Thanks Zetetic for the link to generalization from fictional evidence.
I’m aware that after spending my hard earned free time providing more evidence than I cared to in support of showing Hitler was hysterically blind and did receive treatment of an autosuggestion (i.e instilled delusion), that the “theory” remained basically “loopy” to someone(s) who didn’t care to provide any refutation what so ever.
Since the evidence was treated without respect and I couldn’t be arsed arguing with someone obviously lacking inclination to discuss the facts accuracy, I moved onto the more interesting conversational point of instilled delusion by propaganda.
If you would care to look more closely at the situation, you’ll find that my post doesn’t endorse “generalization from fictional evidence” because the evidence presented isn’t fictional.
However if you still want to consider that my words you’ve quoted in bold as “basically endorses generalization from fictional evidence”, that’s your call.
I’m still struggling to understand when strict argument and/or more conversational discussion are appropriate on this website. Kind of amusing, in a frustrating way.
To present historical evidence in support of a reasonable point about psychology, have it trolled (imo), yet decide to give the benefit of the doubt and present more detail, then move on and 2 months later be hit with counterargument for moving past the troll bait and staying on the original topic.
I’m still struggling to understand when strict argument and/or more conversational discussion are appropriate on this website. Kind of amusing, in a frustrating way. To present historical evidence in support of a reasonable point about psychology, have it trolled (imo), yet decide to give the benefit of the doubt and present more detail, then move on and 2 months later be hit with counterargument for moving past the troll bait and staying on the original topic.
I’ll try to help you out.
I think the standards of evidence are the highest here of any place on the internet save for maybe some professional groups, and I for one would like to keep it that way. As far as the “generalization from fictional evidence”—that wasn’t because the evidence you presented was fictional, it was because you said that it didn’t matter whether the event actually happened—the concept is sufficient to provide evidence of the more general point. That is, per definition, an endorsement of generalization from fictional evidence.
As far as the evidence you did provide:
To be as specific as I can, there are a lot of issues with the sites you linked to—I tend to expect some sort of peer reviewed meta-analysis of the existing evidence that is well organized and hopefully somewhat up to date, and none of the sources really meet muster. The first one has no bibliography at all. The second is largely a book review with a couple of claims about new evidence, a particularly relevant quote from the author of said book (in the link):
“Hitler himself claimed that the war ended for him when he had to spend weeks in an army hospital after having been blinded by mustard gas. Circumstantial evidence and hearsay, however, have led to the suggestion that Hitler was, in fact, suffering from and treated for psychosomatic blindness. This hypothesis could never be conclusively tested, as Hitler had his medical file destroyed and had his henchmen kill those people with knowledge of the file,” said Dr Weber
That isn’t something to use in support of your argument. It’s not very good supporting evidence. The last source might be a good first person account or it might be a terrible exaggeration. I would much prefer an analysis from an actual historian with less personal bias because my background knowledge is insufficient for assessing the credibility of the source and what is being said.
Now, if you want to support ata’s point, that:
I’d estimate that it would be pretty dangerous to grant yourself permission to decide what delusions to instill in other people for their own good.
Here’s some of what I would like to see:
First, find some articles establishing that you can create such an elaborate delusion in a clinical setting—preferably using techniques that would have been available during the time period. To that effect I found a fewarticles, unfortunately behind paywalls, but the abstracts look promising in that they indicate the feasibility of imparting specific delusion. Unfortunately they’re all pretty modern results and the “imparted delusions” (which as far as I can tell aren’t totally established as true delusions, though they may be) all mirror actual delusions that might be normally encountered. The delusion supposedly imparted to Hitler was fairly detailed and unusual—I don’t know if this is a feasible to impart (if it is feasible at all) as compared to these more mundane cases.
The further claim that Hitler’s doctor imparted a delusion lasting for decades that was fairly intricate and cured his Conversion disorder (hysterical blindness) requires an awful lot of evidence—mostly because, beyond the lack of historical evidence, the physical possibility of this is in question. It doesn’t look to me like there is much (if any) evidence supporting the feasibility of such a feat of hypnotic suggestion and the links you provided do nothing in the way of establishing otherwise.
If you or anyone else has some strong evidence of the feasibility of imparting a robust, long-term delusion using hypnosis I’d be glad to consider it, but I don’t see why I should accept the possibility given that I can’t seem to find any evidence for it outside this (possibly false) Hitler anecdote.
I do hope this has been helpful for you, this site still has a very steep learning curve (although I think it has loosened up a bit lately) and community expectations aren’t immediately obvious to newcomers. We aren’t (as far as I can tell) trying to troll you - we just hold very high expectations for a post that makes a (highly controversial) factual claim. Of course, you might not view the claim as highly controversial, but unless you have some further evidence of the physical possibility of this sort of intricate, long-term hypnosis, it seems like this community might have a somewhat more stringent standard of evidence than you’re used to.
Thanks Zetetic for giving your time for an in depth reply, much appreciated.
With regards to your request for a peer reviewed meta analysis of the existing evidence. Well I reckon you’ll find that in Dr David Lewis book, “The Man Who Invented Hitler”. A synopsis of which is provided as the first link posted.
At that link you will find in the “about” section that the author Dr Lewis is a reputable author, with suitable qualifications to discuss the issue of Hitler and hysterical blindness.
“French born Dr David Lewis, a neuropsychologist, best selling author and historical researcher, obtained his doctorate in experimental psychology at the University of Sussex. He later lectured there before quitting to become a full time research and author. He has written widely on the psychology of totalitarianism especially in relation to the rise of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism with articles appearing in such publications as International History and The Criminologist.”—the first paragraph at the “about”
Now fair enough, I personally haven’t done the meta analysis and haven’t presented one done by another—however I have provided the conclusions of research done on the subject by a respectable source.
Since you’ve requested more information, of a better quality, please have a look through this.
Köpf G. The hysterical blindness of Adolf Hitler: history of a medical. Rev Psiq Clín 2006;33:218-224. [ Links ]”
Now this journal article is particularly interesting for it provides evidence that supports my belief that Dr Lewis does consider the veracity of Hitlers hysterical blindness as Dr Lewis is used as a source for both Hitler being Hysterically blind and arguments against Hitlers hysterical blindness. I would presume that since Dr Lewis considers both sides, yet is holding that Hitler was hysterically blind that Dr Lewis does indeed provide some form of meta analysis of the situation in his Book “The man who invented Hitler” – a review of which was linked.
Quite right that is a book review. It’s a review of a book authored by Dr Thomas Weber MSt., DPhil (Oxon), FRHistS. Lecturer in Modern European, International, and Global Political History & Director, Centre for Global Security and Governance, also Reader in History and Director of the Centre for Global Security and Governance at the University of Aberdeen. Dr Weber also seems to me like another respectable source on the subject in question.
The book in question I presume will also provide you with a bibliography and likely more information than either you or I care to examine for ourselves. I put it to you that Dr Weber is a respectable source, that his account supports Dr Lewis on the issue of Hitlers hysterical blindess and the use of autosuggestion as a treatment.
Further you have quoted the following as evidence for the 2nd link in question being inadequate ;
“Hitler himself claimed that the war ended for him when he had to spend weeks in an army hospital after having been blinded by mustard gas. Circumstantial evidence and hearsay, however, have led to the suggestion that Hitler was, in fact, suffering from and treated for psychosomatic blindness. This hypothesis could never be conclusively tested, as Hitler had his medical file destroyed and had his henchmen kill those people with knowledge of the file,” said Dr Weber
However perhaps in your scanning of the 2nd link you did not read the paragraph that follows the above quote. I include it fyi.
The letters made available to him (Dr Weber) were exchanged between two prominent American physicians and confirm that Hitler was treated for hysterical amblyiopia, the psychiatric or conversion disorder commonly known as hysterical blindness. This previously unseen evidence is included in the paperback version of Hitler’s First War, due out on October 13.
I put it to you that the link is indeed “very good supporting evidence”!
Now onto what Hitler himself said about the occasion...
In Mein Kampf (which most scholars agree cannot be taken as completely factual),
Hitler (1925/1999) reports that on the evening of October 13, 1918, gas shells rained on them “all night
more or less violently. As early as midnight, a number of us passed out, a few of our comrades forever.
Toward morning I, too, was seized with pain which grew worse with every quarter hour, and at seven in
the morning I stumbled and tottered back with burning eyes; taking with me my last report of the war. A
few hours later, my eyes had turned into glowing coals; it had grown dark around me” (p. 202). During
the next month, Hitler stated that the piercing pain in his eyes had diminished and that he could now
perceive broad outlines of objects around him. He wrote that he began to believe that he would recover
his eyesight well enough to work again but not well enough to be able to draw again.
On November 10, Hitler reported that a pastor came to the hospital to announce that Germany would
capitulate and that the German fatherland would thus be exposed to “dire oppression.” Hitler reported,
“Again everything went black before my eyes; I tottered and groped my way back to the dormitory,
threw myself on my bunk, and dug my burning head into my blanket and pillow” (p. 204).
copy pasted from
http://vanilla47.com/Adolf%20Hitler%20Mein%20Kampf/Understanding%20Madmen%20A%20DSM-IV%20Assessment%20of%20Adolf%20Hitler%20Individual%20Differences%20Research%202007,%20Vol.%205,%20No.%201%20pp.%2030-43.pdf
Mein Kampf, aka Hitler himself, supports that Hitler certainly did suffer blindness during the time period in question. Secondly of note Hitler wrote that “again everything went black before my eyes” upon receiving news of Germany’s surrender, revealing that he was indeed not blinded by mustard gas, but instead suffered mentally to such an extent it affect his vision. Also that Hitler was in hospital at the time the Pastor gave the news revealed that he indeed was in hospital and for blindness.
Are we there yet? Have I provided enough evidence for LW to remove those −1′s and start placing them instead upon the “loopy” comment that obviously did far less research on the matter than myself?
Probably not, newbies, especially outspoken newbs, are always treated more harshly than long timers, that’s just the way of things. Observationally it seems quite a few members of LW for all their support of rationality are prone to the bias that is known as :
group-serving bias—explaining away outgroup member’ positive behaviours; also attributing negative behaviours to their dispositions (while excusing such behaviour by one’s own group).
(Myers, D. Social Psychology 10th ed. 2010)
Thanks Zetetic for the link to generalization from fictional evidence.
I’m aware that after spending my hard earned free time providing more evidence than I cared to in support of showing Hitler was hysterically blind and did receive treatment of an autosuggestion (i.e instilled delusion), that the “theory” remained basically “loopy” to someone(s) who didn’t care to provide any refutation what so ever.
Since the evidence was treated without respect and I couldn’t be arsed arguing with someone obviously lacking inclination to discuss the facts accuracy, I moved onto the more interesting conversational point of instilled delusion by propaganda.
If you would care to look more closely at the situation, you’ll find that my post doesn’t endorse “generalization from fictional evidence” because the evidence presented isn’t fictional.
However if you still want to consider that my words you’ve quoted in bold as “basically endorses generalization from fictional evidence”, that’s your call.
I’m still struggling to understand when strict argument and/or more conversational discussion are appropriate on this website. Kind of amusing, in a frustrating way. To present historical evidence in support of a reasonable point about psychology, have it trolled (imo), yet decide to give the benefit of the doubt and present more detail, then move on and 2 months later be hit with counterargument for moving past the troll bait and staying on the original topic.
I’ll try to help you out.
I think the standards of evidence are the highest here of any place on the internet save for maybe some professional groups, and I for one would like to keep it that way. As far as the “generalization from fictional evidence”—that wasn’t because the evidence you presented was fictional, it was because you said that it didn’t matter whether the event actually happened—the concept is sufficient to provide evidence of the more general point. That is, per definition, an endorsement of generalization from fictional evidence.
As far as the evidence you did provide:
To be as specific as I can, there are a lot of issues with the sites you linked to—I tend to expect some sort of peer reviewed meta-analysis of the existing evidence that is well organized and hopefully somewhat up to date, and none of the sources really meet muster. The first one has no bibliography at all. The second is largely a book review with a couple of claims about new evidence, a particularly relevant quote from the author of said book (in the link):
That isn’t something to use in support of your argument. It’s not very good supporting evidence. The last source might be a good first person account or it might be a terrible exaggeration. I would much prefer an analysis from an actual historian with less personal bias because my background knowledge is insufficient for assessing the credibility of the source and what is being said.
Now, if you want to support ata’s point, that:
Here’s some of what I would like to see:
First, find some articles establishing that you can create such an elaborate delusion in a clinical setting—preferably using techniques that would have been available during the time period. To that effect I found a few articles, unfortunately behind paywalls, but the abstracts look promising in that they indicate the feasibility of imparting specific delusion. Unfortunately they’re all pretty modern results and the “imparted delusions” (which as far as I can tell aren’t totally established as true delusions, though they may be) all mirror actual delusions that might be normally encountered. The delusion supposedly imparted to Hitler was fairly detailed and unusual—I don’t know if this is a feasible to impart (if it is feasible at all) as compared to these more mundane cases.
The further claim that Hitler’s doctor imparted a delusion lasting for decades that was fairly intricate and cured his Conversion disorder (hysterical blindness) requires an awful lot of evidence—mostly because, beyond the lack of historical evidence, the physical possibility of this is in question. It doesn’t look to me like there is much (if any) evidence supporting the feasibility of such a feat of hypnotic suggestion and the links you provided do nothing in the way of establishing otherwise.
If you or anyone else has some strong evidence of the feasibility of imparting a robust, long-term delusion using hypnosis I’d be glad to consider it, but I don’t see why I should accept the possibility given that I can’t seem to find any evidence for it outside this (possibly false) Hitler anecdote.
I do hope this has been helpful for you, this site still has a very steep learning curve (although I think it has loosened up a bit lately) and community expectations aren’t immediately obvious to newcomers. We aren’t (as far as I can tell) trying to troll you - we just hold very high expectations for a post that makes a (highly controversial) factual claim. Of course, you might not view the claim as highly controversial, but unless you have some further evidence of the physical possibility of this sort of intricate, long-term hypnosis, it seems like this community might have a somewhat more stringent standard of evidence than you’re used to.
Thanks Zetetic for giving your time for an in depth reply, much appreciated.
With regards to your request for a peer reviewed meta analysis of the existing evidence. Well I reckon you’ll find that in Dr David Lewis book, “The Man Who Invented Hitler”. A synopsis of which is provided as the first link posted.
http://www.dredmundforster.info/1-edmund-forster-adolf-hitler
At that link you will find in the “about” section that the author Dr Lewis is a reputable author, with suitable qualifications to discuss the issue of Hitler and hysterical blindness.
“French born Dr David Lewis, a neuropsychologist, best selling author and historical researcher, obtained his doctorate in experimental psychology at the University of Sussex. He later lectured there before quitting to become a full time research and author. He has written widely on the psychology of totalitarianism especially in relation to the rise of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism with articles appearing in such publications as International History and The Criminologist.”—the first paragraph at the “about”
http://www.dredmundforster.info/about-dr-david-lewis
This is supported on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lewis_(psychologist)
Now fair enough, I personally haven’t done the meta analysis and haven’t presented one done by another—however I have provided the conclusions of research done on the subject by a respectable source.
Since you’ve requested more information, of a better quality, please have a look through this.
“It is known that Forster treated Hitler with auto-suggestion which allowed Hitler, on November 19th, 1918, a week after the end of the War, to be fully recovered, discharged, and returned to his regiment in Munich2,4.” http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0004-282X2010000500032&script=sci_arttext
which has a bibliography that uses the aforementioned Dr Lewis as a reference. I include references 2, 3, 4 fyi, from the last link above.
Now this journal article is particularly interesting for it provides evidence that supports my belief that Dr Lewis does consider the veracity of Hitlers hysterical blindness as Dr Lewis is used as a source for both Hitler being Hysterically blind and arguments against Hitlers hysterical blindness. I would presume that since Dr Lewis considers both sides, yet is holding that Hitler was hysterically blind that Dr Lewis does indeed provide some form of meta analysis of the situation in his Book “The man who invented Hitler” – a review of which was linked.
Now onto the second link… http://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/archive-details-10772.php
Quite right that is a book review. It’s a review of a book authored by Dr Thomas Weber MSt., DPhil (Oxon), FRHistS. Lecturer in Modern European, International, and Global Political History & Director, Centre for Global Security and Governance, also Reader in History and Director of the Centre for Global Security and Governance at the University of Aberdeen. Dr Weber also seems to me like another respectable source on the subject in question.
The book in question I presume will also provide you with a bibliography and likely more information than either you or I care to examine for ourselves. I put it to you that Dr Weber is a respectable source, that his account supports Dr Lewis on the issue of Hitlers hysterical blindess and the use of autosuggestion as a treatment.
Further you have quoted the following as evidence for the 2nd link in question being inadequate ;
However perhaps in your scanning of the 2nd link you did not read the paragraph that follows the above quote. I include it fyi.
I put it to you that the link is indeed “very good supporting evidence”!
Now onto what Hitler himself said about the occasion...
Mein Kampf, aka Hitler himself, supports that Hitler certainly did suffer blindness during the time period in question. Secondly of note Hitler wrote that “again everything went black before my eyes” upon receiving news of Germany’s surrender, revealing that he was indeed not blinded by mustard gas, but instead suffered mentally to such an extent it affect his vision. Also that Hitler was in hospital at the time the Pastor gave the news revealed that he indeed was in hospital and for blindness.
Are we there yet? Have I provided enough evidence for LW to remove those −1′s and start placing them instead upon the “loopy” comment that obviously did far less research on the matter than myself? Probably not, newbies, especially outspoken newbs, are always treated more harshly than long timers, that’s just the way of things. Observationally it seems quite a few members of LW for all their support of rationality are prone to the bias that is known as :
group-serving bias—explaining away outgroup member’ positive behaviours; also attributing negative behaviours to their dispositions (while excusing such behaviour by one’s own group). (Myers, D. Social Psychology 10th ed. 2010)