Barry Thain on Erickson (comments?)

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Graham Old on September 22, 2011 at 2:33pm

I'm a British hypnotist and I completely disagree with Barry.

In my experience and opinion, most of those who slate Erickson so strongly are actually reacting to the worship of Erickson we see in some circles. In fact, some of them who have spoken out the strongest (and I won't name names) have clearly not possessed accurate knowledge of Erickson's contribution. The first clue is those who speak or Erickson as a hypnotherapist.

I think that Barry is completely wrong and I don't quite see how he reaches some of his conclusions.

Erickson was/is not the be-all and end-all of hypnotherapy. However, some of the most astute therapists in the world stood in awe of him. There's a reason why.

(Another clue as to people's lack of knowledge is when they speak as if they did not realise Erickson could do very quick inductions.)

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on September 23, 2011 at 3:50am

I agree with Graham... about this...Barry is  "In-Thain"

 

John

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bob burns on September 23, 2011 at 4:54am

Thanks for the reply guys. Can I ask both of you WHERE you feel he is 'completely wrong'?

Where exactly do you feel, during his analysis, does he state an untruth? Is he misrepresenting the facts in your belief? If so can I ask how and where? I mean by that Graham, Mr. Thain states very clearly how he reaches all his conlusions. If nothing else, you have to say it's a highly professional analysis where he makes direct quotes and even gives the timings of where the reader/viewer can check out his analysis for themselves by listening andf looking at Erickson's work.

I mean, Thain puts it all out there in the open, does he not?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Graham Old on September 23, 2011 at 7:36am

Hi Bob,

 

Sorry haven't got time to give the full response you want at the moment. I read Barry's analysis when he sent it to me a few years ago. Yes, it is very professional and thorough.

I'll try to respond properly this weekend, but I'm not particularly interested in debating Barry - who strikes me as an exceptional hypnotist. I just think he's misunderstood what Erickson was doing, unlike the therapists who appreciated and witnessed his work at the time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on September 23, 2011 at 7:42am

Bob,

Here is just the beginning...

 

01:00 Ruth confesses to being a bit nervous. Erickson reassures her saying that he’s the one who has to do all the work and that “all you have to do is let things happen, and it will happen.” [CREATING POSITIVE EXPECTANCY]

 

No its not. This just is letting the subject know what she is supposed to do... which is one of the biggest questions anyone who has not been hypnotized before has.

 

01:35 “As you watch your hands, they’re resting there.” [TRUISM]

 

This is actually an indirect suggestion to focus her attention on her hands

 

This is typical Ericksonian permissive language. He tells Ruth he wants to get automatic movement and explains what it is. “And do you know about the feelings you have when you’re feeding a baby and you want the baby to open it’s mouth and you open yours instead of the baby?” [TRUISM TO EVOKE MEMORIES OF THE DESIRED PHENOMENON]

 

This actually presents the indirect suggestion that she is to mimic what she sees Erickson doing.

 

This is curious. Ruth is a young woman. Later he refers to her as a girl. There are no rings on her fingers and nothing to indicate she has any experience of attempting to make babies let alone feed one. In fact she is a student. It might be interpreted as a CONFUSIONAL TECHNIQUE but, actually, it’s really just a significant goof.

 

Nope.. Mr. Thain just missed the point entirely.

 

I could go on.. but why?

 

John

 

 

bob burns said:

Thanks for the reply guys. Can I ask both of you WHERE you feel he is 'completely wrong'?

Where exactly do you feel, during his analysis, does he state an untruth? Is he misrepresenting the facts in your belief? If so can I ask how and where? I mean by that Graham, Mr. Thain states very clearly how he reaches all his conlusions. If nothing else, you have to say it's a highly professional analysis where he makes direct quotes and even gives the timings of where the reader/viewer can check out his analysis for themselves by listening andf looking at Erickson's work.

I mean, Thain puts it all out there in the open, does he not?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bob burns on September 23, 2011 at 10:10am

Ok Graham thanks.

Well the reason to go on John would probably be the same reason why barry Thain went on. In order to give his viewpoint on the whole session.
What we have here of course are his and your opinion differing. I'm sure you'd find many who studied Erickson to agree with you, as he has already many who have studied Erickson agreeing with him. His forum is riddles with them, psychologists included.

Like I said, all very interesting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on September 23, 2011 at 11:05am

Bob,

I agree that it is just a difference of opinion, and I guess that that is my point.

I just don't see the value of trying to deride Milton Erickson's legacy and calling things "a goof" based on only a misunderstanding what what techniques were being used and why.

In my opinion it was not a very substantial or accurate assessment (as the example I gave shows), especially when good ole Milton isn't here to defend himself.

 

John

 

bob burns said:

Ok Graham thanks.

Well the reason to go on John would probably be the same reason why barry Thain went on. In order to give his viewpoint on the whole session.
What we have here of course are his and your opinion differing. I'm sure you'd find many who studied Erickson to agree with you, as he has already many who have studied Erickson agreeing with him. His forum is riddles with them, psychologists included.

Like I said, all very interesting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bob burns on September 23, 2011 at 12:00pm

Fair point John.

What I WOULD have liked would have been someone from the Milt camp going through the same clip and giving their explanation of why he said/did what he said/did.

I'd do it myself but to be honest it's just all toooooo deep for my tiny mind :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephanie Voss on September 23, 2011 at 12:34pm

I thought this analysis had very many good points -- I've seen that clip and found it interesting that ME was not getting always what he seemed to think he was getting. The general lesson that I gleaned, however, was that with encouragement, connection. guidance and patience one can give a satisfying experience. I've always thought that some slower progressive inductions simply bore clients into hypnosis -- compliance can also get them there.

 

I did differ emphatically with the analysis of the "feeding a baby" section as a goof. Where did this Barry get the idea that only mothers feed infants? I was born in 1960 and as late as the 70s many teenaged girls either had younger siblings or babysat. Even now that example might work, because almost everyone has seen a baby being fed in a movie or on television.

 

Interesting discussion... it's always so easy to grab some attention by stirring up controversy over an icon. And yet, I think it's valuable, too.

 

-Stephanie Voss

Los Angeles

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bob burns on September 23, 2011 at 12:39pm

Hi Stephanie. Yes Like you I felt he possibly wasn't getting what he seemed to think he was getting.

But it might be possible that the great master was actually acting that way in order to..... well, I don't know LOL.

Either way, we've all learned stuff from Milt.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on September 23, 2011 at 1:33pm

Not a task that I would want to undertake either, but just because I don't see much value in doing it other than just to just show up Mr. Thain. (and there is no value in doing that).

 

John

bob burns said:

Fair point John.

What I WOULD have liked would have been someone from the Milt camp going through the same clip and giving their explanation of why he said/did what he said/did.

I'd do it myself but to be honest it's just all toooooo deep for my tiny mind :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ricky Strode on September 23, 2011 at 5:09pm

That is probably one of the worst clips one could use as a base point for Milton H. Erickson's work. How does one find something a goof, if they have no way of proving it is or it is not? It seems to something that is more subjective than anything. It is a good demonstration for basic work, but Nick and Mondy, the Basteson's group's or just about any of the other ones. The one's with Jeffery Zeig  can get pretty annoying so, if you are able to get a hold of the originals I highly recommend those over the others. However, this is also a good one for basic trance phenomenon that is a little quicker than most. I also would like to mention that arm catalepsy is a hypnotic phenomena and he had achieved unconscious suggestion that occurred successfully. It seems as if he claims to know things he cannot possibly know besides being an opinion that is both very biased and possibly ego centered more than anything else. I am not saying Milton Erickson is great hypnotist, but I know he was on to something that no one else was. This analysis makes one doubt Mr. Thain's own competence more than anything else. Prestige is not ability, so that really means nothing other than those who think it does. Hell, I can do things that neither Milton or Elman himself were able to do, but that really does not mean much, because how many years ago was that. They were the great ones during their times. However, with the knowledge there is today it is easy to gain much more experience than either one of them in far less time. They were pioneers we are more, like the industrial revolution.

I have met many hypnotists that would not know a hypnotic phenomena if it slapped them in the face. The narrower the ideas, the more one misses and that is more than half of whether one is successful where many fail. It really is not that complex. In fact, it is much easier than most even realize. It is easy to hypnotize people, it takes more skill to be a good hypnotist, because many of the times people are in their own way with stupid ideas. However, I am not here to change anyone's mind about what happened or their opinion of something, but I am here to question everything, even my own ideas. 

Your In-Trance To Success,

Ricky

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page