published inductions

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jon Rhodes on January 9, 2009 at 9:46am

I was taught that a hypnotic trance was a normal and natural state that everyone entered into several times a day. I was also taught you experienced a trance when engrossed in a book or a film.

Should these not then carry warnings in case you become so engrossed that you accidentally leave the cooker on? Should my soothing copy of Morcheba also carry similar warnings? What about meditation recordings, should they too carry warnings? According to what I was taught these are all capable of guiding you into quite deep trances.

I was also taught that you can come out of a trance any time you choose. That you are in control and still aware when in trance, if not more so. Then I was taught that hypnosis recordings were dangerous, and stage hypnosis was dangerous. There seems to be some inconsistency's here.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Johnson on January 9, 2009 at 10:04am

I could not agree more.
You're right! Completely!

So what's the issue. Is it protecting your self - that would take less than one second to announce or display on a CD or Video ( could even be used to advertise your practice and training programs). Or is it miss guided stubbornness that only satisfies a confused emotional release of frustration.

But I do agree - I just know how a little can ward of a lot!

Michael

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Taylor Sherman on January 9, 2009 at 10:51am

"McDonalds was unfortunate to say the least. Yet, having it happen to a company large enough to pay such an unfair judgment helps the small company become aware of the need to post a warning in advance of a potential. All fast food businesses began to implement a policy of two cups to reduce the temperature emitted by tea. Tea is served hotter than coffee and needed to be served in a double cup for the patron’s safety. By following this simple policy others reduce significantly their liability through implementing this policy."

With respect, this argument doesn't hold up.

Lawyers are looking all the time to "Make Law" - which is to redefine the law in such a way that they create new precedents and become famous for being able to sue on something that hasn't previously been sued for.

The McDonalds lawyers made law. There was also a woman who had co-signed on a loan that she gave her grandson to buy a car - when he went out drinking and driving and his friend became a paraplegic, SHE was found at fault, ordered to pay several million dollars in damages, won the case on appeal, still being a million in the hole from lawyers fees.

She wasn't there, she had nothing to do with it, she wasn't the one drinking, she had no idea of knowing what her grandson would do with the car, she just cosigned the loan.

Are there are any laws against co-signing loans, now? No, this is because no one can possibly know how to be completely safe against any and all laws or potential legal suits. It's flat-out impossible, especially if you are in business.

Did you know that it's illegal to be in possession of a lobster that is below a certain size? This is a federal offense, and yet if a police officer questioned you on this, you might freely admit to it, not knowing that you had just given a confession to this "crime."

My experience dictates that most people think that the law is "common sense" based, when in fact it's based much more in interpretation, federal and state statutes (of which is nearly impossible to keep up with), and common law.

There's plenty of examples of people who have done the wrong thing but been on the right side of the law and won the case. Or people who have been perfectly normal doing the right things in their lives, but have ended up the victims of massive legal suits, which, as I mentioned, rely primarily on interpretation and emotion.

In the case of the woman who was held at fault for her grandson, the plaintiff's attorney played on the emotions of (inexperienced) jurors who were shown for days, pictures of the wreckage, pictures of what had happened to the boy's friend, they were manipulated plain and simple to believe that "someone has to be at fault," and the jury went along with it.

Yes, in the McDonalds cases, the other restaurants were reducing their liability, -after- someone had successfully sued for it. But before that, their lawyers couldn't protect them against it, because there's no statutory basis for the claim... they "made law."

The idea here is that you never know what you will be sued for. This is why, if possible, you protect yourself through a Limited Liability Company (not a Corporation, they are much more vulnerable) and you generally cover your ass by having people sign or agree to a lot of contracts, even if they are quick form letters on purchase agreements. Because whether they sign a contract or not, there are already "default" ones in place that the courts will rule by in the absense of a formal agreement.

My advice is, if someone sues you, get even. Never give up. Hire lawyers who are VERY aggressive -- the ones that you can't afford.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Johnson on January 9, 2009 at 12:06pm

Though I agree with you except for the get even part its not all doom and gloom.

My point is not to provide a legal interpretation of law as practiced in any jurisdiction. But rather consider that those who don't even do the least have NO defense what so ever. Perhaps one of the most asinine comments I have ever heard is that of "Ignorance of the Law is not an excuse". In the province of Ontario, Canada there were reported to have been over 65,000 laws on the books over 10 years ago. Then add to the that number Federal laws ... well I think you get the point. Knowing them all or as required, knowing those that relate to yourself is virtually impossible.

I had hoped to offer a parallel consideration for using video in an educational format - covering your self with a disclaimer. Irrespective of what you may think they do have an effect in all jurisdictions practicing civil or common Law.

As for the cosigning, that would be applied under common law and I'm glad she was not found to be associated to the occurrence.

Hey, did you know it is against the law in Alberta Canada to drive a motorized carriage (car for the rest of us) at night without a man walking in front swinging a lantern to let others know you are in motion - yes it is still on the books.

You have a wonderful point about the administration of law and the effect lawyers have on each case. Another good reason to cover yourself.

As for Contract Law, always have one in writing. A contract can be in writing, verbal or intention displayed through action taken or implied. A Justice has a duty to resolve ambiguities (errors in law) through an attempt to infer the original intent of the meeting of minds (the contract).
Always have one even if it just scribbled, and make sure you and the other sign it.

So - should you use YouTube - absolutely. Should you throw caution to the wind?
Well only you can answer that one...

Michael

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Richard Nongard - HypnosisGurus.com on January 9, 2009 at 12:51pm

A lot of people write me about my videos saying they never understood hypnosis as they do now and feel clarity, no longer affraid the deveil will steal their soul...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alexander Duvall - HypnotizedTV. on January 9, 2009 at 2:42pm

The hypnotist here is peter casson he made a pilot tv show back in 1946 but the producers cancelled it becuase 2 camera men went into trance whilst filming a close up on peter cassons induction.

Quote"
Although we have no evidence of harm or potential harm regarding the use of hypnosis on television or radio we should still take steps to minimise any risk of inducing hypnosis and/or adverse reactions in susceptible viewers or listeners. In particular, a hypnotist must not broadcast his/her full verbal routine or be shown performing straight to camera. Hypnotism acts in entertainment programmes, particularly those designed to ridicule someone, should be treated with care. They might be both harmful and offensive to our audience

BBC Guidlines

************************************

Remote-Control Hypnosis Friday, Jul. 02, 1965
sourced
The notion that some evil eminence might use mass hypnosis over television is older than 1984, but nobody outside fiction has ever proved it possible. Last week a reputable Manhattan psychiatrist who has nothing of the Svengali about him told the A.M.A. that it is indeed possible. He knows, because he has done it.

Psychiatrist Herbert Spiegel, an assistant professor in Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Dr. James H. Ryan, a Columbia instructor, asked themselves the question: Is the physical presence of the hypnotist necessary to evoke the trance state? Theoretically, the answer should be no, they thought, because the capacity to go into a trance lies within the subject. To make sure, they ran tests on two subjects. Both were known to be hypnotizable, but only one of them had ever been hypnotized by either Spiegel or Ryan.

Using a closed-circuit system, Spiegel sat in front of a TV camera in Columbia's Psychiatric Institute. A 20-year-old girl, whom he had hypnotized several times before, watched a receiver four floors above. After some chitchat, Spiegel told the girl, "I'm going to count one, two, three, and your eyes will close and you'll go into a relaxed state," and she promptly went into a trance. Spiegel told her that her left forearm would become paralyzed and numb, arid that this condition would persist, even after she "came to," until he touched her elbow. When he ended the trance, the girl remained rooted before the receiver, her left arm numb and inert. After the usual wait for a hospital elevator, Spiegel walked into the laboratory and touched her elbow. Only then did she regain sensation in the arm and the power to move it independently.

Since this girl was a subject known to be susceptible to Spiegel's hypnotic techniques, the next question was whether a stranger could be similarly influenced. Such a subject was a 30-year-old man who went through the same TV routine. This time he was told that he would not be able to unclasp his hands until the psychiatrist touched his head. Sure enough, he kept his hands gripped together after the trance and released them only on the prearranged signal.

Spiegel and Ryan suggest that TV hypnosis might be useful "in mass education, group treatment and research." It might be valuable, they add hopefully, for pilots in long space flights, to help them cope with feelings of isolation and loneliness—a radio message from Earth, for example, could activate a previously implanted suggestion of encouragement and companionship. But they also warn that unscrupulous operators might "confuse, exploit and deceive hypnotizable subjects." This experiment, they concluded, "emphasizes the compelling need to maintain responsible, stringent safeguards and control over the personnel having access to public broadcasting systems."

Dont forget Orson Welles' 1938 Martian invasion broadcast maybe one day we will be reading about a certain youtube broadcast.

This is a good discussion and I am all for making people more aware about hypnosis but I think hypnotist should maintain responsible broadcasting of a hypnosis Induction

Like Michael says
"It only takes ONE Cockroach to destroy the pie – unless of course you remembered to cover it!"

Read article Mesmerism & the Boob

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alexander Duvall - HypnotizedTV. on January 9, 2009 at 3:21pm

In 2007, to mark the 50th anniversary of James Vicary's original experiment, it was recreated at the International Brand Marketing Conference MARKA 2007[15]. As part of the "Hypnosis, subconscious triggers and branding" presentation 1,400 delegates watched part the opening credits of the film PICNIC that was used in the original experiment. They were exposed to 30 subliminal cuts over a 90 second period. When asked to choose one of two brands 81% of the delegates picked the brand suggested by the subliminal cuts.

source Subliminal message
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bruce Taylor C.Ht on January 9, 2009 at 4:54pm

Switch off the gas? In a relaxed state I can't help it. It just comes out.

Seriously, I think it is impossible to make the world idiot proof. As far as liability, where there is a will there is a way. We are a sue happy country. The ambulance chasers sue because they can settle out of court because it is cheaper than going through a complete trial. I do think we should show some effort to protect ourselves but think hypnosis and trance are natural states. The car manufacturers do not warn us that we are hypnotised while driving.

My 2 cents
Bruce Taylor

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Taylor Sherman on January 9, 2009 at 5:50pm

"Though I agree with you except for the get even part"

I read in an online article that Donald Trump was "looking forward" to suing a locality for some time now, and everyone criticized him for it, saying that it was not right to look forward to sue anybody. But that's the reality of playing with the big dogs, and I like his attitude.

As hypnotists we like to believe that people are generally good and they won't mess with you for no reason. And if you live in a small town and love all your neighbors, maybe that's true. Then you move to a rough neighborhood, or you start competing in someone else's market, and a lot of those guys are out for blood. Not only is it fun to get even, it's sometimes a necessity.

"As for the cosigning, that would be applied under common law and I'm glad she was not found to be associated to the occurrence."

Yeah, but only after spending her life's savings - around a million dollars, on lawyers fees, just to defend herself. It was a no-win for her. And she only won on appeal, which is pretty scary if you think about it.

K law is a fun field though...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jon Rhodes on January 9, 2009 at 11:34pm

I found the BBC guidelines very interesting, and from how I understand it, they want to be sure that thousands of susceptible people are not in trances as a result of watching one of their programmes. Fair enough.

However YouTube is a very different thing. In 1946 the BBC was the only channel in the UK. There were no choices. YouTube is a very different animal. It contains literally millions of videos to choose from - there is no force feeding any content here. People look for what they want to watch. Someone looking for hypnosis will find it. If they don;t want to watch it, then they can choose something else from the millions of other videos. There is no force feeding of content here. People can't really complain about being hypnotised when they chose to view a hypnosis video.

I agree that warnings and disclaimers may help a little if someone decides to try it on in the future, but there is also another point. Doesn't loading a video with warnings and disclaimers imply that the process of hypnosis is dangerous?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James Klingensmith on January 10, 2009 at 3:48pm

1st I wanted to take this time and say Richard Nongard, I belive the work your wife, you and John are doing is very important to the world and our craft thank you.
2nd About Inductions on video: I belive in the 1st amendment call me a Patriot but the bill of rights is more important than any one life and something bad happing is inebatable in what ever you do, even sneezing can casue real harm. (My mother-in-law was hospitalized for sneezing 3 weeks ago)
Benjamin Franklin helped create the fear of hypnosis and freedom of speech. Due to the Franklin Fear We are responable to give the truth about the S.C. to the public in every way possible.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page