Hypnotism, EFT and NLP -- distinctions without a difference?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Vizzini on October 24, 2007 at 4:20am

I have always suggested that EFT was hypnosis. The reason is simple. If you just look at the structure of how EFT is used it is identical to a hypnotic technique.

Entrainment and suggestion are the two main processes used in EFT.

The tapping is an anchor that gets accelerated.

Time and time again the tapping has been shown to have nothing to do with meridians or anything else. I have tested this many times. I have tapped intentionally int he wrong spot and gotten a result. I have tapped a table and gotten a result. I have had people imagine tapping the wrong spot and gotten a result.

As a hypnotic process, EFT works. It fits and it gets some results.

The rest is just salesmanship and window dressing.

Have fun

Tom

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Strayer on October 25, 2007 at 9:03am

Hi, Tom. Long time, hope all's well.

Obviously, I agree. A while back, I repeated here an idea from one of my mentors that there are obvious benefits to being able to break any technique into its lowest level operators. In the case of EFT (and EMDR for that matter), you have the physical entrainment and distraction along with a verbal swish of sorts -- the latter in the form of "Even though [less than desirable thing], [desirable thing]." I suppose you could also describe it as chaining anchors, but I consider the swish as a specific example of an anchor chain. So again, distinctions without differences, prompted (says the cynic in me) primarily by commercial considerations. Or, as you say, salesmanship and window dressing.

Now, on to that thread about regression where we can agree to disagree. :-)

- Dave

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JG on October 26, 2007 at 4:20am

And NLP is known as "Conversational Hypnosis" as well. Different paths to the same destination

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JG on October 26, 2007 at 4:22am

Dave, are you referring to age regression, regression to cause (to uncover oft-hidden ISEs), or previous life regression?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Strayer on October 26, 2007 at 5:56am

Actually, I just remembered that I'd seen a post from Tom on his views on regression and, from past discussions, knew that we disagreed.

From a theoretical perspective, I consider regression to cause and PLR to be subsets of age regression. So, again, the distinctions blur.

For clinical purposes, I generally do an affects bridge regression (to cause), either in the traditional sense (Elman) or using timeline techniques (James) and follow the client to ISE, wherever that it. In some special instances, I'll do a directed regression, but that's the exception for me not the rule.

- Dave

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion