"Hypnosis: Professionalism or Quackery" Summer 2009/APA's Div 30 Newsletter: Psychological Hypnosis

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robert Aurbach on June 15, 2009 at 6:48am

I read the article - thanks Michael - and can't help but wonder at the underlying theme and presumption.
The article says that legal recognition is the key to recognition and legitimization. Therefore, the article concludes, we should embrace licensing.
As an attorney (for 30 years) who has been involved with the legal ethics self-policing mechanisms in a couple states going back to my days in law school, I can tell you without fear of serious contradictions that licensing doesn't create respect, and the ability to invoke professional discipline doesn't create professionalism. People are, or are not, afraid of hypnotism. The granting of a state license won't change that. There are good practitioners and there are people whom I wouldn't allow anywhere near me. I truly regret the latter, as they make my job in attracting clients and helping them past their misconceptions much harder. And that's also true in law, in medicine, in cosmetology, in message therapy, in real estate (and equally true in the unregulated world of used car sales). The consumer has to work hard, or get lucky, to find someone good. More government regulation has not, historically, had the predicted positive impacts on professionalism or malpractice, so one wonders if the authors just haven't looked around a lot, or if they have some other agenda.
Bob Aurbach

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Malone on June 15, 2009 at 7:31am

Michael, thanks for posting this. My thoughts on your three questions;

1) Do you think that this article could inspire an organized effort to restrict our practices? Some scattershot efforts possibly but nothing concentrated. My take on the authors's stance was since hypnosis was not regulated to their liking, it was losing credibilty and interest amongst their professionals and students, ergo the answer is to regulate us. The various state govt's regulate professions when there is a potential of harm to the public if they don't take that kind of action. The cited cosmetologist offering "hypnosis for relaxation at his/her salon" is not harming anyone and preventing them from doing so to simply increase the prestige of the ASCH membership is bunk.

2) Do the authors make legitimate criticisms and/or have realistic concerns? There is one that I kind of agree with, but really don't know how to remedy apart from truth in advertising laws. That is the hyperbolic claims of some practitioners that imply a 99% success rate on things like smoking cessation and weight loss after a single visit. These I do believe tarnish our reputation. I am also not fond of the online courses that offer "an initiation into the secrets of the dark underworld of ultra-top secret hypnosis and NLP that are sooo dangerous they could be outlawed at any moment!", but that is really a matter of Caveat Emptor, just like x-ray specs found in the back of old comic books, they really don't work.

3) Is the desire to restrict our practices simply a matter of profesional dirtbags wanting to eliminate legitimate competition or do the authors really believe their mythologies? To use their lingo, I believe the authors suffer from severe "cognitive dissonance." " In light of my expensive/extensive training, the only possible reason an alternative or complementary practitioner could attract a clientele is because they actively deceive the gullible public." Yet the truth is that people often come to us because we offer effective help, including for problems where the other options have failed. That and there are a lot of folks who do not want to be, as you often say Michael "analyzed and fixed" as is the case in traditional psychotherapy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Hazlerig on June 15, 2009 at 7:50pm

Thanks for making this article available, Michael. To answer your questions:

1. I doubt this article will really inspire much. Indeed, it sounds as though interest in hypnosis within the discipline of psychology is waning, which means that fewer psychologists will dedicate themselves to claiming hypnosis as their personal province.

2. I think it's a legitimate concern that less and less research is being done on hypnosis by trained psychologists. Stringent research has a lot to offer in terms of insights we can use.

3. I think it's a little bit of both. There are some embarrassing abuses occurring in the hypnosis community, and I can understand the desire of degreed hypnotists to want to put an end to them.

My 2 cents,

James

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pattie Freeman CH.t, MST on June 16, 2009 at 1:01am

Robert
You have made good points in your post...I agree with you on the agenda issue..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Haifleigh on June 17, 2009 at 6:38am

Anyone see any metaphorical similarities in the descriptions of old and new models described in The Meaning of "Life Inc.” article and the ideas/perspective the authors forward in the Hypnosis: Professionalism or Quackery” article? I do and I may be stretching it, so I’m putting it out there/here.

Excerpt from The Meaning of "Life Inc.” article:

Douglas Rushkoff: ... Money itself was invented to promote transactions. But those were local currencies, grain receipts really, that lost value over time so people spent them. Those currencies were made illegal to make room for central currencies--artificially scarce coin of the realm--that discouraged direct transactions between merchants and people. Likewise, the first corporations were "chartered monopolies" that outlawed competition in an area or industry. And finally, central banking replaced local reinvestment with long-distance interest-based investment. Companies end up serving their debt structures rather than simple supply and demand. The speculative economy becomes dead weight, trailing real business, rather than investment spearheading innovation…

The complete article is available at:
FastCompany.com
Where ideas and people meet


Namaste,
(with reverence to you)
(love, integrity, wisdom, and peace)

Michael

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Haifleigh on June 17, 2009 at 5:54pm

Michael,

In a general response to your three questions regarding the article:

I would have to say that the intent of the authors seems to be that of inspiring an organized effort to restrict the practice of “hypnosis” to a narrow and legislatively controlled process.

The authors make a big mistake by seemingly failing to distinguish between stage hypnosis, hypnosis as a method of personal change/growth/development and hypnosis used as an adjunct in the treatment of mental illness (claiming hypnosis “their field”). The authors are implying that hypnosis is a mental health profession. This is of course is not the case.

I do think the authors have some legitimate criticisms:
I agree that it is inappropriate for a hypnosis practitioner to claim to “treat” medically recognized disorders if they do not also hold a medical or mental health practitioner license.

As may be clear already I do not think they have realistic or justifiable concerns. To the best of my knowledge all members of ASCH are in fact licensed mental health practitioners (or on the way to being so). This would indicate they can practice their profession (mental health) and incorporate hypnosis and /or other “physiological correlates” ad hoc or via protocol already.

With the existing level of “prestige” in the mental health licensing process I do not comprehend the negative impact or lack of trust on the part of their patients to techniques used in “the office” that are also found outside of “the office”.

The authors indicate their desire and commitment to hypnosis. “Above all, we, those of us interested in the preservation and development of our field, must hold to the highest of standards both in our private work and in our public positions.” However to take him at his word here seems to point backward in time. I believe the “highest” standard in the mental health field is MD (Psychiatrist). I don’t think it necessary to limit the practice of mental health, or hypnosis to Psychiatrists and I don’t think the author is advocating this either.

My conclusion is that the author is firmly rooted in the old, disintegrating and un-collaborative, model of “profession” building. It’s understandable and unfortunate. Because with it the author is implicitly and possibly unconsciously putting the interests of the “profession” and practitioners ahead of the patients and or clients.

In a similar way as I have mentioned before I feel it necessary to mention here that holding the interests of the profession/practitioners and patients/clients in equal balance is really the only win-win relationship and ethical position a practitioner can take.

Lastly the article may provide a stimulus for hypnosis practitioners to pause and consider the competitive aspect of the marketplace of ideas. There clearly is a need within the hypnosis practitioner body, a comprehensive effort to development a “Hypnosis Practitioner Body of Knowledge” (HPBOK) and universal curriculum that can be used as a quality standard for “the field of hypnosis” (without ownership).

To that end I invite all to inquire into their desire to make a positive contribution in that direction by exploring the Hypno-Practitioner Training Collaborative



Namaste,
(with reverence to you)
(love, integrity, wisdom, and peace)

Michael

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Brenner on June 17, 2009 at 6:28pm

Interesting article. The writer wants to show his knowledge of the practice of hypnosis in the United States and the lack of legal control of that practice. His facts are flawed. He missed the most restrictive state in the Union, Indiana! The state of Indiana has made it imposable for any person without medical or physiological license to practice the profession.
Bob Brenner

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Haifleigh on June 24, 2009 at 7:02am

How might this Seth Godin blog relate to the possible position the Authors take in their "Professionalism or Quackery" article?

Learning from Singer

At one point, the Singer Corporation had more than 12,000 people working in a single plant. They were selling more than a million sewing machines a year and had hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. By any measure, it was one of the most important manufacturers in America. It was fun while it lasted.

Back then, it was easy to believe that Singer represented everything that was right with our economy, and that our future was intrinsically attached to the company's.

When as (was) the last time you even thought about Singer (or a sewing machine for that matter)?

The cycles are far shorter now than they were during the century that Singer was a shining light for corporate success. More now than ever, success today is no guarantee of success tomorrow.

Sometimes we spend more time than we should defending the old thing, instead of working to take advantage of the new thing. I bet you can list a dozen "critical" industries that will be as relevant to life in 2020 as Singer is to our world today.

The key difference is that be (by) then, managers and shareholders could stall and fumble and wait out the transition until after they retired. Now, it's almost an annual event. Hiding isn't working, and neither is whining. The best marketing strategy is to destroy your industry before your competition does.


Namaste,
(with reverence to you)
(love, integrity, wisdom, and peace)

Michael Haifleigh

Creator of the Hypno-Practitioner Training Collaborative group.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion