Hello All,



Forgive me for interjecting on this matter but what use is it to have fading
numbers, or amnesia, or a person unable to open their eyes? Who are the
therapists trying to convince, themselves, the client, the fraternity, the
audience or the medical profession? Do they actually sit there with a
clipboard and a checklist - like some airline pilot - ticking off the list
prior to takeoff? Why do therapists need to prove they can hypnotise a
person.



Well sorry, they cannot hypnotise any person, (with some exceptions).



Whatever effect therapists can achieve when a person is "hypnotised" can be
achieved on another fully conscious person. So why waste time, and effort,
on producing signs of "being in a state of hypnosis"? As long as client
believes in the therapist the rest is just a ritual and therapy. I hope I am
not committing hypnotic heresy here but I sometimes get bored with therapist
who claim they have great powers or know everything there is to know about
the human mind.



Can the great and the good please supply me with a definitive answer to what
hypnosis is? I would really like to know?



All the Best



Mel





From: hypnosis-hypnotherapy@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:hypnosis-hypnotherapy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Donald Robertson
Sent: 11 January 2009 02:56
To: hypnosis-hypnotherapy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hypno] Re: Deconstructing hypnosis (WAS: first client)



--- In hypnosis-hypnotherapy@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:hypnosis-hypnotherapy%40yahoogroups.com> , "Tom Eagles" <tom@...>
wrote:
> 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.

A well-known systematic review of experimental studies comparing
indirect and direct suggestion methods found no difference in
efficacy. In my own experience as a therapist and trainer, the
relationship with the client is more important. If the client is
prepared properly and understands their role then they should
certainly not perceive direct suggestions as "abrupt commands" and
respond with "resistance."

However, as is usually the case in these debates, the real problem
here is the crap terminology. The definition of "indirect
suggestion" used by Ericksonian hypnotherapists is so vague and wide-
ranging that it probably both overlaps with much of what traditional
hypnotists call direct suggestion, and manages to include a bunch of
essentially different things at the same time. I certainly don't
think of direct suggestion as implying an "abrupt command", though;
it can also be a "gentle prompt." It's the tone of the relationship
that matters. If you listen to the tapes, Elman is actually quite
friendly and paternalistic in his manner, rather than "authoritarian."

>> 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.

That's actually correct. Elman does express these challenges as
double-binds whereby the client cannot really fail to respond unless
they have misunderstood the instructions, or ignored them. With
eyelid catalepsy, likewise, he tells clients to relax their eyes to
the point where the muscles forget how to work and then test them.
Literally, the transcript of his seminar states,

"Now relax the muscles around your eyes to the point where those eye
muscles won't work and when you're sure they won't work, test them
and make sure they won't work."

Which means, to the client, "Don't make the eyelid catalepsy test
until you're absolutely certain that you'll respond as intended."

I have to say, although he has some good points, Elman's phrasing is
very messy, he stumbles over his words and gabbles out sentences that
sound like something your president Bush would say.

I think it might be a bit pointless "deconstructing" this hypnosis
session, though. Don't you think it's a bit like someone saying, "I
was taught this was a highly-effective joke and told it to one of my
friends but they didn't laugh; what did I do wrong?" Nobody can
really answer that sensibly without actually observing.
Retrospectively dissecting the precise wording of the joke (by email)
probably isn't worthwhile because the chances are they just didn't
deliver it in an appropriate context or in the right tone of voice,
etc.

Donald Robertson





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]