Talking Point: Instant Inductions and Modern Hypnotic Practice - Gil Boyne in Budapest

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by GIL BOYNE on November 21, 2009 at 10:53pm

Hello Pamela, You are revealing my secrets! God bless you and your perception, --Gul

JADE~ Pamela Scott aka HYPNOJADE said:

Thank you for posting these videos. I have never seen G. B. and I would like to bring to your attention something that hasn't been addressed. Gil is NOT randomly touching! Note he uses his thumb between the eyes and forehead, particularly, in both videos.
What I see him doing is stimulating the pineal and pituitary gland, both enhancing and grounding the hypnotic experience. While I am not going to get into pathophysiology, muscular trigger points, reflexology or chakras, I would highly recommend further investigation of ALL his "touching" techniques! Brilliant!
Whether he uses these "touching' methods intuitively or by scientific research, experience and documentation, the method of his "touching" is strong, viable, and scientifically sound. I did not learn these processes in hypnosis classes, but in nursing school and practice. Right on dude!! That got me excited..... and more confident! ;D

KISS JADE

Permalink Reply by David Parke on November 22, 2009 at 12:07am

Hmmm, so now we are questioning Gil Boyne's techniques. I don't have the years of experience that some of you have but here are my observations.


"Although, I recognize and deeply appreciate Gil Boyne's huge professional standing and contributions to the field, I am asking the questions below because I do not believe that the demonstrations that he shared with us reflect modern hypnotic practice and I wonder what other members of Hypnothoughts.com think about it."

I guess you'd have to define what "modern" practice is and if there's more value in it. Everybody on here may have a different concept of what "modern" practice comprises. Some may feel that a soft, maternal, non-authoritarian way is "modern" while you have people like John Cerbonne and Justin Tranz that are still creating instant shock inductions...so they must be modern too. If by modern you mean an emasculated non-directive non-paternal approach then no...Gil's techniques don't reflect modern practice. You'd have to convince me that "modern" practice has any benefit over its predecessor or predecessors. I just consider it part and parcel of the emasculation of society in general...that seems to be the new definition of "modern". Anything that is paternal, directive, or authoritarian must be atavistic and therefore bad.

1) Do you believe that jerking a standing client's neck and shouting sleep and then guiding him or her into your chair is representative of your hypnosis practice?

I like the wording on this. Do you believe that possibly doing physical harm while yelling at your client is representative of your practice...hmmm, NO. Now if you were to ask me if doing a rapid induction (which is what I see) was common in my practice then I'd have to say yes. I haven't had the opportunity to study with Mr. Boyne (yet) but I have trained with Richard Nongard, John Cerbonne, Brian David Phillips and Justin Tranz. I think the problem that most people have with rapid inductions is they are afraid of doing them. It takes a great deal of courage to do an induction that will possibly leave you looking like an ass if it doesn't work. I know, it took me a long time to overcome that fear myself. If you've ever seen somebody in a street fight or in combat freeze up you know the power of a rapid induction. It's the same effect.


"2) Do you believe that putting your hand in a volunteers or client's face as was done in both of Gil's demos is an effective way to promote our profession or practices?"

I believe that generating results is an effective way to promote our profession and practice. I have had as good or better results with people by using rapid inductions and directive instructions (also utilizing touch as a physical cue) than I ever did by sitting somebody down in a comfy chair (which I spent a lot of money for), taking them through PLR, and then using a non-directive approach. Perhaps your results are different but I have tried (and still use) both methods. For those who haven't tried rapid inductions or directive approaches perhaps it would be beneficial to add these to your repertoire or at least take them for a test drive.

"3) Are convincers like "eye lock" necessary or even helpful in modern hypnotic practice?"

In many (if not most) cases yes. I believe they are helpful in allowing the client to "experience" hypnosis. Otherwise you may wind up with a person who thinks they were very relaxed but nothing else. Again, I find that there is a certain fear that comes up when talking about convincers. We are once again left with a chance we could face "failure" if we don't know where to go from there. I know many hypnotherapists that are content to sit a person down, do PLR, give the suggestions and end the session with no risk to their personal or professional credibility. Instant inductions and convincers can be "scary" for some of us because of a lack in confidence or because of the possibility that they won't work.

As far as the directive, authoritarian approach I can say that just reading "Transforming Therapy" took my regressions to a whole new level. I believe that many people these days have an inability to take on a directive persona and therefore dismiss it and criticize it. It is a kinder and gentler world that is slowly sinking into chaos because people are afraid to take the reins. I think that one of the reasons that people question Gil's techniques is it is a defensive mechanism because they are unable or unwilling to model his approach. Although I'm completely perplexed as to how you could question Gil Boyne's techniques...they may not suit your style, personality, or beliefs but they are tried and true, regardless of your definition of "modern". I'm also a bit surprised that professional hypnotists/hypnotherapists aren't eager to include every possible tool in their box.

As one of my mentors, Hugh Cole, said, choose your mentors wisely. A man with almost half a century of success, hundreds of successful students, and an unrivaled passion and commitment to hypnosis would be an honored mentor of mine any day...regardless of what people considered "modern".

Dave

.

Permalink Reply by Lee Pelletier on November 22, 2009 at 2:58am

There are ways in which we can get lost in "If I do it this way, it must be right." Let's think carefully together as we look at the "body of work" which different hypnotists produce. Every living hypnotist can continue to learn and improve--can expand his or her techniques. It is a huge mistake for anyone to become so settle in how they do things that they cannot adapt.

As hypnotists, reading these posts, we should be fascinated to read these posts. Notice how the different comments contain justifications for why this is right and that wouldn't work for "me". Does that sound at all like the associations our clients make to keep them locked into this or that behavior?

It is important to note that whatever else may be true, Gil Boyne's techniques work. They work, objectively.

When our need to be "right" blocks us from seeing what others are doing we are, within our profession, doing what those outside the profession that are critical of hypnosis do that we must fight. In that sense those in the helping professions are also like very religious folks. Instead of a faith system, or a denomination, it is a "school of psychology" or a "family of hypnotic techniques". Gil Boyne does this or that, but I don't. Therefore, I must be right and Gil must be wrong.

I have learned to take a very different view. I have been learning to say that if this or that technique works then it is worth exploring, even if it does not fit my style. Elsewhere on this site there is a discussion of the value of scripts. There are those who say a truly experienced professional would never use a script, while others always use scripts. Their choice reflects their own personality--their own comfort levels. Yet there is criticism there as well. Scripts are extraordinarily valuable--they may give us ideas and approaches. They may give us something we had not thought of before.

As professionals, whether or not someone's techniques or approaches suit us, they work. We need to be ready to learn from them. In their fine book "Training Trances" John Overdurf and Julie Silverthorn share a metaphor called "The Master Woodcutter." The Master tells his students that as they seek to become masters they must do two things. First they must be ready and willing to learn from anything. Second, they must never stop learning. As we grow and develop as a profession, and as professionals, we will know, as the Master Woodcutter said, there is always more to learn.

Permalink Reply by Hugh Cole on November 22, 2009 at 5:00am

The Beginners mind..... perhaps the greatest asset any hypnotist can cultivate......

Hugh Cole
The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet

Lee Pelletier said:

There are ways in which we can get lost in "If I do it this way, it must be right." Let's think carefully together as we look at the "body of work" which different hypnotists produce. Every living hypnotist can continue to learn and improve--can expand his or her techniques. It is a huge mistake for anyone to become so settle in how they do things that they cannot adapt.

As hypnotists, reading these posts, we should be fascinated to read these posts. Notice how the different comments contain justifications for why this is right and that wouldn't work for "me". Does that sound at all like the associations our clients make to keep them locked into this or that behavior?

It is important to note that whatever else may be true, Gil Boyne's techniques work. They work, objectively.

When our need to be "right" blocks us from seeing what others are doing we are, within our profession, doing what those outside the profession that are critical of hypnosis do that we must fight. In that sense those in the helping professions are also like very religious folks. Instead of a faith system, or a denomination, it is a "school of psychology" or a "family of hypnotic techniques". Gil Boyne does this or that, but I don't. Therefore, I must be right and Gil must be wrong.

I have learned to take a very different view. I have been learning to say that if this or that technique works then it is worth exploring, even if it does not fit my style. Elsewhere on this site there is a discussion of the value of scripts. There are those who say a truly experienced professional would never use a script, while others always use scripts. Their choice reflects their own personality--their own comfort levels. Yet there is criticism there as well. Scripts are extraordinarily valuable--they may give us ideas and approaches. They may give us something we had not thought of before.

As professionals, whether or not someone's techniques or approaches suit us, they work. We need to be ready to learn from them. In their fine book "Training Trances" John Overdurf and Julie Silverthorn share a metaphor called "The Master Woodcutter." The Master tells his students that as they seek to become masters they must do two things. First they must be ready and willing to learn from anything. Second, they must never stop learning. As we grow and develop as a profession, and as professionals, we will know, as the Master Woodcutter said, there is always more to learn.

Permalink Reply by Hugh Cole on November 22, 2009 at 5:10am

Great Observation Jade.. You have much to contribute to the world of Hypnosis. and I am happy to see you doing just that.
Hugh Cole
The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet

JADE~ Pamela Scott aka HYPNOJADE said:

Thank you for posting these videos. I have never seen G. B. and I would like to bring to your attention something that hasn't been addressed. Gil is NOT randomly touching! Note he uses his thumb between the eyes and forehead, particularly, in both videos.
What I see him doing is stimulating the pineal and pituitary gland, both enhancing and grounding the hypnotic experience. While I am not going to get into pathophysiology, muscular trigger points, reflexology or chakras, I would highly recommend further investigation of ALL his "touching" techniques! Brilliant!
Whether he uses these "touching' methods intuitively or by scientific research, experience and documentation, the method of his "touching" is strong, viable, and scientifically sound. I did not learn these processes in hypnosis classes, but in nursing school and practice. Right on dude!! That got me excited..... and more confident! ;D

KISS JADE

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on November 22, 2009 at 9:48am

Hello Gil,

I want to thank you and the other participants for making the effort to keep your replies civil - I think it's best that all of us participating in this discussion continue to make that a priority. I certainly will.

What a small world -- You developed your instant induction after reading the Russian physiologist Platnov's masterpiece: The Word as a Physiologic and Therapeutic Factor" and I based my guided self-help approach based on the Platnovian theory that six or so sessions of hypnotic "rest" without any interference from the hypnotist, would produce healing in and of itself-- in addition to considerable research into the deleterious effects of chronic stress, and my personal experience with the benefits of daily hypno-meditative practice.

Any technique that you endorse will be very effective -- and there is a trickle down effect - because it's you - your students and their students and their students would all use it and teach it effectively --


That is true of all great teachers, and I was in no way, shape or form trying to suggest that "My way is better than yours" You and I both know the Master empowers the techniques that his students are using, and all I was saying is: “Hey - Look out your window -- the world has changed a lot in the last 25 years and those changes are reflected in current therapeutic theories and practice” -- You could lead the revolution in changing our practices by simply acknowledging and acting on the new environment in which we are working because any technique that you endorse and teach will be very effective.

Dear Readers,

When I posted my three questions - I understood that I was risking Gil Boyne's wrath and the rage from those might feel that I was attacking him. You can be sure that I was very aware that Gil is a huge fish in our little metaphorical pond and I knew he is loved and admired by his students and colleagues. I truly honor and respect Gil.

I didn't and don't appreciate SteveH's projection of my motivations but if that's what you think Steve-- that's what you think.

If you review the thread - I am confident that I did not question Gil's integrity or his heart and I did not question his two demonstrations in terms of their effectiveness as hypnotic tools. There is no doubt - that Gil is a very effective practitioner.

I was questioning the impact of Gil's demonstrations in regard to their effect on making our profession acceptable to the mainstream of the uninitiated potential client population, and also to potential referring licensed health care professionals, because I believed that every certified hypnosis professional on HT.com is interested in “mainstreaming” our profession and practices. That was my sole motivation.

Dear Dave, Kelley, Roy, Hugh, Kevin, et al,

I am sorry to point out that Certified hypnotists like ourselves are not really part of (or are a very small part of) the "official" world of Science and Medicine. Any one researching this will quickly discover that all of the luminaries in our "Shadow World" are rarely if ever mentioned in the "Official"- Medical and Science History of Hypnosis. Dr Erickson distinguished himself because his contributions to hypnosis took place within the "REAL" world of science, medicine and mental health and Dave Elman and Charlie Tebbetts did not operate in those waters.

I have been breaking out of the Shadow World since in mid-1980s and I have a great deal of experience in mainstreaming Alternative Medicine. I have put lots of energy and time in helping mainstream your practices as well, even if you were not aware of my efforts. From 1988 through 1992 I was an active member of a National Institutes of Health's - Community Research Initiative on Mainstreaming Alternative Therapies for AIDS. I was a Keynote speaker on Hypnosis and Surviving AIDS at a major International AIDS conference in Amsterdam in 1992. In 1993, I was a panelist on the NIH's forum on Alternative Medicine, Wellness and Health Care Reform sponsored by Office of Alternative Medicine. In 1996 I was a ghost writer/editor for the international best seller: "Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide." Between starting my practice in 1980 and today I have maintained my private hypnosis practice in the offices of some the best-known traditional, non-conventional and conventional alternative medical centers in the US. I have parlayed those experiences into writing several columns for a trade journal that introduced certified hypnosis professionals to tens of thousands of Hospital CEOs. Hospital Administrators and Medical Directors of Hospitals. I used those columns, and recommendations from dozens of licensed health care providers endorsing my approach to hypnotic pain relief, to earn a chance to teach hypnotic theory and techniques at a major medical conference on a trial basis in 2007. This teaching opportunity resulted in the participants earning medical CMEs. My associate Dan Cleary and I were a big hit and we were able to add 3 additional courses taught by HT.com members Scott Sandland, Nadine Roman and Sue Hull in the 2008 conference. We got great reviews in 2008 as well, but the economy went south and the organizers of the conference cut back on the programs they were willing to subsidize and just Dan and I were invited back to teach in 2009. Dan and I were the buzz of the 2009 conference and we have been green-lighted to propose expanded offerings for 2010. Not bad, for two certified hypnosis professionals who are not licensed health care providers. Moreover, the physicians who left our presentations enthusiastic about the possibility of working with a certified hypnotist are coming back to your neighborhood looking for someone they can work with. Just to be clear, this explanation is not about “me” but about what can be done to advance the cause of mainstreaming our profession.

In terms of my accomplishment in the world of hypnosis beyond our little pond -- a 1997 European Union Commission Project Report on Alternative Medicine for AIDS named me one of the World's leading experts in mind/body approaches for helping people with AIDS. I am also the co-author of a guided self-hypnosis program for people with IBS that was endorsed by the American Academy of Pain Management and I am the co-author of a peer-reviewed article that makes a strong case for adding certified hypnosis practitioners to the Workers' Compensation system that will be published in Dec. 2009 in a peer reviewed journal devoted to the Worker's Compensation field. I have also done quite well for myself within our Shadow World -- Having won top honors as a hypnosis/NLP educator and practitioner from the NGH, IMDHA, IACT, IHF and NFNLP. To sum up -- I have introduced the merits of using certified hypnosis practitioners to tens of thousands of licensed health care professionals and I know a thing or two about mainstreaming hypnosis and mind-body healing. Again, my point is that the efforts of someone with Gil’s stature to “mainstream” our profession could be very effective, and of benefit to us all.

Again - I did not criticize Gil's effectiveness as a practitioner and/or as teacher -- I did, and do not, question Gil's heart or integrity -My concern was and is that just being effective is not enough to take our rightful places within the “System”. Certified hypnosis practitioners have been effectively helping their clients for several decades and we are still on the outside looking in --

In closing, like it or not the world of Science and Medicine has moved away from Doctor/Therapist Centered and Regressive and Abreactive Approaches, and the new models for quality health care is Patient/Client Centered Approaches and Cognitive Behavioral therapies (at least according to the US Institute of Medicine, which is the GOD of Scientific Medicine and the National Survey of Psychotherapy Training in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Social Work respectfully (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:925-934))

Roy and others pointed out that there are many ways to be effective -- I agree and my point was we are not Authorized Health Care Providers -- We are currently perceived as 2nd class practitioners, and if our collective goal is to take our rightful place within the established Health Care establishment - BEING EFFECTIVE IS NOT ENOUGH! Our theories and practice must be compatible with modern thinking and practices - No offense is intended – this is just a fact of life if we want to spread the benefits of our profession to a wider audience.

I put myself out there and called it like I saw it by the heinous act of asking 3 questions that could have helped our profession and your practices -- I will think long and hard before doing that again, because it appears that a vocal minority would rather vociferously defend their established routine than consider acknowledging the larger picture. Are we so certain of our individual approaches that, unlike what we preach to our clients, we can no longer be open to growth, development and change?


Have a great day or night-

Respectfully,


Michael E.


"He who dares not offend cannot be honest"
- Thomas Paine

Permalink Reply by Lee Pelletier on November 22, 2009 at 11:10am

Michael--I object. Vociferously. Please do ask questions that motivate thought and generate discussion. Motives questioned? What pioneers have not experienced criticism of their thinking, their intelligence and their motives. Even though I don't like questioning motives or effectiveness, it is the asking of questions and generating discussions that opens people up to to thinking more deeply and opening new pathways of thought. I wonder how many hypnotists were introduced to Platnov's ideas through the discussion of these questions.

As I attempted to add to the discussion, I wanted to draw attention to Roy's important idea that there are many ways to get from Seattle to Denver, and ot encourage respect for each "route". I think it is entirely proper to passionately argue for the ways each of us finds the most successful. I have seen similar strong arguments over sports (Yankees-Red Sox, Celtics-Lakers, Michigan-Ohio State, etc), whether the best cars were made by Ford or GM and whether Christianity calls for adult baptism or paedo (child) baptism, etc. People often argue passionately about issues or ideas they take seriously. To be honest, Michael, I hope you pose more questions. This discussion has generated a great deal of interest and thoughtful commentary.

Permalink Reply by Hugh Cole on November 22, 2009 at 11:28am

Micheal..
The thread has been wonderful and sorrowful at the same time. Wonderful, because we got to glimpse two great minds,,, passionate about what they do.. approach the same problem from two differant angles. Sorrowful, because I think we approached the discussion the wrong way. Anyone who has followed what you have done can't help but be impressed by the professionalism and strength you bring to the community. I have been a fan of your's and Dan's since my first encounter with the transformational allstars, and as someone who gets referrals from Physicans and Psychiatrists, I have often referred to your success with pain week in my practise. Nonetheless there are some faulty assumtions here. The assumption that your methods and Gil's methods are contradictory and that one is less modern and professional than the other. As you pointed out... they both spring from foundational studies by Platinov. Isn't it wonderful how two great minds can build on exactly the same foundation and develop two very differant but complimentary approaches.
there is a second assumption though that is more troubling to me
We are currently perceived as 2nd class practitioners, and if our collective goal is to take our rightful place within the established Health Care establishment - BEING EFFECTIVE IS NOT ENOUGH! Our theories and practice must be compatible with modern thinking and practices - No offense is intended – this is just a fact of life if we want to spread the benefits of our profession to a wider audience.
One of the reasons some of us are effective is because we don't want a "rightful place" within the established system because we feel that making our practices "compatable" with "modern thinking" might just make us ineffective as practioners.. Furthur a "rightful place" opens some of us to regulatory influences that would make one as ineffective in practise as the Psychiatrists and Psychologists who refer clients to us because they "can't do it". Maybe it's just me, but I don't completely buy in to the "If .. Then" part of that. I perceive it more as a limiting belief.
I do very much appreciate your point and your perspective. I do think that the discussion we are having can be very effective if it were continued from a win-win perspective.. rather than an either-or perspective. For all or sakes I hope that happns,

Hugh Cole
The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet

Permalink Reply by John R. Brochu on November 22, 2009 at 11:46am

Michael:
I hope we are all open to growth, development and change.
You asked judgmental questions to prompt a dialogue and you were successful.
For anyone to” vociferously defend their established routine” I submit that those individuals perceived an “attack” on those routines.
If the answers or dialogue was not what you were looking for than the problem might lie in the crafting of the questions.

If there was a way that Gil could prove that his induction was the most effective induction bar none, would you use that induction?

Yours in Health,
John



Michael Ellner said:

Hello Gil,

I want to thank you and the other participants for making the effort to keep your replies civil - I think it's best that all of us participating in this discussion continue to make that a priority. I certainly will.

What a small world -- You developed your instant induction after reading the Russian physiologist Platnov's masterpiece: The Word as a Physiologic and Therapeutic Factor" and I based my guided self-help approach based on the Platnovian theory that six or so sessions of hypnotic "rest" without any interference from the hypnotist, would produce healing in and of itself-- in addition to considerable research into the deleterious effects of chronic stress, and my personal experience with the benefits of daily hypno-meditative practice.

Any technique that you endorse will be very effective -- and there is a trickle down effect - because it's you - your students and their students and their students would all use it and teach it effectively --


That is true of all great teachers, and I was in no way, shape or form trying to suggest that "My way is better than yours" You and I both know the Master empowers the techniques that his students are using, and all I was saying is: “Hey - Look out your window -- the world has changed a lot in the last 25 years and those changes are reflected in current therapeutic theories and practice” -- You could lead the revolution in changing our practices by simply acknowledging and acting on the new environment in which we are working because any technique that you endorse and teach will be very effective.

Dear Readers,

When I posted my three questions - I understood that I was risking Gil Boyne's wrath and the rage from those might feel that I was attacking him. You can be sure that I was very aware that Gil is a huge fish in our little metaphorical pond and I knew he is loved and admired by his students and colleagues. I truly honor and respect Gil.

I didn't and don't appreciate SteveH's projection of my motivations but if that's what you think Steve-- that's what you think.

If you review the thread - I am confident that I did not question Gil's integrity or his heart and I did not question his two demonstrations in terms of their effectiveness as hypnotic tools. There is no doubt - that Gil is a very effective practitioner.

I was questioning the impact of Gil's demonstrations in regard to their effect on making our profession acceptable to the mainstream of the uninitiated potential client population, and also to potential referring licensed health care professionals, because I believed that every certified hypnosis professional on HT.com is interested in “mainstreaming” our profession and practices. That was my sole motivation.

Dear Dave, Kelley, Roy, Hugh, Kevin, et al,

I am sorry to point out that Certified hypnotists like ourselves are not really part of (or are a very small part of) the "official" world of Science and Medicine. Any one researching this will quickly discover that all of the luminaries in our "Shadow World" are rarely if ever mentioned in the "Official"- Medical and Science History of Hypnosis. Dr Erickson distinguished himself because his contributions to hypnosis took place within the "REAL" world of science, medicine and mental health and Dave Elman and Charlie Tebbetts did not operate in those waters.

I have been breaking out of the Shadow World since in mid-1980s and I have a great deal of experience in mainstreaming Alternative Medicine. I have put lots of energy and time in helping mainstream your practices as well, even if you were not aware of my efforts. From 1988 through 1992 I was an active member of a National Institutes of Health's - Community Research Initiative on Mainstreaming Alternative Therapies for AIDS. I was a Keynote speaker on Hypnosis and Surviving AIDS at a major International AIDS conference in Amsterdam in 1992. In 1993, I was a panelist on the NIH's forum on Alternative Medicine, Wellness and Health Care Reform sponsored by Office of Alternative Medicine. In 1996 I was a ghost writer/editor for the international best seller: "Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide." Between starting my practice in 1980 and today I have maintained my private hypnosis practice in the offices of some the best-known traditional, non-conventional and conventional alternative medical centers in the US. I have parlayed those experiences into writing several columns for a trade journal that introduced certified hypnosis professionals to tens of thousands of Hospital CEOs. Hospital Administrators and Medical Directors of Hospitals. I used those columns, and recommendations from dozens of licensed health care providers endorsing my approach to hypnotic pain relief, to earn a chance to teach hypnotic theory and techniques at a major medical conference on a trial basis in 2007. This teaching opportunity resulted in the participants earning medical CMEs. My associate Dan Cleary and I were a big hit and we were able to add 3 additional courses taught by HT.com members Scott Sandland, Nadine Roman and Sue Hull in the 2008 conference. We got great reviews in 2008 as well, but the economy went south and the organizers of the conference cut back on the programs they were willing to subsidize and just Dan and I were invited back to teach in 2009. Dan and I were the buzz of the 2009 conference and we have been green-lighted to propose expanded offerings for 2010. Not bad, for two certified hypnosis professionals who are not licensed health care providers. Moreover, the physicians who left our presentations enthusiastic about the possibility of working with a certified hypnotist are coming back to your neighborhood looking for someone they can work with. Just to be clear, this explanation is not about “me” but about what can be done to advance the cause of mainstreaming our profession.

In terms of my accomplishment in the world of hypnosis beyond our little pond -- a 1997 European Union Commission Project Report on Alternative Medicine for AIDS named me one of the World's leading experts in mind/body approaches for helping people with AIDS. I am also the co-author of a guided self-hypnosis program for people with IBS that was endorsed by the American Academy of Pain Management and I am the co-author of a peer-reviewed article that makes a strong case for adding certified hypnosis practitioners to the Workers' Compensation system that will be published in Dec. 2009 in a peer reviewed journal devoted to the Worker's Compensation field. I have also done quite well for myself within our Shadow World -- Having won top honors as a hypnosis/NLP educator and practitioner from the NGH, IMDHA, IACT, IHF and NFNLP. To sum up -- I have introduced the merits of using certified hypnosis practitioners to tens of thousands of licensed health care professionals and I know a thing or two about mainstreaming hypnosis and mind-body healing. Again, my point is that the efforts of someone with Gil’s stature to “mainstream” our profession could be very effective, and of benefit to us all.

Again - I did not criticize Gil's effectiveness as a practitioner and/or as teacher -- I did, and do not, question Gil's heart or integrity -My concern was and is that just being effective is not enough to take our rightful places within the “System”. Certified hypnosis practitioners have been effectively helping their clients for several decades and we are still on the outside looking in --

In closing, like it or not the world of Science and Medicine has moved away from Doctor/Therapist Centered and Regressive and Abreactive Approaches, and the new models for quality health care is Patient/Client Centered Approaches and Cognitive Behavioral therapies (at least according to the US Institute of Medicine, which is the GOD of Scientific Medicine and the National Survey of Psychotherapy Training in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Social Work respectfully (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:925-934))

Roy and others pointed out that there are many ways to be effective -- I agree and my point was we are not Authorized Health Care Providers -- We are currently perceived as 2nd class practitioners, and if our collective goal is to take our rightful place within the established Health Care establishment - BEING EFFECTIVE IS NOT ENOUGH! Our theories and practice must be compatible with modern thinking and practices - No offense is intended – this is just a fact of life if we want to spread the benefits of our profession to a wider audience.

I put myself out there and called it like I saw it by the heinous act of asking 3 questions that could have helped our profession and your practices -- I will think long and hard before doing that again, because it appears that a vocal minority would rather vociferously defend their established routine than consider acknowledging the larger picture. Are we so certain of our individual approaches that, unlike what we preach to our clients, we can no longer be open to growth, development and change?


Have a great day or night-

Respectfully,


Michael E.


"He who dares not offend cannot be honest"
- Thomas Paine

Permalink Reply by GIL BOYNE on November 22, 2009 at 1:29pm

Hello Michael. I thank you for describing your activities and honors so that I and others can better realize your stature and the range of your vision to "find acceptance from the world of medicine and science "(and insurance reinbursement). Your efforts to polarize the hypnotherapy community with do's and dont's. about approaches to practice that may (or may not) gain the respect and acceptance of the medical/scientific establishment.is a negative and counter-productive tactic in my judgement.
I have been a guest lecturer to the Neuropsychiatric Dept. of UCLA, lectured to the Psychology Dept. classes at the University of Calif, Irvine, trained many psychiatrists and other physicians and a wide range of state licensed mental health practicioners and I have always been treated with respect and dignity by professors, psychiatrists and physicians. I do not expect the "establishment"or the ASCH or similar anti-lay hypnotists to ever treat me as a peer. They see me and my kind as a competitor, who did not use the time and money to achieve a University Degree as they did and believe thar we are stealing clients that should be coming to them. I predict that with the passage of time and the pressure from some dedicated
physicians, state legislatures may begin to create changes ( suggested by the aforementioned groups) and a few universities may begin to teach hypnotherapy as a course for credit ( as part of Psychotherapy Training) Perhaps it can "enter the Main Stream" that you so fervently wish to join. I won't be here to see it, perhaps you will be.
Michael said I mean no disrespect to Gil.
Gil replies, Michael, "Think of no elephants".
I do not believe that the demonstrations that he shared with us reflect modern hypnotic practice and
I wonder what other members of Hypnothoughts.com think about it.which I read as,
"How many of you out there agree with me, let everyone hear your voice, then I'll know that I'm right"

Michael said, I understood that I was risking Gil Boyne's wrath
Gil responds, Michael, My best advice is "Forget about publicly defending your opinion that I am harming the hypnotherapy profession ( in the eyes of those you seek to curry favor with) Since you're not getting very much support for your view, why not stop now?"

Michael Ellner said:

Hello Gil,

I want to thank you and the other participants for making the effort to keep your replies civil - I think it's best that all of us participating in this discussion continue to make that a priority. I certainly will.

What a small world -- You developed your instant induction after reading the Russian physiologist Platnov's masterpiece: The Word as a Physiologic and Therapeutic Factor" and I based my guided self-help approach based on the Platnovian theory that six or so sessions of hypnotic "rest" without any interference from the hypnotist, would produce healing in and of itself-- in addition to considerable research into the deleterious effects of chronic stress, and my personal experience with the benefits of daily hypno-meditative practice.

Any technique that you endorse will be very effective -- and there is a trickle down effect - because it's you - your students and their students and their students would all use it and teach it effectively --


That is true of all great teachers, and I was in no way, shape or form trying to suggest that "My way is better than yours" You and I both know the Master empowers the techniques that his students are using, and all I was saying is: “Hey - Look out your window -- the world has changed a lot in the last 25 years and those changes are reflected in current therapeutic theories and practice” -- You could lead the revolution in changing our practices by simply acknowledging and acting on the new environment in which we are working because any technique that you endorse and teach will be very effective.

Dear Readers,

When I posted my three questions - and the rage from those might feel that I was attacking him. You can be sure that I was very aware that Gil is a huge fish in our little metaphorical pond and I knew he is loved and admired by his students and colleaguesBR>
I didn't and don't appreciate SteveH's projection of my motivations but if that's what you think Steve-- that's what you think.

If you review the thread - I am confident that I did not question Gil's integrity or his heart and I did not question his two demonstrations in terms of their effectiveness as hypnotic tools. There is no doubt - that Gil is a very effective practitioner.

I was questioning the impact of Gil's demonstrations in regard to their effect on making our profession acceptable to the mainstream of the uninitiated potential client population, and also to potential referring licensed health care professionals, because I believed that every certified hypnosis professional on HT.com is interested in “mainstreaming” our profession and practices. That was my sole motivation.

Dear Dave, Kelley, Roy, Hugh, Kevin, et al,

I am sorry to point out that Certified hypnotists like ourselves are not really part of (or are a very small part of) the "official" world of Science and Medicine. Any one researching this will quickly discover that all of the luminaries in our "Shadow World" are rarely if ever mentioned in the "Official"- Medical and Science History of Hypnosis. Dr Erickson distinguished himself because his contributions to hypnosis took place within the "REAL" world of science, medicine and mental health and Dave Elman and Charlie Tebbetts did not operate in those waters.

I have been breaking out of the Shadow World since in mid-1980s and I have a great deal of experience in mainstreaming Alternative Medicine. I have put lots of energy and time in helping mainstream your practices as well, even if you were not aware of my efforts. From 1988 through 1992 I was an active member of a National Institutes of Health's - Community Research Initiative on Mainstreaming Alternative Therapies for AIDS. I was a Keynote speaker on Hypnosis and Surviving AIDS at a major International AIDS conference in Amsterdam in 1992. In 1993, I was a panelist on the NIH's forum on Alternative Medicine, Wellness and Health Care Reform sponsored by Office of Alternative Medicine. In 1996 I was a ghost writer/editor for the international best seller: "Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide." Between starting my practice in 1980 and today I have maintained my private hypnosis practice in the offices of some the best-known traditional, non-conventional and conventional alternative medical centers in the US. I have parlayed those experiences into writing several columns for a trade journal that introduced certified hypnosis professionals to tens of thousands of Hospital CEOs. Hospital Administrators and Medical Directors of Hospitals. I used those columns, and recommendations from dozens of licensed health care providers endorsing my approach to hypnotic pain relief, to earn a chance to teach hypnotic theory and techniques at a major medical conference on a trial basis in 2007. This teaching opportunity resulted in the participants earning medical CMEs. My associate Dan Cleary and I were a big hit and we were able to add 3 additional courses taught by HT.com members Scott Sandland, Nadine Roman and Sue Hull in the 2008 conference. We got great reviews in 2008 as well, but the economy went south and the organizers of the conference cut back on the programs they were willing to subsidize and just Dan and I were invited back to teach in 2009. Dan and I were the buzz of the 2009 conference and we have been green-lighted to propose expanded offerings for 2010. Not bad, for two certified hypnosis professionals who are not licensed health care providers. Moreover, the physicians who left our presentations enthusiastic about the possibility of working with a certified hypnotist are coming back to your neighborhood looking for someone they can work with. Just to be clear, this explanation is not about “me” but about what can be done to advance the cause of mainstreaming our profession.

In terms of my accomplishment in the world of hypnosis beyond our little pond -- a 1997 European Union Commission Project Report on Alternative Medicine for AIDS named me one of the World's leading experts in mind/body approaches for helping people with AIDS. I am also the co-author of a guided self-hypnosis program for people with IBS that was endorsed by the American Academy of Pain Management and I am the co-author of a peer-reviewed article that makes a strong case for adding certified hypnosis practitioners to the Workers' Compensation system that will be published in Dec. 2009 in a peer reviewed journal devoted to the Worker's Compensation field. I have also done quite well for myself within our Shadow World -- Having won top honors as a hypnosis/NLP educator and practitioner from the NGH, IMDHA, IACT, IHF and NFNLP. To sum up -- I have introduced the merits of using certified hypnosis practitioners to tens of thousands of licensed health care professionals and I know a thing or two about mainstreaming hypnosis and mind-body healing. Again, my point is that the efforts of someone with Gil’s stature to “mainstream” our profession could be very effective, and of benefit to us all.

Again - I did not criticize Gil's effectiveness as a practitioner and/or as teacher -- I did, and do not, question Gil's heart or integrity -My concern was and is that just being effective is not enough to take our rightful places within the “System”. Certified hypnosis practitioners have been effectively helping their clients for several decades and we are still on the outside looking in --

In closing, like it or not the world of Science and Medicine has moved away from Doctor/Therapist Centered and Regressive and Abreactive Approaches, and the new models for quality health care is Patient/Client Centered Approaches and Cognitive Behavioral therapies (at least according to the US Institute of Medicine, which is the GOD of Scientific Medicine and the National Survey of Psychotherapy Training in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Social Work respectfully (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:925-934))

Roy and others pointed out that there are many ways to be effective -- I agree and my point was we are not Authorized Health Care Providers -- We are currently perceived as 2nd class practitioners, and if our collective goal is to take our rightful place within the established Health Care establishment - BEING EFFECTIVE IS NOT ENOUGH! Our theories and practice must be compatible with modern thinking and practices - No offense is intended – this is just a fact of life if we want to spread the benefits of our profession to a wider audience.

I put myself out there and called it like I saw it by the heinous act of asking 3 questions that could have helped our profession and your practices -- I will think long and hard before doing that again, because it appears that a vocal minority would rather vociferously defend their established routine than consider acknowledging the larger picture. Are we so certain of our individual approaches that, unlike what we preach to our clients, we can no longer be open to growth, development and change?


Have a great day or night-

Respectfully,


Michael E.


"He who dares not offend cannot be honest"
- Thomas Paine

Permalink Reply by Kevin Cole-NLPTrainingQuest.com on November 22, 2009 at 1:34pm

First off, Michael, although admittedly I have only been aware of your efforts for probably the last year as far as playing more then your part in assisting in the growth of our filed, I do take very strong note of them and am quite grateful to them. Along with my gratitude, you also have my respect. I felt your frustration in your last post and acknowledge that it is valid. You've spent many years of your career working to help reach & help as many people as possible as a practitioner, teacher, author, and more with little acknowledgment as a whole for just how much freaking work goes into that and from my perception, you aren't concerned about the acknowledgment (although it's always nice to have) even remotely as much as you are about all of your hard work (fueled by your sincere desire to make help minimize suffering and maximize joy) being threatened because of having modern Science & Medicine not take our field, as a whole, seriously.

If I am correct in my perception there (and I could be wrong), I think ALL of us can relate to you on many levels with that. I'm quite certain I can...

That being said, I quote Hugh..."One of the reasons some of us are effective is because we don't want a "rightful place" within the established system because we feel that making our practices "compatable" with "modern thinking" might just make us ineffective as practioners.. Furthur a "rightful place" opens some of us to regulatory influences that would make one as ineffective in practise as the Psychiatrists and Psychologists who refer clients to us because they "can't do it"

Although I do not *not want* a "rightful place" within the established system (read that again because it may be confusing), I do feel that much of my effectiveness (although certainly not all) comes from having the ability to do things that others cannot due to regulatory restrictions, like touching clients (with their permission in an appropriate manner) such as with anchoring, and even tapping on the forehead (or pineal gland), a highly effective method that I learned from Gil Boyne etc.

Next, I do want to be fair to the Psychiatrists, Psychologists, and Licensed therapists that do excellent work (some of them that I have trained personally) and point out that there are many great ones out there.

Finally, I do hope that we continue to ask *tough questions* like the 3 that Michael has asked and I do hope that we continue to work together for the common good/common goal of helping ourselves & others to minimize suffering and even more importantly maximize joy...

I personally have stayed away from a number of *hypnosis/nlp forums* in the past because frankly, I found very little useful information/ideas and mostly bickering and slamming others around.

Again, (although stated differently) I am hopeful that all of us continue to work together in practicing & teaching others different ways of achieving the common goals that we all seem to have. I see a lot of brilliant practitioners & teachers on this site and I see all of them having different strengths.

Combine those strengths in a collaborative effort (I know, it's rare in our line of work but I do see it here) and do it in a way that is focused on what we all truly want and remain flexible (and preferably ego free) with our different approaches and in our different kinds of contributions and I do believe it can be achieved.

And my final, final comment... I do believe that although "BEING EFFECTIVE IS NOT ENOUGH" (To quote Michael), that it is, has been, and always will be the #1 most important factor. It may not be as easy to gain the respect of Psychologists, Psychiatrists, & Licensed Medical professionals without being as *conservative* as them but as long as you respect them and can show them results, you will gain their trust & respect.

It may take time and they may question you a lot but when they experience the results for themselves, even if the methods were rather *unconventional/unorthodox*, you will have gained their respect & often times, a new friend. At least that's my formula and so far it works for me...

Respect to all of you,

Kevin Cole
NLP, Life Coach, & Hypnosis Training





Hugh Cole said:

Micheal..
The thread has been wonderful and sorrowful at the same time. Wonderful, because we got to glimpse two great minds,,, passionate about what they do.. approach the same problem from two differant angles. Sorrowful, because I think we approached the discussion the wrong way. Anyone who has followed what you have done can't help but be impressed by the professionalism and strength you bring to the community. I have been a fan of your's and Dan's since my first encounter with the transformational allstars, and as someone who gets referrals from Physicans and Psychiatrists, I have often referred to your success with pain week in my practise. Nonetheless there are some faulty assumtions here. The assumption that your methods and Gil's methods are contradictory and that one is less modern and professional than the other. As you pointed out... they both spring from foundational studies by Platinov. Isn't it wonderful how two great minds can build on exactly the same foundation and develop two very differant but complimentary approaches. there is a second assumption though that is more troubling to me We are currently perceived as 2nd class practitioners, and if our collective goal is to take our rightful place within the established Health Care establishment - BEING EFFECTIVE IS NOT ENOUGH! Our theories and practice must be compatible with modern thinking and practices - No offense is intended – this is just a fact of life if we want to spread the benefits of our profession to a wider audience. One of the reasons some of us are effective is because we don't want a "rightful place" within the established system because we feel that making our practices "compatable" with "modern thinking" might just make us ineffective as practioners.. Furthur a "rightful place" opens some of us to regulatory influences that would make one as ineffective in practise as the Psychiatrists and Psychologists who refer clients to us because they "can't do it". Maybe it's just me, but I don't completely buy in to the "If .. Then" part of that. I perceive it more as a limiting belief.
I do very much appreciate your point and your perspective. I do think that the discussion we are having can be very effective if it were continued from a win-win perspective.. rather than an either-or perspective. For all or sakes I hope that happns,

Hugh Cole
The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet

Permalink Reply by GIL BOYNE on November 22, 2009 at 2:00pm

,Kevin, This says it all! I wish I could say things in your diplomatic style, I seems I always choose the "Warrior Style" and leave Diplomacy to others.

Kevin says; I quote Hugh..."One of the reasons some of us are effective is because we don't want a "rightful place" within the established system because we feel that making our practices "compatable" with "modern thinking" might just make us ineffective as practioners.. Furthur a "rightful place" opens some of us to regulatory influences that would make one as ineffective in practise as the Psychiatrists and Psychologists who refer clients to us because they "can't do it"

Although I do not *not want* a "rightful place" within the established system (read that again because it may be confusing), I do feel that much of my effectiveness (although certainly not all) comes from having the ability to do things that others cannot due to regulatory restrictions, like touching clients (with their permission in an appropriate manner) such as with anchoring, and even tapping on the forehead (or pineal gland), a highly effective method that I learned from Gil Boyne etc.

Next, I do want to be fair to the Psychiatrists, Psychologists, and Licensed therapists that do excellent work (some of them that I have trained personally) and point out that there are many great ones out there.

Kevin Cole said:

First off, Michael, although admittedly I have only been aware of your efforts for probably the last year as far as playing more then your part in assisting in the growth of our filed, I do take very strong note of them and am quite grateful to them. Along with my gratitude, you also have my respect. I felt your frustration in your last post and acknowledge that it is valid. You've spent many years of your career working to help reach & help as many people as possible as a practitioner, teacher, author, and more with little acknowledgment as a whole for just how much freaking work goes into that and from my perception, you aren't concerned about the acknowledgment (although it's always nice to have) even remotely as much as you are about all of your hard work (fueled by your sincere desire to make help minimize suffering and maximize joy) being threatened because of having modern Science & Medicine not take our field, as a whole, seriously.

If I am correct in my perception there (and I could be wrong), I think ALL of us can relate to you on many levels with that. I'm quite certain I can...

That being said, I quote Hugh..."One of the reasons some of us are effective is because we don't want a "rightful place" within the established system because we feel that making our practices "compatable" with "modern thinking" might just make us ineffective as practioners.. Furthur a "rightful place" opens some of us to regulatory influences that would make one as ineffective in practise as the Psychiatrists and Psychologists who refer clients to us because they "can't do it"

Although I do not *not want* a "rightful place" within the established system (read that again because it may be confusing), I do feel that much of my effectiveness (although certainly not all) comes from having the ability to do things that others cannot due to regulatory restrictions, like touching clients (with their permission in an appropriate manner) such as with anchoring, and even tapping on the forehead (or pineal gland), a highly effective method that I learned from Gil Boyne etc.

Next, I do want to be fair to the Psychiatrists, Psychologists, and Licensed therapists that do excellent work (some of them that I have trained personally) and point out that there are many great ones out there.

Finally, I do hope that we continue to ask *tough questions* like the 3 that Michael has asked and I do hope that we continue to work together for the common good/common goal of helping ourselves & others to minimize suffering and even more importantly maximize joy...

I personally have stayed away from a number of *hypnosis/nlp forums* in the past because frankly, I found very little useful information/ideas and mostly bickering and slamming others around.

Again, (although stated differently) I am hopeful that all of us continue to work together in practicing & teaching others different ways of achieving the common goals that we all seem to have. I see a lot of brilliant practitioners & teachers on this site and I see all of them having different strengths.

Combine those strengths in a collaborative effort (I know, it's rare in our line of work but I do see it here) and do it in a way that is focused on what we all truly want and remain flexible (and preferably ego free) with our different approaches and in our different kinds of contributions and I do believe it can be achieved.

And my final, final comment... I do believe that although "BEING EFFECTIVE IS NOT ENOUGH" (To quote Michael), that it is, has been, and always will be the #1 most important factor. It may not be as easy to gain the respect of Psychologists, Psychiatrists, & Licensed Medical professionals without being as *conservative* as them but as long as you respect them and can show them results, you will gain their trust & respect.

It may take time and they may question you a lot but when they experience the results for themselves, even if the methods were rather *unconventional/unorthodox*, you will have gained their respect & often times, a new friend. At least that's my formula and so far it works for me...

Respect to all of you,

Kevin Cole
NLP, Life Coach, & Hypnosis Training





Hugh Cole said:

Micheal..
The thread has been wonderful and sorrowful at the same time. Wonderful, because we got to glimpse two great minds,,, passionate about what they do.. approach the same problem from two differant angles. Sorrowful, because I think we approached the discussion the wrong way. Anyone who has followed what you have done can't help but be impressed by the professionalism and strength you bring to the community. I have been a fan of your's and Dan's since my first encounter with the transformational allstars, and as someone who gets referrals from Physicans and Psychiatrists, I have often referred to your success with pain week in my practise. Nonetheless there are some faulty assumtions here. The assumption that your methods and Gil's methods are contradictory and that one is less modern and professional than the other. As you pointed out... they both spring from foundational studies by Platinov. Isn't it wonderful how two great minds can build on exactly the same foundation and develop two very differant but complimentary approaches. there is a second assumption though that is more troubling to me We are currently perceived as 2nd class practitioners, and if our collective goal is to take our rightful place within the established Health Care establishment - BEING EFFECTIVE IS NOT ENOUGH! Our theories and practice must be compatible with modern thinking and practices - No offense is intended – this is just a fact of life if we want to spread the benefits of our profession to a wider audience. One of the reasons some of us are effective is because we don't want a "rightful place" within the established system because we feel that making our practices "compatable" with "modern thinking" might just make us ineffective as practioners.. Furthur a "rightful place" opens some of us to regulatory influences that would make one as ineffective in practise as the Psychiatrists and Psychologists who refer clients to us because they "can't do it". Maybe it's just me, but I don't completely buy in to the "If .. Then" part of that. I perceive it more as a limiting belief.
I do very much appreciate your point and your perspective. I do think that the discussion we are having can be very effective if it were continued from a win-win perspective.. rather than an either-or perspective. For all or sakes I hope that happns,

Hugh Cole
The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page