"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

--- In hypnosis-hypnotherapy@yahoogroups.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

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]

In a message dated 11/01/2009 1:46:06P.M. GMT Standard Time,

melgrant@... writes:



>>  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.

Which therapists are you actually  talking about?  I didn't say those things

myself and never have.   These tests are pointless except for skills training,

perhaps as a convincer  with some clients, for experiments, for adaptation as

therapy interventions,  etc.  They're far from essential to hypnosis, though,

and can all be  replicated without a hypnotic induction.

>> 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.

I think you're massively  over-simplifying things, although your basic point

is correct.  Who are the  therapists you're talking about who claim to have

great powers or know  everything there is to know about the human mind?  I don't

think anyone  said anything like that in the discussion you're responding

to.

>> Can the great and the good please supply me with a definitive  answer to

what hypnosis is? I would really like to  know?



Who are the "great and the good"???  That's a bit of a strange thing  to say,

IMHO.  I assume you're not referring to me, although you were  replying to my

email, so I will answer your question anyway...



The original definition of hypnotism proposed by Braid was that it was a

state of nervous sleep, unlike normal sleep, induced by mental concentration on

a single idea.  He later changed that to say that it was itself essentially  a

state of mental concentration on a single idea, and that it would be better

to  call it something other than "hypnotism" because the name caused people to

think  it normally had something to do with sleep or unconsciousness.



Since then, people have offered different definitions, but I would stay

relatively close to Braid's and say that hypnosis is a label for a number of

different states in which suggestibility is enhanced in quality or degree as the

result of procedures which increase mediating factors such as mental focus,

dissociation, relaxation, expectation, favourable attitudes and

role-perception,  and client motivation.  As a nonstate-oriented clinician, I

would agree

with the researchers who conclude that hypnosis is not identifiable with a

single uniform neurological state but that its effects are due to multiple

inter-acting causes.  Or if you want a simplified version: Hypnosis is a  state

of

heightened suggestibility which usually consists of relaxed  concentration on

the ideas suggested, to the exclusion of competing thoughts,  and accompanied

by expectation.  That's just a kind of neo-Braidism,  though.



Your remark that the client needs to believe in the therapist is similar to

what Braid said, and what I've said, except that both Braid and myself would

emphasise that the client's attitudes, frame of mind, focus of attention,

etc.,  also have an effect on the way they respond.  Obviously, even if the

client

  trusts the therapist but is distracted by irrelevant or negative thoughts,

or  they feel unmotivated or conflicted about the specific suggestions in

question, then they're not in the ideal state of mind to accept  suggestions.

Moreover, the client can trust the therapist but the  therapist may phrase

suggestions badly, so that they do not evoke the right kind  of response. 

Hence,

effective hypnotherapy also requires that the  therapist understands something

about the theory and practice of  suggestion.



I think that's all pretty uncontroversial / common sense stuff, though, and

I imagine most (though probably not all) hypnotists would share similar  views.





Yours  Sincerely,



Donald Robertson

College Principal & Executive  Director



Senior Clinician Hypnotherapist (NCH)

Registered  Psychotherapist (UKCP)

Member of the European Register of Psychotherapists  (ERP)

Fellow of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health  (RSPH)





The UK College of  Hypnosis & Hypnotherapy Ltd.

_www.UKhypnosis.com_ (http://www.ukhypnosis.com/)



Freephone (UK)  0800 195 9809

Fax: 01403 265 015

International +44(0)1403248266

UKCHH,  Suite 127, 17 Piries Place, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1BF



Hypno-CBT® is  the registered trademark of The UK College of Hypnosis &

Hypnotherapy  Ltd.

Registered in England as Company No. 05499462, UK Register of Learning

Providers No.10008042

VAT Registration 920 1916 52



UKCHH Ltd.  Disclaimer, Terms, & Copyright

Copyright (c) UKCHH Ltd., unless  otherwise stated. This email is

confidential and intended solely for the use of  the addressee. If you are not

the

intended recipient then the disclosure,  copying or distribution to others of

any

part or whole of this message is  strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender

imediately and delete the  email.



This message has been scanned for viruses before sending. UKCHH  Ltd. accepts

no responsibility for infection and recommends you scan both email  and

contents.





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

Hello All,







Thank you for your reply, Don. I have to say from the outset that I do not

accuse you, or anyone on this list, of anything. Please accept I have observed,

over the years, claims made by some high profile hypnotherapists that run

contrary to what is generally accepted.  In fact, you are very knowledgeable and

I respect your views on the subject. If you are asking me to name people it will

be fruitless because, as their opinions had no value, I simply forgot and

dismissed their statements. All I remember is that there have been some

outrageous claims from people who should know better and could not be bothered

to enter into dialogue or waste my time on trying to convince them otherwise.

The fact is I intervened because I do not believe therapists should be too

concerned about aspects that may be irrelevant on the majority of occasions.







I accept that observing states of hypnosis is valuable for research and the

furtherance of knowledge on the subject.  I, personally, feel that in the

majority of clients undergoing therapy, it is not required to be recorded. The

important factor in a session is whether the client responded to therapy? If

not, then try a different approach next time. Again, I agree, that the mark of a

good therapist is how they chose their words to create a successful outcome.

This may mean that on occasions the therapist  uses the client’s expectations

or preconceived ideas of what the therapist can do. However, I do ensure the

client is aware that any respite from their malady will be a joint effort.







Your explanation is a good one but it is like asking someone to define what

truth is – their cannot be a definitive answer as it has different values for

different people, and we are all individuals who can respond differently to

given situations. EFT has been a good tool to complement my therapy, on some

occasions, but I am not interested on how or why it works because, again, this

would be conjecture. I simply observe the outcome and see it works therefore I

utilise it.







You say I have over simplified things. You are absolutely correct. I am in the

business of arriving at the essence of a problem and thereby creating a simple

solution.  Trivialising an event or problem can be useful – we all have the

ability to blow things out of proportion and changing the client’s perception

is the first step to creating change. I do not give cd’s or use artificial

aids such as headphones attached to computers because this is not the way

forward. I teach the client how to use their mind to their advantage. I say,

“The mind is like a Rottweiler, untrained it is a menace to its owner and

everyone that comes within its range but trained it is a friend and

protector.”







All the Best







Mel











From: HypnoSynthesisUK@... [mailto:HypnoSynthesisUK@...]

Sent: 11 January 2009 14:24

To: melgrant@...; hypnosis-hypnotherapy@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [hypno] Re: Deconstructing hypnosis (WAS: first client)







In a message dated 11/01/2009 1:46:06P.M. GMT Standard Time,

melgrant@... writes:



>> 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.



Which therapists are you actually talking about?  I didn't say those things

myself and never have.  These tests are pointless except for skills training,

perhaps as a convincer with some clients, for experiments, for adaptation as

therapy interventions, etc.  They're far from essential to hypnosis, though, and

can all be replicated without a hypnotic induction.



>> 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.



I think you're massively over-simplifying things, although your basic point is

correct.  Who are the therapists you're talking about who claim to have great

powers or know everything there is to know about the human mind?  I don't think

anyone said anything like that in the discussion you're responding to.







>> Can the great and the good please supply me with a definitive answer to what

hypnosis is? I would really like to know?



Who are the "great and the good"???  That's a bit of a strange thing to say,

IMHO.  I assume you're not referring to me, although you were replying to my

email, so I will answer your question anyway...







The original definition of hypnotism proposed by Braid was that it was a state

of nervous sleep, unlike normal sleep, induced by mental concentration on a

single idea.  He later changed that to say that it was itself essentially a

state of mental concentration on a single idea, and that it would be better to

call it something other than "hypnotism" because the name caused people to think

it normally had something to do with sleep or unconsciousness.







Since then, people have offered different definitions, but I would stay

relatively close to Braid's and say that hypnosis is a label for a number of

different states in which suggestibility is enhanced in quality or degree as the

result of procedures which increase mediating factors such as mental focus,

dissociation, relaxation, expectation, favourable attitudes and role-perception,

and client motivation.  As a nonstate-oriented clinician, I would agree with the

researchers who conclude that hypnosis is not identifiable with a single uniform

neurological state but that its effects are due to multiple inter-acting causes.

Or if you want a simplified version: Hypnosis is a state of heightened

suggestibility which usually consists of relaxed concentration on the ideas

suggested, to the exclusion of competing thoughts, and accompanied by

expectation.  That's just a kind of neo-Braidism, though.







Your remark that the client needs to believe in the therapist is similar to what

Braid said, and what I've said, except that both Braid and myself would

emphasise that the client's attitudes, frame of mind, focus of attention, etc.,

also have an effect on the way they respond.  Obviously, even if the client

trusts the therapist but is distracted by irrelevant or negative thoughts, or

they feel unmotivated or conflicted about the specific suggestions in question,

then they're not in the ideal state of mind to accept suggestions.  Moreover,

the client can trust the therapist but the therapist may phrase suggestions

badly, so that they do not evoke the right kind of response.  Hence, effective

hypnotherapy also requires that the therapist understands something about the

theory and practice of suggestion.







I think that's all pretty uncontroversial / common sense stuff, though, and I

imagine most (though probably not all) hypnotists would share similar views.











Yours Sincerely,



Donald Robertson

College Principal & Executive Director



Senior Clinician Hypnotherapist (NCH)

Registered Psychotherapist (UKCP)

Member of the European Register of Psychotherapists (ERP)

Fellow of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health (RSPH)



The UK College of Hypnosis & Hypnotherapy Ltd.

www.UKhypnosis.com <http://www.ukhypnosis.com/>



Freephone (UK) 0800 195 9809

Fax: 01403 265 015

International +44(0)1403248266

UKCHH, Suite 127, 17 Piries Place, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1BF



Hypno-CBT® is the registered trademark of The UK College of Hypnosis &

Hypnotherapy Ltd.

Registered in England as Company No. 05499462, UK Register of Learning Providers

No.10008042

VAT Registration 920 1916 52



UKCHH Ltd. Disclaimer, Terms, & Copyright

Copyright (c) UKCHH Ltd., unless otherwise stated. This email is confidential

and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended

recipient then the disclosure, copying or distribution to others of any part or

whole of this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender

imediately and delete the email.



This message has been scanned for viruses before sending. UKCHH Ltd. accepts no

responsibility for infection and recommends you scan both email and contents.







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

Good points made here, Donald -

   I have consistently been grateful for my training and experience in theatre,

and believe an acting course would be a useful thing for many people,

hypnotists, lawyers, salespeople, etc.. Learning how to use one's voice is very

important, and of course a freindly, compassionate approach works best with most

people. That residue of teenage rebellion against parental authority is often

still lurking in the mental/emotional closet for a large number of us

"grownups".

   Smiles,

   Mary Curro

   www.thesaneasylum.com



   ----- Original Message -----

   From: Donald Robertson

   To: hypnosis-hypnotherapy@yahoogroups.com

   Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:56 PM

   Subject: [hypno] Re: Deconstructing hypnosis (WAS: first client)





   --- In hypnosis-hypnotherapy@yahoogroups.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













------------------------------------------------------------------------------







   No virus found in this incoming message.

   Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

   Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1886 - Release Date: 1/10/2009

6:01 PM



   ----------





   ----------





No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1886 - Release Date: 1/10/2009 6:01

PM





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

I completely agree with your statement about acting courses. I've done two

and they have helped me no end in learning how to articulate and understand

the effect ones voice has on people.



They were both great fun too.







Duncan Gunn MNCH(Lic) GHR(Reg)



Perfect Equilibrium

  <http://www.perfectequilibrium.co.uk/> www.perfectequilibrium.co.uk











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