Barry Thain on Erickson (comments?)

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by bob burns on September 28, 2011 at 1:36am

I totally agree with both of you.
Phillippe, I thought your quote: "The clip is just black and white; maybe the discussion do not have to be ;)" was excellent! Many thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by owen mcginty on September 28, 2011 at 1:57am

I recently purchased a DVD which has this footage on it (along with some Erickson books). I´ve just started reading the analysis done by Barry. I´m no master hypnotist, but then again, maybe that´s a fresh point of view. Here is my initial brief analysis of Barrys analysis!

 

Before launching into his analysis, I have to say that think I´m aware of the kind of worship phenomenon that Barry mentions - Erickson was not alone, people like Bandler and Grinder are "worshiped" by people (If I share my interpretation of the word worship with Barry). No-one knows everything about hypnosis, and I´m of the opinion that no-one is right 100% of the time. That includes Erickson, Bandler, Grinder, and yes, it includes Barry (and myself might I add). There appear to be people that are religious in their following of people such as Erickson, Bandler etc etc.... and take their every word as gospel. This is why I use the word "worship".  So I applaud Barry for having the balls to criticise Erickson and fly in the face of convention and voice his views, even if I don´t agree with all of them. If we didn´t have questioning minds and challenge views then I think progress would be a lot slower. (I´ll only comment on the points I don´t agree with).

 

01:35 re: "significant goof " - I think this is a badly drawn conclusion by Barry. I am the eldest of 5 siblings, and had fed each of the other 4 (and probably other babies) long before I was Ruths age and before I had attempted to make babies! I doubt I am alone here.

 

05:10 re: "That isn´t hypnotism" - the hand is lifting, Erickson says it´s lifting (yeah, okay, Erickson is lifting the hand, but it IS lifting) - that´s pacing current experience, and pacing current experience can be part of hypnosis, can´t it?

 

04:40 re: "Ruth is not in trance" - due to the quality of the video, I can´t distinguish changes in skin tone, appreciate shifts in breathing, observe if there is REM, etc etc. Just because you don´t get a particular phenomenon as fast as you wanted, does that necessarily mean she isn´t in trance? I´m not sure what Barry is basing himself on to say that she isn´t in trance. I can´t agree with Barry, but I can´t disagree with him either, I don´t see enough evidence.

 

05:00 and 05:12 - I´ve done this in the past, given an order over and over. As it happens it was also for an arm raise. At first the arm didn´t budge, but then slowly it started to lift. Just seems like a difference in styles, perhaps Barry is more patient than Erickson was? As for Ericksons decision to lift the hand - surely that´s just being flexible and finding another way to get the result that he wants? (or to start the ball rolling in the direction that he wants?).

 

07:15 re: "rousing Ruth from a trance that never was" - maybe she was in trance, maybe she wasn´t, I wont get into that again. But I don´t recall any indication on her part that she knew that she was or was not in trance, so if Erickson talks to her implying that she was in trance, she may believe she was in trance... so he could still be working with suggestion. This is where I come the next point:

 

07:30 re:"automatic movement/trance ratification" - It seems that Barry links automatic movement to being in trance. This is where the lines get blurred for me. If I stand someone up, get them to take a deep breath, hold the palms facing each other with their arms exteneded. Then tell them to close their eyes and start giving them suggestions regarding a magnetic force drawing their hands together, I can get automatic movement. Is that trance? - that´s a big can of worms I think that would be best left untouched in this thread. Anyway, what I´m getting at is that I don´t necessarily think that the presence of one indicates the presence of the other.

 

11:40 re:"hypnotizing apples" - sounds like Barry was disappointed in Ericksons performance in the video, and I can identify with Barry here. I had thought I was going to see something that might have me in awe, something that might illustrate why "Ericksonian hypnosis" is so widely known, well thought of, revered even. I think Barry is having a bit of a poke at Erickson here, which I don´t consider entirely fair, but I think I share his disappointment. Might I add that this disappointment is due not to Erickson, but the fault of others who gave him his reputation.

 

13:30 re:"He wanted the hand to keep coming down" - this is a mind read. Barry can´t know what Erickson wanted to happen. It occurrs to me that it doesn´t matter to Erickson what the result is, if she can´t stop the hand, he has used the word "try" so he can claim the success or failure of Ruth to stop the hand as his desired result either way.

 

from 15:15 onwards, I think I detect that Barry has a dry sense of humor something akin to my own!

Regarding the head nodding, I think I need to watch the video again as I understood that whilst Ruth would answer the questions correctly verbally, her head nodding would follow Ericksons (i.e. she´d say no whilst nodding, or say yes whilst shaking her head). Maybe my memory fails me on this one.

I tend to agree with Barry when he says this is not a demonstration of hypnosis, but rather more a demonstration that Ruth is somewhat confused and following Ericksons nodding patterns.

 

23:30 re:"Gibberish" - I´ve thought this on more than one occasion when I´ve read transcripts of Erickson, I thought this was employed as a distraction technique to be able to get around the resistance of the conscious mind?

 

31:15 re:"flogging a dead horse" - sarcasm, I laughed out loud when I read this, but I realize it will not be everyones cup of tea!

 

I agree with Barrys parting words. I don´t think it was a particularly educational video, nor was it a successful demonstration of hypnotic technique. This is the first time I´ve come across any criticism of Erickson, and the first time I´ve ever heard of or witnessed one of his failures. I think It´s only logical that people focused more on the amazing successes he had, afterall - anyone can fail. I doubt Barry was having a dig directly at Erickson, and suspect it was directed more at the "religious" following of Erickson.

 

Someone told me to watch the Ruth video, I can´t quite figure out why though.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Chase on September 28, 2011 at 2:12am

The problem, as it always is on these forums is that people read what they see and understand what thy want, and add what isn't there to uphold their own belief systems. Which would be fine in any other sort of forum, but in one where the posters are helping others change minds it's a tad disquieting.  The thing is Barry Thain does Not dismiss Ericksons overall work or validity or reputation. He doesn't for instance mention the fact that Erickson despised the idea of non-medically qualified people 'practicing' hypnosis. All Barry does is to observe and comment on a video which quite frankly is painful to watch from a hypnosis point of view. And as there doesn't appear to be any specific therapy involved one has to assume it is meant to be a demonstration of hypnosis. If that's so then Barry is perfectly correct, it isn't very good.

 

The facts are that there is very little video evidence of what Erickson did and this particular piece which is often regarded as a masterpiece makes one wonder if all that was written about the guy was as accurate as it appears. 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Philippe MIRAS on September 28, 2011 at 2:49am

It what just to add some grey ( or a different light;)  I dont think that all milton erickson is in this clip; i don't think all Barry thain is in this analysis.

I have absolutly no abilities to add any clever comentary to that clip, nor Thain's analysis; but things becoming very personal, i thaught it was worth it .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by docregal.com on September 28, 2011 at 3:59am

Discussing whether or not Ruth was hypnotized, from my perspective, is rather moot. We do not ordinarily get the opportunity to handpick our participants, subjects, patients, volunteers and clients. In my opinion, this video clip stimulates the mind of the operator and offers the viewer a valid segment of Milton's work. Although our techniques might not emulate Erickson, we can respectfully appreciate his style, methods and approach. And perhaps from studying this man's manner of utilizing hypnotism, we can be inspired to incorporate some of his winning ideas. That is just a hypno thought, not a suggestion. ;-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on September 28, 2011 at 6:53am

It is true that what you get out of the video depends on your personal experience with hypnosis, the training you have had, what you currently believe with regards to hypnosis, and your understanding of how the hypnosis/trance phenomenon.

Mr. Thain's interpretation is proof of that.

The downside comes (as with all discussions about hypnosis do) with the different opinions of what's really going on, what it really means, who thinks they are right, and how they can prove it.

 

John

Jonathan Chase said:

The problem, as it always is on these forums is that people read what they see and understand what thy want, and add what isn't there to uphold their own belief systems. Which would be fine in any other sort of forum, but in one where the posters are helping others change minds it's a tad disquieting.  The thing is Barry Thain does Not dismiss Ericksons overall work or validity or reputation. He doesn't for instance mention the fact that Erickson despised the idea of non-medically qualified people 'practicing' hypnosis. All Barry does is to observe and comment on a video which quite frankly is painful to watch from a hypnosis point of view. And as there doesn't appear to be any specific therapy involved one has to assume it is meant to be a demonstration of hypnosis. If that's so then Barry is perfectly correct, it isn't very good.

 

The facts are that there is very little video evidence of what Erickson did and this particular piece which is often regarded as a masterpiece makes one wonder if all that was written about the guy was as accurate as it appears. 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

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