your kids? Spend more time at church, says new study.
- Religious people tend to have more children than secular people, but why remains unknown.
- A new study suggests that the social circles provided by regular church going make raising kids easier.
- Conversely, having a large secular social group made women less likely to have children.
Be fruitful and multiply<p>Scientists in the United Kingdom collected data on more than 13,000 mothers and their children. Most of them were religious, but 12 percent were not. The data included information on their church habits, social networks, number of children, and the scores those children achieved on a standardized test.</p><p>In line with previous findings that religious women have more children than secular women in industrialized countries, a connection between at least monthly church attendance and fertility was confirmed. However, religious parents showed they could avoid the pitfalls that having more children can bring. </p><p>Typically, more children in a family leads to reduced cognitive ability and height in each <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/37/6/1408/729795" target="_blank">child</a>. Some studies find that children do less well in school for each <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-016-0471-0" target="_blank">additional sibling they have</a>. This makes a kind of intuitive sense, as parents with more children would have to divide their time, energy, and resources among more people as families expand. One would expect that the larger families would also lead to things like lower test scores. </p><p>Despite the expectation, the children of religious parents didn't have lower scores on standardized tests. There were small positive relationships between the size of the mother's social network, the number of co-religionists helping out, and the children's test scores. However, this association was small, didn't show up in all of the testings, and was unrelated to other variables. </p> These effects might be explained by the size and helpfulness of the social networks around the more religious. Women who went to church at least once a month had more extensive social networks than those who never go or who attend yearly. These social networks of co-religious people mean that there are more people to turn to for help with child-rearing, a point also demonstrated in the data. The amount of aid women got from their fellow churchgoers was also associated with a higher fertility rate. <br> <br> Conversely, an extensive social network was associated with fewer children for secular women. This finding is in line with <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/s15327957pspr0904_5" target="_blank">previous studies</a> and suggests that the social networks comprised of co-religious individuals differ from those found elsewhere.
So, how quickly should I join a local religious group?<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="6RrmYM8M" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="9eb4740a7d1e10108a75fd2ed627a90f"> <div id="botr_6RrmYM8M_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/6RrmYM8M-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/6RrmYM8M-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/6RrmYM8M-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>The study is not without its faults, and more investigations into the relationship between fertility, childcare, ritual, and social networks are needed.</p><p>These findings all show correlation, not causation. Though it might be said the results point towards causation, various alternative interpretations of the data are apparent. The authors note that most religions are explicitly pro-natal. It is possible that religious women have internalized these values and simply choose to have more children than secular women do.</p><p>This idea is similar to a potential interpretation of why large social networks have the opposite effect for secular women. The authors suggest that, in some cases, these more extensive social networks are associated with work and exert an anti-natal influence. Again, the people who build such networks may be people unlikely to have large families under any circumstances.</p><p>However, the researchers' hypothesis endured. The help religious women get from their church-based social networks allows them to have larger families than those who lack these support systems. In some instances, these support systems also prevent the adverse effects of larger families. </p>
The community religion offers<p>As we've mentioned <a href="https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/what-is-secular-humanism" target="_blank">before</a>, religion offers a community, and a community provides social capital. As religion continues to decline in the West, the social bonds of faith communities that used to tie social communities together begin to decay. However, as has been noted by a variety of observers for the last few decades, fewer and fewer new organizations appear ready to replace religion as a source of community in our lives.</p><p>While many different organizations might offer social support that religion once provided the whole of western society, this study shows that different social circles can differently affect the people in them. This finding must be considered by those trying to find new communities to join or the authors of future research. </p><p>The community offered by religious groups provides real benefits to those who join them. As this study shows, having the support network religious community offers allows some parents to avoid pitfalls that bedevil those lacking similar support. It suggests that previous studies demonstrating that group ritual offers benefits like increased amounts of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612472910" target="_blank">group trust</a> and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1069397103037002003" target="_blank">cooperation</a> are onto something and that those benefits have a variety of applications. </p><p>While this study is not without its blind spots, it offers a strong starting point for further investigations into the nature of ritual in our modern lives and how local support networks remain vital in our increasingly globalized world. </p>
Health officials in China reported that a man was infected with bubonic plague, the infectious disease that caused the Black Death.
- The case was reported in the city of Bayannur, which has issued a level-three plague prevention warning.
- Modern antibiotics can effectively treat bubonic plague, which spreads mainly by fleas.
- Chinese health officials are also monitoring a newly discovered type of swine flu that has the potential to develop into a pandemic virus.
Bacteria under microscope
needpix.com<p>Today, bubonic plague can be treated effectively with antibiotics.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Unlike in the 14th century, we now have an understanding of how this disease is transmitted," Dr. Shanthi Kappagoda, an infectious disease physician at Stanford Health Care, told <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/seriously-dont-worry-about-the-plague#Heres-how-the-plague-spreads" target="_blank">Healthline</a>. "We know how to prevent it — avoid handling sick or dead animals in areas where there is transmission. We are also able to treat patients who are infected with effective antibiotics, and can give antibiotics to people who may have been exposed to the bacteria [and] prevent them [from] getting sick."</p>
This plague patient is displaying a swollen, ruptured inguinal lymph node, or buboe.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention<p>Still, hundreds of people develop bubonic plague every year. In the U.S., a handful of cases occur annually, particularly in New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/plague/faq/index.html" target="_blank">where habitats allow the bacteria to spread more easily among wild rodent populations</a>. But these cases are very rare, mainly because you need to be in close contact with rodents in order to get infected. And though plague can spread from human to human, this <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/seriously-dont-worry-about-the-plague#Heres-how-the-plague-spreads" target="_blank">only occurs with pneumonic plague</a>, and transmission is also rare.</p>