"aura200870" wrote:

> My wife and I are new to Hypnosis. We are presently doing the Omni
> home course.

Hi aura200870,

I'd address you by name, but you didn't provide one.

Anyway...

While there is nothing *wrong* with self-study - I do a lot of it, myself -
its main drawback is that there is nobody watching what you're doing in
practice so s/he can mentor and guide you and give you iterative feedback
based on your ongoing adjustments and corrections.

> We had our first client, a dear friend of ours that has
> a problem with pain in her legs. We believe that we will be primarily
> doing the regression to cause once we finish our course and are
> pretty excited about our future in hypnotherapy.

What I do have a problem with is "regression to cause" and "initial
sensitizing events."

What good does it do your dear friend to know "the cause?" Here are a few
questions to consider that relate to this. You can probably come up with a
bunch of others, starting from this point:

1a) What if she gets the cause wrong?
1b) What if what she today thinks is the cause is later refuted in favour of
something else? If she were "fixed" after *knowing* the cause, does she go
back to being unfixed after realizing she was wrong about what she thought
was the cause?
2a) How does knowing the cause make anything better?
2b) For instance, I can know that my car doesn't run because the fuel
injector is gummed up. But, unless I know how to "ungum" it, how am I any
better off?
3a) How is "regression to cause" going to help someone with a congenital
defect, suffered from birth?
3b) What if the person has no clue what the "initial sensitizing event" is,
or doesn't want to find out (e.g. a war veteran not wanting to revisit the
loss of his leg)?

Regression is very similar to timeline therapy. I think they're both great
tools for helping with certain aspects of some issues, and can be great for
personal interests such as PLR, but they're not swiss-army hypnotherapy
tools, and they can even be needlessly (emotionally) painful for some
clients. Timeline and regression are not one-method-fixes-all approaches to
client issue satisfaction. Nor is hypnosis itself, for that matter.

It's my opinion that you would be better off (as a hypnotist) to be really
great at framing the client's presenting and core issues, understanding how
to elicit and change beliefs, and how to understand the difference between
the map and the territory (perception and the fact that reality is plastic).

If a client can forget about her pain while you have guided her into trance,
and while she stays in trance, how does that affect her reality WRT pain?
How does that affect her perception of *that* pain from a "what's real and
what's imagined" point of view?

Can you get the client to that point - where the pain is no longer part of
her reality for a finite amount of time? If it were me working with that
client, while she is hypnotized, I'd be thinking about giving her a control
panel for her pain, so she can dial it up or down without my help.

> Before we started the session I gave her a pre talk and then
> proceeded to use the Elman induction. Everything seemed to be going
> good until I got to willing the numbers away. The first time I told
> her that after the number 98 she would forget but she went right on
> counting 98,97,96,95 in her regular voice.

The problem with most formulaic inductions is that new hypnotists look at
them as magic recipes. First do this. Add a smidgeon of this.
Presto-change-o! You are hypnotized! If you instead understand the mechanics
of inducing trance and can deconstruct the process, you'll be far better at
executing it successfully.

Ask yourself this: what is the point of hypnosis? Why is it important for
the client to be in a hypnotic state? (leaving the "state" argument aside
for the moment)

Inducing hypnosis, IMO, gives the hypnotist the option of switching the
client from associated to disassociated as many times as required in order
to link a problem trigger to a resourceful outcome. But this is a whole
other discussion (which I'll be happy to go into another time). It may take
one switch between associated/disassociated, or it may take 100. You won't
know until you know.

The most important things to practice and LEARN for the budding hypnotist
are calibration and rapport. From the perspective of the hypnotist,
calibration is "how you measure/know" and rapport is "how you establish
compliance." There is no other point to calibration other than to measure
the degree of (a) rapport, (b) compliance, and (c) response. There is no
point to rapport other than to establish (a) respect, (b) attention, and (c)
compliance.

Are you paying attention to the signs that this specific client has shown
you that indicate progressively greater levels of compliance and response?
Are you seeing signs that from compliance and response, trance is
progressing? What I mean by that - the signs - could be a slackening jaw, a
thousand-yard stare (not just fixation, but unfocused fixation - carefully
watch the eyes, even if closed), breathing depth and rate, responsiveness to
suggestion, slackness of muscle tension (to test: pick up by the wrist and
drop arm. It should flop down. Or just the way the jaw can be loose and
unclenched).

Hypnosis isn't magic incantation. You are a guide, a technician, an observer
and reactor. Your job is to see how close the client is to trance and adjust
continually until she gets there. You can do this with a waking patter, or
you can do it with eyes closed.

If listening to Gerry Kein has given you the impression you just have to
follow these easy steps and use these established ingredients and you'll
drop anyone into trance, he's done you a grave disservice.

It takes practice and confidence to do "real" hypnosis. Each client is
different, and should not be treated as automatons.

> I then did the arm drop method

You "did" did you? How do you know you "did" it right? If self-study is your
preference, I'd strongly suggest additional reading and viewing of books and
videos that demonstrate a variety of types of trance so you can deconstruct
the common elements of each and understand what it is that REALLY makes
hypnosis induction work.

> and told her when her arm drops she would go twice as deep

You "told" her, eh? That could be one of the problems right there. What if
she doesn't like being "told?" Did you take time to find out if she's more
responsive to a permissive approach versus a directive approach? Do you know
her well enough to answer that for yourself?

For the most part, being indirect (permissive) is better than directive. The
vast majority of people will respond to permissive. Many will resist
directive, even after a good pre-talk. As adults, most of us naturally
anticipate and expect a polite request rather than an abrupt command.

What if instead of "telling" her, you "suggested" she observe herself go
"twice as deep?"

"And you may even notice that as your arm drops you can go twice as deep
now." <said while arm is dropping>

> into relaxation and then some refractioning

When you are doing the fractionation, are you paying attention to how she's
processing it? How are her eyes responding? Does she still look alert with
each eye opening? What about the rest of her? Is her breathing deepening? Is
her muscle tension slack? Is the eye opening and closing seemingly
reluctant? Are you testing her anticipation by staggering your count for the
opening and closure? That's a neglected means of trance calibration that
many hypnotists misuse or under-use, or simply don't understand. You have to
know why you are doing each step of any induction or you're wasting time
(yours and the client's).

> and then went back to the
> numbers and she still could not will them away.

Losing the numbers is just a test of responsiveness. If that's not working,
do something else. Don't get hung up on that. You either didn't get the
client to an adequately responsive state before doing this test, or you are
being too restrictive in your framing of it. If the client isn't really
invested in seeing and experiencing the numbers in her imagination, she's
not going to see them disappear. Remember that this is supposed to be a
double-bind sort of convincer. She's doing her own imagining of the numbers
and is supposed to see the numbers disappear in her own mind, on her own. If
they're not disappearing, it's because you haven't told her to make them
disappear. Make EACH number disappear, as opposed to having a specific
number be the point at which the numbers are no longer able to be manifested
in her imagination. So, if she's "expending more and more effort to TRY to
make these numbers appear (suggest this!), until they are barely shimmering
into view (suggest this!) and shimmering out of view... and perhaps by now,
as you continue to TRY to count them, they're now barely visible at all...
Until you FIND that nothing appears and you are no longer even saying the
numbers now. Just relax and notice your breathing deepening and your muscles
so loose and relaxed you almost can't notice your body is still attached -
your body may be over there, while your mind can be over here, listening to
the sound of my voice... <etc etc>"

> At this point I emerged her

Emerged her? It doesn't sound like there was much of anything from which to
emerge...at least, not yet.

> and decided to do a quick induction followered by a 10 to
> 1 deepening count with eye testing and arm drop which seemed to work
> fine. I went back to the numbers and she just kept on counting after
> the number that I set for her.

You were (are?) too hung up on the numbers. If YOU are hung up on it, how do
you think she'll be?

The numbers are merely a means of calibration and convincing. You don't have
to use that test/convincer.

> I emerged her again and we talked
> about what had happen. I then proceeded with another rapid induction
> but she was anticipating everything I was going to say. We ended the
> session and I told her I would see her next week in the mean time do
> some research as to what I could have done better. Not telling her
> that she did anything wrong. Actually we figured for our education it
> would be better to have a tough case first.

She is likely not "a tough case." I hope you didn't tell her that she was "a
tough case."

Each client will go into trance on his or her own terms. Trance is and isn't
a mystical and mysterious thing. It is in the experiential sense, but it
isn't in the application and practical sense. I find that my clients like to
hold onto the notion that there is mystery and intrigue to hypnosis. Why
disabuse them of the fun quotient? If you tell the client that the sort of
trance they'll experience in sessions with you is no more mysterious than
zoning out while driving or watching TV, what the hell is the client pay YOU
for? Let her believe that it's a wonderfully mysterious and powerful
thing...and something that she can learn to apply for herself without fully
understanding all of its hows and whys.

> What I think happen is that she just would not or could not listen or
> follow what I was saying.

I think it's just the opposite! I think YOU didn't follow the signs she was
giving you to show how well she was responding. As Don said, that's the
value of classroom instruction: you can be monitored, mentored, corrected,
adjusted, reviewed...and your confidence can be built up WAY better than it
can from reading and guessing at whether you're doing it right.

That's not to say it can't be done from self-study. A lot of what I learned
(though making and correcting mistakes) was through self-study. And even
classroom instruction is only a first step. PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE is
what makes your technique and execution better and better.

There are four general stages of competency:

1) unconscious incompetence - you don't know what it is, nor how to do it.

2) conscious incompetence - you know what it is, but now how to do it/what
to do with it.

3) conscious competence - you know what it is and how to do it, but have to
think your way through each step.

4) unconscious competence - you automatically do it without thinking about
it.

At this point, the hypnosis skills you described above are still at stage 2.
You will be at stage 3 when you are actually thinking about how to calibrate
your client's response (and not just following a recipe), when you
understand the mechanics of trance, and you are actually applying tests and
convincers to confirm trance (testing and convincing the client...and
yourself)...and all this before you are ready to go on to an actual
intervention. Remember: the hypnosis isn't the intervention, it's the
vehicle to enable the intervention to be applied.

Many new hypnotists confuse the trance itself with the intervention. Think
of the difference between trance and intervention as being similar in scope
to the difference between airplanes and vacation. Even if you're on a plane
for the duration of your vacation, "vacation" is how you experience your
time, rather than the vehicle you were in when you experienced it. Likewise,
even if the entire intervention is done in trance, the changework that may
be blended into the hypnotic patter: the tasks, language patterns,
metaphors, and suggestions are the intervention, not the induction,
deepening, or emerging. That said, the induction, deepening, and emerging
can (and should) be artfully interweaved with the intervention. Doing it,
though, requires a solid understanding of which is which.

> Especially when I gave her the last rapid induction having her push
> down on my hand while I pushed up and also having her stare at the
> point between my eyes, well she was going into trance before I said
> sleep and not pushing up on my hand even though I was constantly
> telling her to push down she was defiantly anticipating my moves.
> Any feed back would be great, thanking you all in advance.

She was defiant, was she? LOL

At this point, you are evidently very focused on the 1-2-3 of the process
rather than how to actually do it, and what the point of each step is.

The shock induction is a wonderfully convincing and entertaining method for
experienced and CONFIDENT hypnotists - particularly for stage shows. I have
all kinds of time for good stage hypnotists. BUT! Until you are confident
that you can actually induce trance and work with a person in trance, I'd
suggest using a less hit-and-miss approach.

The shock induction is very easy to screw up (if you don't "deepen" right
away - which is just another way of saying, "if you don't establish
imaginative involvement").

You MUST be completely confident and smooth in your execution, regardless of
your preferred methods. Hypnosis requires excellent follow-through and lots
of rehearsal. BUT! Shock inductions are more for the benefit of the audience
than for the client.

While I'm at it, let me add that there is a myth about shock inductions:
namely, that you are saving time by using them. The fact is that trance is
still going to require imaginative involvement. You still have to invest the
same amount of time to establish imaginative involvement, regardless of
whether you do it up front or whether you do it after you change the
client's focus (which is all the shock induction does). I prefer to respect
the client by establishing imaginative involvement up front.

I might also suggest that a really good hypnotist can induce trance in less
than 2 minutes without using a shock (IOW, "rapid") induction - and your
client will enjoy the experience a lot more. Disorienting a client by
startling her is very unnecessary.

Furthermore, as you become increasingly good at calibrating and guiding
using permissive language patterns, you will find that you can reduce the
amount of time required before increasing the behaviour-changing patter.

And, by all means, let go of the notion that there is such a thing as
"rapid" inductions. As mentioned above, trance is a matter of imaginative
involvement rather than being startled into a different realm of reality.


Hope that helps!


Health, wealth, and stealth,


Tom Eagles
MindFX.ca