Covert hypnosis

Covert hypnosis is an attempt to communicate with another person's unconscious mind without informing the subject that they will be hypnotized. It is also known as conversational hypnosis or sleight of mouth.[1] (although both Conversational Hypnosis and Slight of Mouth can also be done overtly). It is a term largely used by proponents of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), a pseudoscientific approach to communication and interaction.[2][3][4][5][6]

The objective is to change the person's behavior subconsciously so that the target believes that they changed their mind of their own volition. When or if performed successfully, the target is unaware that they were hypnotized or that anything unusual has occurred. Arguably there is a debate about what hypnosis is, and how covert hypnosis should be classified. "Standard" hypnosis requires the focus and attention of the subject, while covert hypnosis seems to focus on "softening" the subject by using confusion, fatigue, directed attention, and interrupted sentences. This is most similar to salesmen talking to customers when they are tired. Critical thinking and questioning of statements likely requires mental effort.[7][improper synthesis?] The theme of "covert hypnosis" appears to be along the lines of causing the subject to enter "down time".[8] Regardless of whether "covert hypnosis" fits the standard definition of hypnosis, fatigue appears to impair critical thinking.[7] This might explain why interrogation, military training, and cult-recruitment practices prefer to deprive their new recruits of sleep.[9]

Neuro-linguistic
programming
Topics
Developers
Practitioners
Organisations
  1. ^ Dilts, Robert (1999). Sleight of Mouth: The Magic of Conversational Belief Change. Meta Publications. ISBN 978-0-916990-43-5.
  2. ^ Thyer, Bruce A.; Pignotti, Monica G. (2015). Science and Pseudoscience in Social Work Practice. Springer Publishing Company. pp. 56–57, 165–167. ISBN 978-0-8261-7769-8. As NLP became more popular, some research was conducted and reviews of such research have concluded that there is no scientific basis for its theories about representational systems and eye movements.
  3. ^ von Bergen, C. W.; Gary, Barlow Soper; Rosenthal, T.; Wilkinson, Lamar V. (1997). "Selected alternative training techniques in HRD". Human Resource Development Quarterly. 8 (4): 281–294. doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920080403.
  4. ^ Druckman, Daniel (1 November 2004). "Be All That You Can Be: Enhancing Human Performance". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 34 (11): 2234–2260. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01975.x.
  5. ^ Witkowski, Tomasz (1 January 2010). "Thirty-Five Years of Research on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. NLP Research Data Base. State of the Art or Pseudoscientific Decoration?". Polish Psychological Bulletin. 41 (2). doi:10.2478/v10059-010-0008-0.
  6. ^ Sharpley, Christopher F. (1 January 1987). "Research findings on neurolinguistic programming: Nonsupportive data or an untestable theory?". Journal of Counseling Psychology. 34 (1): 103–107. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.1.103.
  7. ^ a b Burkley, E. (2008). The role of self-control in resistance to persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 419–431.
  8. ^ O'Connor, Joseph (2002). Introducing Neuro Linguistic Programming. Harper Element.
  9. ^ Jahoda, G. (1989). "Some Historical and Cultural Aspects of Suggestion". Suggestion and Suggestibility. pp. 255–261. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-73875-3_20. ISBN 978-3642738777.