Hypnosis

Hi,

A bit of a thread from the dead resurrection, but couldn't help but comment on some of the "shooting from the hip" type comments on here, like the post above for example.

I am currently training in becoming a hypnotist and can tell you from results not bias that hypnotic effects are real and powerful. As ennogs correctly points out, there are a lot of poor hypnotists out there with poor technique and little interest in improving.

Hypnosis can have powerful physical manifestations that really demonstrate beyond doubt of its effectiveness. I have personal experience of this in some of my subjects.

As to the placebo effect claim, what do you think the placebo effect is, if not self hypnosis? You're putting the cart before the horse.

Straight forward hypnotic inductions like the Elman induction work every time, the technique is foolproof. The only question is whether the subject is willing to follow along. As for the intelligent/thick debate, people below about IQ of 70ish are unable to be hypnotised because they are unable to focus on the hypnotist sufficiently well to get into trance.
 
MarkieW said:
Hi,

A bit of a thread from the dead resurrection, but couldn't help but comment on some of the "shooting from the hip" type comments on here, like the post above for example.

I am currently training in becoming a hypnotist and can tell you from results not bias that hypnotic effects are real and powerful. As ennogs correctly points out, there are a lot of poor hypnotists out there with poor technique and little interest in improving.

Hypnosis can have powerful physical manifestations that really demonstrate beyond doubt of its effectiveness. I have personal experience of this in some of my subjects.

As to the placebo effect claim, what do you think the placebo effect is, if not self hypnosis? You're putting the cart before the horse.

Straight forward hypnotic inductions like the Elman induction work every time, the technique is foolproof. The only question is whether the subject is willing to follow along. As for the intelligent/thick debate, people below about IQ of 70ish are unable to be hypnotised because they are unable to focus on the hypnotist sufficiently well to get into trance.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you have done no shooting from the hip!

Well, aside from;

The assertion that IQ is a valid 'cut off' for those who are able to receive hypnosis. That is wrong because
(a) having an IQ of 70 is an arbitrary cut off first popularised by Cyril Burt when trying to differentiate between children who should go to state or special schools,

(b) IQ itself is an minefield; read 'The Bell Curve' (Hernstein and Murray), or 'The mis-measure of man' (Stephen J Gould) to see that the construction of IQ is tricky. How would that IQ be determined? Wechsler or GL assessment batteries? They both acknowledge the difficulty with the term.

(c) Using the term 'subjects' is offensive; service users, cases or participants would be more appropriate

(d) No hypnosis is fool-proof. The jury is still out on if it works, or if a hypnotic state exists: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111025091559.htm I can link to some journal studies if you'd prefer.

I think I will stop there for now! I should say that I would love it if hypnotherapy works, evidenced by robust scientific practice - it would make my job a lot easier.

However, as I've said, the jury is still out. It may, one day, have that evidence, but for now, it doesn't - I know this because, if it did, I would have the option to refer service users. It's not recognised as a valid therapy - although it could be in the future - however I do not think that it will ever be able to demonstrate effectiveness over, say, CBT.
 
ennogs said:
I would say the reason it has not worked is because the hypnotherapist was ****. At a guess I would say the people you know did not go into hypnosis and the hypnotherapist did not check they are in hypnosis. Too many hypnotherapists do a one shoe fits all approach. There are many ways to take somebody into hypnosis. You have to find the most suitable one for each client.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not true. There is no evidence that a hypnotic state exists.

For example we are all either mainly auditory, visual or kinesthetic (feeling). So lets say I am able explaining something to somebody and they are not getting it. Then all of a sudden they get it.

An auditory person may say "I HEAR what you are saying now"

A visual person may say "I SEE what you mean now"

A kinesthetic person may say "I get a GRASP on that now"

All basically mean they understand it now.

So if I was doing a story type hypnosis induction

For an auditory person I may say something like "You are on the beach, you can hear the seagulls up above and you can her the waves lapping at the shore etc"

For a visual person I may say something like "You are on a beach, you can see the golden coloured sand and the deep blue sea etc"

For a kinesthitic person I may say something like "You are on a beach, you can feel the warm sun on your skin, you can feel the soft sand on the soles of your feet etc"
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Show me a single piece of evidence that learning styles exist - that's proper, clinical, scientific evidence. Not somebody's theory.

Some people are too analytical. For those people you would use a confusion method so the conscious brain just gives up.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that?

We all go into hypnosis regularly. Ever been reading or watching TV and somebody said something like "want a cup of tea?" but you did not here them until they said it for the 3rd or 4th time?. You were in hypnosis. Ever been driving and you don't remember the last 10 minutes of driving? You were in hypnosis.
Click to expand...

Define being 'in hyponosis'. Evidence for its existence? How was that hypnotic and not hypnogogic?

I tried twice to quit smoking with hypnosis. 1st time I came out of the guys office and lit a cigarette. I was then told by a hypnotherapist in America to do research and find somebody with a good reputation. I found a guy in Manchester. Came out of his office and never smoked again. Never craved or thought about cigarettes in any situation.
Click to expand...

Was it the hypnosis or you that made you stop? Your belief in the 'hypnotherapists' skills? Other compounding factors?

Sorry, as much as I'd like this to be true, you have to be careful with throwing these 'facts' around.
 
ennogs said:
Of course NLP works. Derron brown uses it a lot in his tricks. For example the trick where he convinces somebody their hand is stuck to the table is done with NLP and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Derren Brown is a magician. Telling you it's all NLP is just misdirection.
 
Morbius said:
Derren Brown is a magician. Telling you it's all NLP is just misdirection.
Click to expand...

Derran Brown is one of the UK's leading specilists in NLP, and i believe has managed to master its intergration into mainstream Hypnosis perfectly.

this is his success
 
Morbius said:
Derren Brown is a magician. Telling you it's all NLP is just misdirection.
Click to expand...

he doesn't even tell them that... all the NLP-tards just assume it as if Derren is some expert NLP'er

he's quite critical of it tbh... and of stage hypnosis still he's a very good actor as he has a lot of people actually accepting, at face value, all the misdirection and patter he comes out with when performing magic tricks.
 
wannabedamned said:
Now I'm not a big believer in hypnosis. I believe that the power of suggestion can work, but I don't know to what sort of degree.

I suppose my limit is believing that listening to a self help hypnosis session can imprint the basic urges on the brain to allow someone to help themselves.

Anyways, That out of the way. I've been looking for a dieting hypnosis CD for my mother. She asked for it, So I'm not going to explain that I think she just needs to stop being a fatty. She's my mummy afterall.

While looking I found some amazing hypnosis claims!!

I'll ease you in...

Hypnosis - Build your self esteem :)

Hypnosis - Relaxation and Deep Sleep :)

Hypnosis - Isabella Valentine's Erotic Hypnosis :D

Hypnosis - Paul McKenna Quit Smoking & Weight loss :)

Hypnosis - Improve your Memory! :)

---

Now these are the "other" ones I've discovered

Hypnosis to prevent Hair loss

Hypnosis to change the colour of your eyes

Hypnosis for Penis Enlargement

Hypnosis for Deep Submission, transgender, sissy, shemale erotica

---


So yeah, This thread is just to point out I found some weird ass **** on the interwebs!

And it makes me wonder how many people fall prey to some of those hypnosis tapes.

Make your junk bigger with a hypnosis tape!? Hell yeah!!
Click to expand...

If you consider the Holographic Universe theory those claims are possible.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Holographic-Universe-Michael-Talbot/dp/0586091718

Jolly good read.
 
fus said:
I'm glad that you have done no shooting from the hip!

Well, aside from;

The assertion that IQ is a valid 'cut off' for those who are able to receive hypnosis. That is wrong because
(a) having an IQ of 70 is an arbitrary cut off first popularised by Cyril Burt when trying to differentiate between children who should go to state or special schools,

(b) IQ itself is an minefield; read 'The Bell Curve' (Hernstein and Murray), or 'The mis-measure of man' (Stephen J Gould) to see that the construction of IQ is tricky. How would that IQ be determined? Wechsler or GL assessment batteries? They both acknowledge the difficulty with the term.
Click to expand...

Yes I kind of agree with you, a) about validity of IQ test b) about the arbitrary value. The point however stands that there is a point where people simply cannot process the hypnotists instructions correctly. If you disagree its not 70, I have no particular problem with that

fus said:
(c) Using the term 'subjects' is offensive; service users, cases or participants would be more appropriate
Click to expand...
No its not, that's in your head! ;)

fus said:
(d) No hypnosis is fool-proof. The jury is still out on if it works, or if a hypnotic state exists: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111025091559.htm I can link to some journal studies if you'd prefer.
Click to expand...
That's simply a function of there been a lack of a true definition of what hypnosis is. fMRI scans clearly show changed activity. As for the results there's plenty of cases of surgery being performed painlessly under hypnosis and no anaesthesia for example.

fus said:
I think I will stop there for now! I should say that I would love it if hypnotherapy works, evidenced by robust scientific practice - it would make my job a lot easier.
Click to expand...

I'm confused as to why you think it doesn't? I agree, it's not 100% effective in 100% people, although I never made the claim that it was. Similarly there are plenty of accepted medical treatments today that are of highly questionable value

fus said:
However, as I've said, the jury is still out. It may, one day, have that evidence, but for now, it doesn't - I know this because, if it did, I would have the option to refer service users. It's not recognised as a valid therapy - although it could be in the future - however I do not think that it will ever be able to demonstrate effectiveness over, say, CBT.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree CBT has worthwhile benefits. Perfectly happy to accept that. You however seem to be looking for certainty about something that will never give you that and hence are rejecting it. By your measure it will never make the grade, no matter how much evidence of successful outcomes.
 
fus said:
Absolutely not true. There is no evidence that a hypnotic state exists.
Click to expand...

Thats simply untrue. fMRI studies show that there is altered state


fus said:
Do you really believe that?
Click to expand...
Why so hostile? He is merely suggesting a common methodology that hypnotists use successfully in those particular circumstances

fus said:
Define being 'in hyponosis'.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I would define it as being in an altered state of consciousness where the critical factor of thinking is suspended and statements are accepted as truth without question.


fus said:
Was it the hypnosis or you that made you stop? Your belief in the 'hypnotherapists' skills? Other compounding factors?
Click to expand...
Unsure why you're asking here because I have the feeling you won't be happy with his answer?

fus said:
Sorry, as much as I'd like this to be true, you have to be careful with throwing these 'facts' around.
Click to expand...
Again I agree that applying some critical thinking is appropriate otherwise you end up in homoeopathy territory, however when dealing with effects on the mind, technology is well behind giving you the certainty you require, so a modified approach is called for where its more appropriate to look at the successes. Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotherapy especially the meta analysis section, showing there was a clear and beneficial effect when looking at its results over large groups of people in high quality studies.
 
fus said:
Nonsense. Show me a single piece of evidence that learning styles exist - that's proper, clinical, scientific evidence. Not somebody's theory.
Click to expand...

Can you verify whether you mean learning styles (VAK learning) in general or just for hypnosis?
 
My apologies if you feel I was being hostile. Although, on reflection, I guess I was. My reason:

I would really like for hypnosis to be real. Honestly, I would. However, clearly you are very passionate about the topic so I owe you a real answer as to why I doubt it.

Firstly, and I mean no disrespect to eggnog here, but there is a lack of clarity and understanding of general psychology thrown around to 'prove' that hypnosis is real. A perfect example is the 'learning styles' mentioned above; there is no evidence for learning styles - there are theories yes - but no evidence. Never has been, doubtful that there ever will be.

However, he makes it sound like one of the key aspects of hypnotherapy is taking in to account the learning style of the patient/subject/whatever. A core component of hypnotherapy is based on a faulty assumption, as are many others. Until those are rectified then it will continue to be seen as on the fringes of therapeutic practice.

Secondly, there are too many other variables at play to say that it was the hypnosis which caused the change, be it behavioural, psychological or physiological. Wandering in to realms of placebo here - no doubt the effect is strong - but is is ethical to say it was the hypnosis which caused it?

re: fMRI. An 'altered state'? Altered from what, and then in to what? How does fMRI show this? Localized activity on an fMRI can mean so many different things. Are are altered states equal? If a person gets hypnotised one day and shows a certain pattern of activity, and then gets hypnotised the next day but shows no activity, or activity in a different area...what then?

I'm not looking for 100% proof. I appreciate that matters of the mind cannot, yet, be held to the same amount of falsification that 'true' sciences can, however, I am also not willing to accept that one person has the 'power' to stop somebody feeling pain during an operation.

If hypnosis works so well, then why does it not have the mainstream appeal of other therapies?

I hope that this hasn't come across as hostile - I'm enjoying the discussion and appreciate that we both come at this from a different perspective. However, I also am aware that without significant moves forward in modifying the outrageous claims that go with it (without the science to back it up), that people will continue to see it as nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom