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

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kevin Cole 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

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 22, 2009 at 2:24pm

Michael,

I applaud your bravery in asking those questions because I'm fairly certain that you had a good idea of what the response would be. As things stand, I also happen to have a great deal of respect and admiration for Gil Boyne, and last year we exchanged signed & warmly inscribed copies of our respective books and had lively email discussions about the only main point in my book upon which we steadfastly disagreed: that, according to my thirteen years of fanatical research (and years of clinical experience), the IMAGE of hypnotism, and especially hypnoTHERAPY, has suffered considerable harm all throughout the past two centuries because of the highly authoritarian techniques employed by the vast majority of practitioners. Indeed, it is no coincidence that the vast majority of both the general public as well as health care professionals have always regarded the phenomenon with a jaundiced eye and a good deal of trepidation.
I used the term "Fear & Loathing" in my book because that captures the zeitgeist perfectly. The spectacle of people being subjected to authoritarian inductions (the "command" approach) has been responsible for relegating hypnosis to little more than carnival side show status until quite recently; and EVEN now many (most?) folks are STILL decidedly wary about it. Of course I'm speaking in purely general terms, because tens of thousands of people consult hypnotherapists these days. But if you consider the fact that it would be of great benefit to hundreds of millions, or even BILLIONS, of people, it's clear that MUCH remains to be done when it comes to enlightening the public AND health care professionals about its potential utility to mankind.
Authoritarian inductions, and especially "instant" inductions are, in my opinion largely responsible for CONTINUING this sorry legacy of "Fear & Loathing". I am NOT talking about their potential "effectiveness" because that is entirely beside the point. I'm talking about the terrible "now I have you in my Power!" IMAGE that such techniques have always fostered, and CONTINUE to foster to this very day!
Anyone interested in reading, entirely for free, several chapters devoted to this very point can do so at my book's website:
www.HistoryOfHypnotism.com.

Saul

P.S. Sorry if some of you object to my selective use of CAPS, but I'm very passionate about this topic, and felt it appropriate to write with the same emphasis as if I were speaking.








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 Dave Parke on November 22, 2009 at 2:49pm

Michael,

I don't believe that asking questions intended to help a community can be considered heinous in any way, shape or form. I do feel, however, that the questions were loaded and emotionally charged which may have been the reason people reacted strongly...not merely because they were defending their own techniques. For myself, I have and will continue to study under every established person that I can, including you when I have the opportunity.

I agree with Kevin and Hugh about being accepted by the establishment. If I wanted to be a psychologist or psychotherapist I'd go to school for it...it's that simple. The thing I love about hypnosis is the "artistic" qualities that it encompasses. I know that you feel that being "effective" isn't enough but at the end of the day being effective will be enough for the client...and that is who we serve. It is said that we can't serve two masters and we, as a community, are faced with serving the client or serving some regulatory body that dictates what is right or wrong regardless of its effectiveness. We see this today in the modern practice of psychiatry where a reliance on drugs has become the accepted norm.

Thank you for posting your accomplishments and associations. I have heard many great things about you but was unaware of much that you have done.

I have a question. Is this meant to be more of a discussion about abreactive vs. cognitive-style therapies? If so, then I'd very much like to hear what people have to say. It is my understanding (limited though it is) that Gil's techniques, while using regression and a certain amount of abreaction, also include a good amount of cognitive elements. If cognitive therapy includes identifying distorted thinking and changing emotional responses then wouldn't discovering an ISE and reinforcing events lead down a path of cognition? What I'm curious to know is how and where does your style and Gil's style intersect. Outside of rapid inductions, using touch, and being directive do your two paths share common ground?

Dave

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 Michael Ellner on November 22, 2009 at 7:19pm

Hi Dave,

I suggest starting a new discussion - "Comparing abreactive vs. cognitive-style therapies."

I'd be happy to respectfully share my opinions.

Do you want to start it?



Dave Parke said:

Michael,

I have a question. Is this meant to be more of a discussion about abreactive vs. cognitive-style therapies? If so, then I'd very much like to hear what people have to say. It is my understanding (limited though it is) that Gil's techniques, while using regression and a certain amount of abreaction, also include a good amount of cognitive elements. If cognitive therapy includes identifying distorted thinking and changing emotional responses then wouldn't discovering an ISE and reinforcing events lead down a path of cognition? What I'm curious to know is how and where does your style and Gil's style intersect. Outside of rapid inductions, using touch, and being directive do your two paths share common ground?

Dave

Permalink Reply by GIL BOYNE on November 23, 2009 at 1:33am

Dave said'I I agree with Kevin and Hugh about being accepted by the establishment. If I wanted to be a psychologist or psychotherapist I'd go to school for it...it's that simple.that it encompasses. I know that you feel that being "effective" isn't enough but at the end of the day being effective will be enough for the client...and that is who we serve. It is said that we can't serve two masters and we, as a community, are faced with serving the client or serving some regulatory body that dictates what is right or wrong regardless of its effectiveness. We see this today in the modern practice of psychiatry where a reliance on drugs has become the accepted norm. The thing I love about hypnosis is the "artistic" qualities

Gil Responds----Hello Dave, In 1964, the Calif. legislature passed a bill that stated that everyone who was engaged in counseling or "practical psychology" as it was known then, must register and declare their intent to enroll in a Calif. university and take prescribed courses to total 3,000 classroom hours, then serve a one year junior internship and finally a senior internship then apply for licensing as a psychologist. I did not register then because I do not wish to be a psychologist or university trained psychotherapist.I have served internships of MY choice at Dr. Everett Shostrom's (Professor and head of the Psychology Dept. at the University of Calif., Irvine) Institute of TherapeuticPsychology ( 55-8hr.resident days) and 25 resident days with Dr. Fritz Perls, founder of Gestalt Therapy. These trainings were helpful but the main benefit to me was to help me see more clearly that the practice of psychotherapy was not for me. While I have incorporated some of Dr. Perl's Gestalt techniques into my work, I am not a Gestaltist! I declare proudly, " I am a hypnotherapist"----------------------
PS To discover the differences, consult the "Federal Dictionary of Occupational Titles" . blockquote>

Permalink Reply by GIL BOYNE on November 23, 2009 at 1:59am

Hello Saul, Several months ago, you wrote me to say that after thirteen years of research and great expense in self-publishing, you had only sold thirteen copies of your book. I am disclosing my review of your book (which you requested) since it was created for public usage.

Saul, Thank you for the copy of your book.
I have read it and since you asked for my comments, here they are. I think you did a great job of research although very selective and critical of the early pioneers and their discoveries. We stand on their shoulders and we built on their mistaken theories.
I think that the parts on the unreal quality of the abstract definitions that are used to explain and define hypnosis are real gifts to the reader. But, I strongly disagree with your vendetta against stage hypnosis and your belief in its' negative effect on the perception of the general public. I began my career in 1954, and there were very few (if any) working stage hypnotists. Yet, the most often heard objections to hypnosis from most people as follows; [i]"Hypnosis--oh that's dangerous! Hypnosis is against my religion! Oh no, I'm not letting anyone control my mind!"[/i] These objections are rarely heard today.
Today there are thousands of stage hypnotists, each performing 200 to 300 shows each year .Everyone who buys a ticket to these shows knows what to expect and those who volunteer are willing, eager and expectant. They expect to do foolish stunts in an exhibitionistic way. They are not innocent victims of an egotistic and insensitive hypnotist.
Public perception has never been more positive and hypnotherapists have never been busier. Both stage hypnotism and clinical hypnotherapy practice are doing very well, thank you. My personal experience is that whenever a stage hypnotist has performed in my city, the shows create many new clients for me and my colleagues.
For those who are interested in research into the early, lesser known pioneer personalities and the evolution of this profession as well as the true book collectors, I can recommend this book for your library.

cite>Saul Rosenfeld said:

Michael,

I applaud your bravery in asking those questions because I'm fairly certain that you had a good idea of what the response would be. As things stand, I also happen to have a great deal of respect and admiration for Gil Boyne, and last year we exchanged signed & warmly inscribed copies of our respective books and had lively email discussions about the only main point in my book upon which we steadfastly disagreed: that, according to my thirteen years of fanatical research (and years of clinical experience), the IMAGE of hypnotism, and especially hypnoTHERAPY, has suffered considerable harm all throughout the past two centuries because of the highly authoritarian techniques employed by the vast majority of practitioners. Indeed, it is no coincidence that the vast majority of both the general public as well as health care professionals have always regarded the phenomenon with a jaundiced eye and a good deal of trepidation.
I used the term "Fear & Loathing" in my book because that captures the zeitgeist perfectly. The spectacle of people being subjected to authoritarian inductions (the "command" approach) has been responsible for relegating hypnosis to little more than carnival side show status until quite recently; and EVEN now many (most?) folks are STILL decidedly wary about it. Of course I'm speaking in purely general terms, because tens of thousands of people consult hypnotherapists these days. But if you consider the fact that it would be of great benefit to hundreds of millions, or even BILLIONS, of people, it's clear that MUCH remains to be done when it comes to enlightening the public AND health care professionals about its potential utility to mankind.
Authoritarian inductions, and especially "instant" inductions are, in my opinion largely responsible for CONTINUING this sorry legacy of "Fear & Loathing". I am NOT talking about their potential "effectiveness" because that is entirely beside the point. I'm talking about the terrible "now I have you in my Power!" IMAGE that such techniques have always fostered, and CONTINUE to foster to this very day!
Anyone interested in reading, entirely for free, several chapters devoted to this very point can do so at my book's website:

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 23, 2009 at 6:58am

Hello Gil,

I appreciate your saying that "the parts of my book on the unreal quality of the abstract definitions that are used to explain and define hypnosis are real gifts to the reader", because those chapters comprise the majority of my book. As I replied to your last email several months ago (when you told me that you decided that there was more good informative material in my book that offset our disagreements about my negative views regarding stage hypnosis, and asked my permission to quote excerpts- which I gladly gave):

"I'm very pleased to hear that you decided there is more good informative material in my book than points of disagreement; because as far as I can tell, the only points of contention
between us stem from my opinion that (patently crude and thoughtless) displays of stage-hypnosis and/or public exhibitions of sensationalistic "instant"-induction techniques are counterproductive to its image as a force for healing. Aside from that, I believe that we are more or less "on the same page" regarding every other aspect of the phenomenon; and we are definitely both seriously concerned with properly educating the new generation of practitioners, and promoting the use of intelligent hypnotherapy so that its vast potential to aid mankind is not relegated to hucksters and charlatans, and thus squandered away for yet another two hundred years!"

But the fact remains that we "strongly disagree" with each other when it concerns the terrible IMAGE of hypnosis that is still held by most people today as a result of their exposure to public displays of highly authoritarian and/or "instant" inductions, and of course the crude and often highly insulting routines of FAR too many stage hypnotists.
As far as that goes, I hope you won't mind if I cut & paste part of one of my replies to a email you sent me a while back, because that will save me the trouble of basically re-writing it in response to your latest post on this thread:

"Dear Gil,

I hope you're not taking any of my book's commentary about the "image problem" personally,
because that would be entirely unwarranted! Yet, I can't help thinking that you feel I'm not being objective enough when it concerns the effect that public displays of highly authoritarian inductions have always had on the public's perception.
I don't know how far you've gotten yet in my book, but you'll see that I have provided documented proof that such negative perceptions are not, unfortunately, confined to the past- but are still in force today (though admittedly to a lesser degree). In fact, two of my own acquaintances both told me that they disagreed with my statement about its all too often still being regarded with "Fear & Loathing"; and both professed that they, and their friends, did not regard hypnosis as something to be feared or wary of.
However, when I then pointedly asked them if they would want to be hypnotized themselves- they both replied (rather awkwardly and slightly embarrassed!) in the negative, and then sheepishly admitted
that perhaps they did harbor an unrecognized prejudice against hypnotists!
Needless to say, all those folks who attend your workshops and seminars are considerably more open to the prospect of being hypnotized- otherwise they wouldn't be there in the first place; but I doubt very much if they are a true representative sampling of "general" attitudes held by (many? most?) of the public and, especially, health-care practitioners- who still know little or nothing about it, and usually do not announce a desire to learn more lest they be mocked by their colleagues.
No, as far as general attitudes go- I firmly believe (from both my considerable research, as well as personal experience) that the vast majority of people still regard hypnosis with a jaundiced eye.
Many are willing to try it of course, but many many more are not. And there is a direct cause and effect between this negative attitude, and the public display of highly authoritarian inductions on "youtube", etc. (not to mention the disgraceful and/or ludicrous antics encouraged by many stage hypnotists!), and the often-sensationalistic coverage by the media (e.g., the way it has always been, and still is portrayed in almost every single movie, cartoon, and tv series).
I am certainly not blaming anyone personally for this sorry state of afairs (such as Ormond McGill), because that's the way everybody practiced hypnosis! As far as I was aware, Milton Erickson was the only one to have popularized a "permissive" approach towards induction- everyone else I ever came across was either practicing in an authoritarian, or in a "standardized" (experimentalist) manner.
I don't think it was "unfair" of me to quote from McGill's 60 year-old book, because regardless of the fact that he was a kind and gentle man whom everybody loved, those antics being taught in his book to stage hypnotists (and which are still being taught to a new crop in the modern reprint!) were at least partly responsible for the fact that many (most?) of the audience members who witnessed those exhibitions would not dream of going to a clinical hypnotist for therapy; because they came away from such exhibitions both awed and frightened by the illusion of Total Power they'd witnessed.
Do I believe that this was Ormond McGill's intention? Of course not! But that most certainly turned out to be the result of attending such performances."

Now, while I agree with you that "public perception has never been more positive and hypnotherapists have never been busier", I feel that this development represents but a TINY FRACTION of its FULL potential. As I said in my original post, tens of thousands of people may well go to hypnotherapists these days, but even this seemingly positive statistic is misleading, because that number should be measured in the tens of MILLIONS, in the HUNDREDS of millions. And what is preventing this widespread universal acceptance in 2010 is still basically the same old attitude of wariness and trepidation that people felt back in 1910, and in 1810- it is the fear of being CONTROLLED by the hypnotist, the fear of having their "will" DOMINATED by another. And nothing perpetuates this fear like PUBLIC displays of highly AUTHORITARIAN inductions.
I do not, nor have I ever, contested their "effectiveness"- but I'm firmly convinced that the use of such techniques should be strictly confined to PRIVATE sessions exclusively in order to prevent the continued propagation of the age-old "now I have you in my Power!!" IMAGE that has been SO harmful and SO counterproductive to hypnotism for the past two centuries (and counting...).

Saul

P.S. Needless to say, my book has now sold considerably more copies that I reported back then- although sales are still rather disappointing. However, the problem does NOT lie with the book itself, but rather with the unfortunate fact that I have no means to promote it seeing as how I choose not to be affiliated with any organization, institute or "school", and am also unwilling to go on the "lecture circuit" or personally promote it in any fashion. This is my choice, and makes things considerably more difficult when it comes to getting the word out; but if you take a few moments to read the absolutely STELLAR reviews and testimonials from a goodly number of well respected and highly influential professionals that appear on my website, you'll see that the slow pace of sales is most assuredly not a reflection of its value to the profession

Permalink Reply by SteveH on November 23, 2009 at 7:07am

Michael Elner said

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.


I am not unhappy about you feeling this way Mike.

Likewise, I was rather disturbed by the content of your post too. I felt it stopped just short of naming and shaming and accusing Gill of bringing modern hypnosis (whatever that is) into disrepute.

If that was not your intended proposition, then please do forgive me for my misunderstanding.

I respect what you do, and I am sure that you too respect what other hypnotists do too, even if what they do doesn't map onto your own model of hypnosis techniques.



Michael Elner said
I suggest starting a new discussion - "Comparing abreactive vs. cognitive-style therapies."

I'd be happy to respectfully share my opinions.


Michael
Now this is getting more aligned with meaningful debate. This type of debate I can see having value. Concentrating on the techniques and leaving out the person or personalities. This is much more productive and in my opinion, more professional.

I found your original post to be full of suggestions some of which are rather covert. You also stopped just short of actually saying "I don't think Gill's public display and use of the type of instant induction is doing the profession any good". Michael, with your experience and background, I think you do realise the amount of embedded covert suggestion that you used to 'colour' the direction of feeling in your original post. Please correct me here if I am wrong.

Everyone has stated how much they respect Gill, so it must be purely down to Gill's usage of certain techniques. Mustn't it?

Your original post in this thread was about one particular style of instant induction. Now it seems you want the thread to move onto abreactive vs. cognitive-style therapies.

This somewhat confuses me as you are moving the debate away from the original shock induction ala Gill and back to regression where you have vociferously stated your opinions, here on Hypnothoughts, many times in the past.

Again Mike, I have to say, I mean no disrespect to you the person - you have achieved some great things, I also don't consider it disrespect to you in disagreeing with your opinions.


Everybody

I agree with Gill here, there does seem to be a definite feeling of pro-cognitive and anti-[any other way] (particularly regression) about all this, with Gill's techniques being cited as Exhibit Number 1. So where is this thread going, is it anti-shock induction ALA body pull, or is it anti-regression or what? Or is it pro-Gill the person and anti-Gill-use-of-techniques, or else is it saying pro-cognitive being the only modern(?) way forward for the hypnosis profession?


I have trained in CBT and the use of cognitive hypnotic techniques. I have also trained extensively through live training, video and written materials in Ericsonian techniques, regression, abreactive, parts-therapy techniques amongst many others both mainstream and others which are somewhat "out-there in woo-woo land". I always move forward, taking the best-of-the-best techniques.

How do I determine the best-of-the-best techniques, well that's simple. They are the ones which work for my clients and help solve their problems quickly and effectively.

I do not advocate any prescribed method. I do not automatically say I am going to use regression for this problem , parts for that, or cognitive therapy for that other problem.

Each client is unique and I deal with them as individual and unique beings.

Saying all this, I use modern hypnosis techniques, whether this be regression, direct suggestion, indirect suggestion, hyperemperia, inner child, forgiveness, parts, cognitive techniques etc. or a combination thereof.

I DO use and advocate regression techniques for certain problem areas. That said, if I have a new client that has a problem where I have used regression before, that does not automatically mean I will use regression because it seems to be the same problem. My choice of intervention is dependant on the client and how suitable I think a technique will be for them, whether it is regression, parts, cognitive or whatever.

Do I use regression all the time and for everything? Not on your Nellie. Do I use direct suggestion all the time and for everything? That's a bit like asking "do you use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail" (for the purist, yes you can, but it's going to take you a while - I could bring ethics in here and say, doesn't matter, the client is paying me to put this nail in even if I am using a screwdriver to do it. How about using a hammer to insert a screw - methinks not). I use the appropriate technique for the client.

Many people (read into this hypnotists as well) seem to think that regression and abreactions are tightly coupled. Hmmmm. If a hypnotist is *unintentionally* getting a client abreaction with most regressions, then there is something wrong with the technique being used.

With care, during the regression process, you can regress quickly and safely to some very traumatic situations and not have any abreaction (this opens up a popular argument of 'how do you actually know the client is not abreacting', and a counter argument in same manner, "how can you tell they are not abreacting when in a cognitive or direct suggestion situation"?).

In the same way, you can have a client in a seemingly very light trance (whatever light trance means :-) ) in a direct hypnosis situation and have the client undergo a sudden unexpected abreaction.

Regression does-not-equal abreaction. I will agree with anyone who wants make the point of abreactions are more likely to occur during regression because of some strong emotional experience from the past, and I will say in response, there are some superb regression techniques that are can be used to ensure that abreactions are as unlikely to occur during regression as is in a direct suggestion session. It's all a matter of good training and modern (sic) techniques.

I also DO TOUCH my clients with their permission of course. I always explain the where and how I might be touching them. I do not usually tell them why except to say that it aids and enhances the other techniques I use during the session. If a client shows any sign of uncertainty about touch or they seem apprehensive, even though they might say "Yes", I will probably not actually touch them, except maybe for a wrist lift and drop if I'm using the Elman induction. Although I have never trained with Gill, I too occasionally use forehead tapping, and I often use hand-on-shoulder with gentle pressing down as the client exhales, along with suggestion, during deepening. Hope that's not another secret of your's Gill!

I have used pure "abreaction therapy" (as opposed to a regression session) only occasionally, probably done so a 3 or 4 times in maybe half-a-dozen years. It is one technique in my overall set of techniques.


Clients are usually more concerned on whether hypnosis is going to have an effective outcome for them rather than a being interested in particular induction or the techniques used in a session. I feel it is my responsibility and duty to provide the client with the best and most effective technique suitable for that client, after all they are paying me to help them with their problem.

These days most clients think themselves extremely well informed about hypnosis (particularly inductions) They can get to see all manner of techniques and processes on video and social networking websites. If the client has any issue with the overall techniques used whatsoever, it is usually with regards to the initial induction or about loss of control or revealing personal secrets.

I cannot recall ever having a client ask me to use pure Ericsonian techniques, or cognitive techniques, or wanting direct/indirect suggestion. From speaking to friends, reading your literature or whatever, they generally know what you do before they come to you. They are interested in whether the outcome it is going to be successful or not, usually followed by 'how many sessions will I need' (i.e. monetary costs and how much time and how often do they have to take off work etc).


I have NEVER EVER had a client come to me and say, "do you use the same techniques as Gill Boyne". If they did, I actually would ask them if they would want me to use this style and technique, and I would have no hesitation in using it if appropriate (going along with client expectation and all that).

I do quite frequently have clients ask me if I am going to use the same technique as they have seen by some stage hypnotist or other on some video site or other.

Back to the cited induction demonstrated by Gill. Do I use Gill's Exhibit Number 1 induction in my client sessions, no I don't. Would I use it, hell yes, if it benefited the client.

My client pays me to provide the best service and result for their money. In a typical week, I may have used direct-suggestion, regression, parts etc. When I first learned to use cognitive techniques with hypnosis, I thought I had discovered the best thing since sliced bread. What happened, was it effective, generally yes, but it took me longer (almost twice as long) to get the clients to a point of resolving their problem. It may be that I needed more practice and experience, then these results may have improved. I was and am still not prepared to take money from my clients so that I might (or not) increase my experience and improve my results at their expense when I have other solutions and techniques available to me that I absolutely know are effective. I am pragmatic in choosing whatever techniques I use. I often do use aspects of cognitive techniques at the end of client sessions. I do not do this deliberately as such, it's just that the techniques have blended into what I do.

If I find and learn a new technique that resolves issues effectively, is quick and is beneficial to the client, then I am going to use it. I refuse to solve a clients problem in four sessions using a pure cognitive approach when I can get the client to the same resolution in two sessions using other well tried and tested techniques. It simply is not ethical.

I do not provide talk therapy, and am not a psychotherapist, psychoanalyst, CB Therapist (although fully trained in this and practiced as a full-time CBTherapist for some time).

I am a hypnotist and proud of it.

I am going to stop now, otherwise I'll have you all in a trance in the similar process to the age old progressive relaxation induction, controversial, who me? :-)


SteveH.

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on November 23, 2009 at 7:41am

I hate the idea of being a "the fact is" kind of poster, but, one would be hard pressed to consult the DOT as it has been replaced by the O*NET/SOC (Standard Occupational Classification System). There is no specific SOC occupation with the title of Hypnotherapist.

GIL BOYNE said:

PS To discover the differences, consult the "Federal Dictionary of Occupational Titles" .

Permalink Reply by Hugh Cole on November 23, 2009 at 7:48am

Why is it that some people look at the "Now I have you in my power and your gonna cluck like a chicken" thing and wring thier hands and rip thier clothes, throw dust on thier heads and lament the terrible image people have of evil bug eyed hypnotists and begin a personal vendetta to stamp out such extremely basic parts to human nature (along with the evil bug eyed hypnotists)? ... instead of just simply playing the ball where it lies.

Others listen to that stuff and laugh ... say "that's not how it works .... Here let me show you" ... and walk off with a new client. Could it be that the world views are ... differant .... Core values ... Differant. I have often said that a good hypnotist is like a good poker player.. he plays the cards he is dealt .. Not the cards he wishes he was dealt.

Let me point something out to you... Media folk have made those movies for a long long time. Svengali is not an unknown book It's actually pretty widly read in it's time. and even now WHY Nobody was forcing folks to watch those movies or read the books. They did that because they WANTED to. There is a very fundemental part of human nature that is fascinated by that behavior ..by the possibility they don't have to be completely responsible for thier own behavior. More than you might imagine actually get a bit of a rush at that thought. People only "fear" what they believe to "be possible". Who was that that taught me that "all hynosis is Self Hypnosis"?
Ok so I had someone working with me a while back on a public relations thing I was doing. Great lady. She took great pains to tell me why I shouldn't be using swinging watches and that sorta stuff in my campaign. She told me that as a client it would bring up images of Power Driven bug eyed hypnotists etc etc. She knew that for a fact because that's what she used to believe. (The words cluck like a chicken even entered the conversation) Of course she had been through hypnotherapy, was very familiar with it and was even asking me about the possibility of "trading services". The obvious question.. What changed your mind?" Well ... The answer ... She met a very competent hypnotist on the left coast. He did the unthinkable and explained to her how it worked and even let her EXPERIENCE IT. danged if it didn't work.. and now she is a walking billboard for the possibilities of Hypnosis. Enough said for me.

Hugh Cole
The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on November 23, 2009 at 7:55am

Dear Gil,

I respect and honor you and your achievements - period.

Michael Ellner

Dear HT.com Brothers and Sisters-
This is NOT a threat -- I will be starting another discussion on questioning the widely held belief that the mind/brain does not see or hear and process "negatives" in the not too distance future. =^..^=

Hint- Millions of NYers walk around in a wide range of very mild to extreme trances and seem to get "Don't Walk" without walking into traffic. Brain scan research suggests the brain acts on negative messages faster than on positive messages.

Meanwhile - I'm thinking it might be time to put this baby to bed and start another discussion -- I am going to keep this one open through Tuesday in case people who were off-line over the weekend want to respectfully share.

And I am going to start another discussion as soon as I post this reply.

Do You Want To Mainstream Your Practice and Can It Be Done Without Government Regulation or Compromising Our Effectiveness? I say Yes!

Please feel free to join me there-

Ciao for now-

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page