Science Vs
Science Vs
Sep 22, 2016
Play episode · 43 min

This week, we explore the science of hypnosis, and take Science Vs to the edge of consciousness. In the service of journalism, Wendy tries to get hypnotized at a comedy club and in a doctor’s office. We talk to comedian Jim Spinnato, Prof. Philip Muskin, Prof. Amanda Barnier, and Prof. Amir Raz.


This episode has been produced by Heather Rogers, Wendy Zukerman, Caitlin Kenney, Austin Mitchell, Dr. Diane Wu, and Shruti Ravindran. Our senior producer is Kaitlyn Sawrey.

Edited by Annie-Rose Strasser. Fact Checking by Michelle Harris.

Sound design and music production by Matthew Boll, mixed by Martin Peralta. Music written by Martin Peralta and Bobby Lord.

Thanks to Alex Blumberg for being the man that spoke pretty often in the end… and Jonathan Goldstein for being our CIA agent… and if you like his CIA agent you’ll love his new show Heavyweight. It’s out next week and you can subscribe now.

Selected References2013 paper reviewing 100 journal articles on hypnosis Kihlstrom, JF, “Neuro-Hypnotism: Prospects for Hypnosis and Neuroscience,” Cortex, 2013.Is hypnotizability a genetic trait? Maybe, but it’s complicated Raz, A, et al. “Neuroimaging and genetic associations of attentional and hypnotic processes,” Journal of Physiology, 2006.Script for the Stanford test of hypnotizability Weitzenhoffer, AM and Hilgard, ER. “Stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale, Form C.” 1962.Highly hypnotizable people can be hypnotized to not recognize their own reflections Connors, MH et al. “Using hypnosis to disrupt face processing: Mirrored-self misidentification delusion and different visual media,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2014.There's more to hypnosis than expectation Lifshitz, M et al. “Can expectation enhance response to suggestion? De-automatization illuminates a conundrum,” Consciousness and Cognition, 2012.Brain study of a hypnotized man responding to suggestion that his leg is paralyzed Halligan, PW et al. “Imaging hypnotic paralysis: implications for conversion hysteria,” The Lancet, 2000.1955 CIA memo on hypnosis, 1960 CIA report on hypnosis

WNYC Studios
Kittens Kick The Giggly Blue Robot All Summer
With the recent passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there's been a lot of debate about how much power the Supreme Court should really have. We tend to think of the Supreme Court justices as all-powerful guardians of the constitution, issuing momentous rulings from on high. They seem at once powerful, and unknowable; all lacy collars and black robes. But they haven’t always been so, you know, supreme. On this episode of More Perfect, we go all the way back to the case that, in a lot of ways, is the beginning of the court we know today. Also: we listen back to a mnemonic device (and song) that we created back in 2016 to help people remember the names of the justices. Listen, create a new one, and share with us! Tweet The key links: - Akhil Reed Amar's forthcoming book, The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era - Linda Monk's book, The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution The key voices: - Linda Monk, author and constitutional scholar - Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale - Ari J. Savitzky, lawyer at WilmerHale The key cases: - 1803: Marbury v. Madison - 1832: Worcester v. Georgia - 1954: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1) - 1955: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (2) Additional music for this episode by Podington Bear. Special thanks to Dylan Keefe and Mitch Boyer for their work on the above video. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at
40 min
More episodes
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu