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

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Haifleigh on November 24, 2009 at 3:13pm

Lee Pelletier said:

I wonder what would happen if we kept discussion of concepts like this at the idea level and left off the "ad hominem" attacks?.

I wonder.

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 24, 2009 at 4:02pm

Hi Lee,

First of all, I'd like to reiterate the main point I've been trying to make in my posts because there seems to be some confusion about it. I've stated several times already that I am NOT talking about the viability of "authoritarian" vs. "permissive" inductions when it comes to meeting the (psychological) needs of different clients. I've been practicing hypnosis since 1979, with a great deal of success, and am fully aware of the need to tailor different approaches to different individuals. The point I've been trying to make all along is that there is a REASON why the vast MAJORITY of the general public and health care practitioners have, ALL throughout its history, regarded this phenomenon with a jaundiced eye- with nervous trepidation, and often outright Fear and Loathing instead of as a remarkable force that can promote HEALING in so many ways.
In fact, here is the introduction to my book, which says it all:


"Suppose that there were no word or concept such as “hypnosis”, and that psychologists then discovered a technique whereby important aspects of a person’s belief system could be radically modified, for brief periods, by particular verbal inputs. Clearly, such a startling procedure would be seen to have to have the greatest of significance..."
(McReynolds in Sheehan & Perry, 1976, p.269)




Indeed, you’d think the universal response to such a momentous discovery would be one of profound delight; while surely even that reaction would pale before the excitement caused by the finding that people who were hypnotized could sometimes learn to regulate “involuntary” bodily functions like circulation, markedly accelerate the healing process, or (once again- by means of simple speech) be helped to reduce chronic intractable pain.
It was, after all, the stuff Nobel prizes were made of, and it’s not very likely that the implications would have been lost on anyone.

Back here on Earth, however, it seems that despite more than two centuries of having tacitly recognized its enormous potential utility, the phenomenon of hypnosis has commonly been regarded with outright Fear and Loathing.
Instead of hypnotists being looked upon as gentle, benevolent, Albert Schweitzer-type healers, they’ve invariably been characterized rather as sinister, Rasputin-like villains with “dark, piercing eyes”, a “penetrating, merciless stare”, and a “powerful, domineering will”.
In fact, the popular reaction to the whole subject of trance was perhaps best captured by Estabrooks’ and Gross’ (1961, p.88) candid observation that, to many people, the very word "hypnosis" still evokes "a whole series of lurid visions more properly associated with tales of horror, murder, and creatures that walk by night.”


What I wanted to know was: how did it ever come to THIS, for crying out loud?
How is it possible that something as potentially BENEFICIAL to humanity as hypnosis ever came to be regarded in such a horrible manner?

I intend to show that the history of hypnotism provides us with the clue to this unfortunate legacy. You see, the one common denominator found all throughout mankind’s 200+ year investigation of trance has been this IMAGE problem- the universal perception that hypnosis is a sinister force capable of "overpowering" the minds of hapless subjects.
As will be revealed in the following chapters, that’s the way people have ALWAYS tended to regard the phenomenon- whether back in Mesmer’s time in the latter 1700’s, all throughout the course of the 19th century and, as everyone reading this is probably aware, during most of the 20th as well.
To hear Aaronson (1973, p. 93) tell it, even nowadays, though hypnosis appears to have finally gained acceptance as a "proper" area of scientific study, the word hypnosis continues to evoke disturbing images of illigitimately held power; and researchers in hypnosis must continually justify their morals, motivation, methodology and conclusions to a degree seldom demanded of researchers in other areas of the behavioral sciences.

Now, if we stop to consider just how great a part this attitude has always played in preventing mankind’s acceptance of the phenomenon, it hardly seems irrelevant to wonder WHAT ever happened to make our image of trance SO consistently disagreeable over the years?
Even more important perhaps, is the question of what can STILL be causing so many people to PERSIST in regarding hypnosis this way?

There is much historical evidence to suggest that the answer to this problem lies in our MANNER of employing the phenomenon...



So let me state again, for the record, that I have nothing against any particular technique. What I DO have a problem with are PUBLIC demonstrations of certain highly authoritarian techniques, and ESPECIALLY "rapid" or "instant" inductions, which I feel have a proven 200 year track record of harming hypnotism's image as a force for healing. This is not a "seat of the pants" feeling, for I've invested almost thirteen years of intensive (not to say Fanatical) research into this matter, and during the course of those years have read in excess of 1,000 books (both ancient and modern) on hypnosis and allied subjects in English, French, German and Dutch.

I AM curious to know where you came across your statistical breakdown of the percentages of folks who respond positively or negatively to the impact of stage exhibitions (or any type of "public" exhibitions of authoritarian techniques such as YouTube), because in my experience, the vast majority of people have an overwhelmingly "negative" perception of hypnosis AS A SERIOUS THERAPEUTIC MODALITY after witnessing such exhibitions.
As far as that goes, I just received an email this afternoon from someone following this thread, and this is what HE had to say about it:

"As for your point about the image of hypnotism, I don't know how anyone can argue with you. I encounter it with literally every client I ever see. It's also the reason that I was not the slightest bit interested in hypnotherapy until my mid-thirties. If I wanted to humiliate or entertain people, I'd have become a crude stand-up comic or a magician. As it is, I want to heal people and love seeing the potential of hypnotism to do just that."

If anyone doubts the veracity of this quote (e.g., thinks I made it up), then I'll be happy to ask the gentleman in question if he'll allow me to publish his name.

Permalink Reply by Lee Pelletier on November 24, 2009 at 6:01pm

Saul-

Thanks for asking. For about the last 20 years I have been using an instrument called DISC as a part of my pastoral work and consulting. Originally developed by William Moulton Marston (who also gave us Wonder Woman), this instrument in its various iterations tests to determine the "behavioral style" of of respondents. The purpose of the instrument is to create more positive and cohesive work environments in which people work in areas for which they are most naturally suited. One of the elements in creating a cohesive work environment is communication. Each of the 4 styles has specific ways in which they prefer to be communicated. For example, a "D" is best communicated with by brevity. I tell clients to communicate in bullet points and allow the "D" to ask for more details as desired. The "I" is drawn to fun, charm, excitement and the "experience". The "S" is change averse, and likes a lot of detail in all communication. The "C" factor high is the wanting verifiable detail and process. They like written reports and are very analytical. They will ask an incredible number of questions about any process in which they are involved. Detail, Detail and more Detail. The quick way to observe this universal behavior is to ask about pace (fast pace="D" Factor and "I" Factor; slow pace="S" factor and "C" factor) whether introverted or extraverted ("C" and "S" introverted and "D" and "I" extraverted) people orientation or task orientation ("D" and "C" are more task oriented while "S" and "I" are more people oriented).

Most people are a blend of 2 or occasionally 3 of the styles. Some have just one predominant style. "D" Factor highest on the graph comprises about 13% of the US Population (similar internationally). "I" factor high is about 29% of the poplulation. "S" Factor high is about 45% of the population and "C" Factor High, about 10% of the population. Given t blends, and the fact that there can be variance of opinion no matter what the style, if all 13% of the "D" factor high folk and all 29% of the "I" Factor high folk were to be drawn to Instant and Rapid then about 43% of the population would have that preference (and you will lose a "D" with any kind of progressive relaxation). Given that people have the style with varying intensities and blends, I estimate that 25%-35% would have a strong preference for the high speed of the approach that Gil uses. On the other hand, the inherent caution of the "S" (45% of the population) and the detail and process orientation of the "C" factor (10% of the population) or 55% combined)--also allowing for blends and experience factors, I estimated the 35% to 45%. While my estimates are based on 20 yrs of experience in working with the styles in a variety of settings, it is an estimate. The breakdowns of the 4 styles is statistically verified over millions of assessments and the information can be found in the book Universal Language of DISC. There is a great deal more to this, of course, but I hope I have given enough of a glimpse at it to make it comprehensible.

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 24, 2009 at 7:47pm

Hello Lee,

I'd never heard about DISC before and find it quite interesting, entirely plausible, and it certainly sounds as if it would make a VERY helpful indicator when applied to strategies for induction/therapeutic approach with individual clients.
However, my concern all throughout this discussion has not been with various tactics/techniques for individuals, but rather the influence and effect that public demonstrations of highly authoritarian induction techniques have always had on the population at large- for the past two centuries (and counting).

I'd be interested in hearing what you thought of the question I posed in my book's introduction: namely, WHY has this marvelously beneficial modality for HEALING invariably been regarded, ALL throughout its history, with such horribly NEGATIVE connotations? Don't you agree that it's at least "possible", if not likely, that this has a great deal to do with the ONE "common denominator" linking the practice of hypnotism through the years: the general public's aversion/apprehension/trepidation after witnessing the "now I have you in my Power!" approach employed by highly authoritarian hypnotists...?

Saul

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on November 25, 2009 at 6:21am

Hi Gil,

I noticed that you just posted on another discussion--

I hope that your "Working Vacation" in Barcelona is pleasurable and rewarding--

Best wishes

me


GIL BOYNE said:

Michael said---Dear Gil, I respect and honor you and your achievements - period.
Hello Michael, Thank you for your kind words and for raising an issue that has provoked so many responses.

Permalink Reply by GIL BOYNE on November 25, 2009 at 6:39am

Hello Michael, Thank you for your good will.-
from a fellow therapist---Gil Boyne

Michael Ellner said:

Hi Gil,

I noticed that you just posted on another discussion--

I hope that your "Working Vacation" in Barcelona is pleasurable and rewarding--

Best wishes

me


GIL BOYNE said:

Michael said---Dear Gil, I respect and honor you and your achievements - period.
Hello Michael, Thank you for your kind words and for raising an issue that has provoked so many responses.

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 25, 2009 at 6:40am

Michael,

If I didn't know better, I'd think that EVERYONE on this thread was away on a "working vacation" in Barcelona, because NOBODY has taken even a moment to respond to the question I raised in my book's "Introduction", and again in my reply to Lee.

Not a ONE.

The sound of silence is, as they say, deafening...; - )

Saul




Michael Ellner said:

Hi Gil,
I noticed that you just posted on another discussion-- I hope that your "Working Vacation" in Barcelona is pleasurable and rewarding--

Best wishes

me


GIL BOYNE said:

Michael said---Dear Gil, I respect and honor you and your achievements - period.
Hello Michael, Thank you for your kind words and for raising an issue that has provoked so many responses.

Permalink Reply by Rene Frederiksen on November 25, 2009 at 6:55am

To be short Michael .

1.
Yes (AND no) Instant inductions can be done laying too :-) (Handdrop etc.)
I use Instant inductions but the armpull or neck pull (That looks much harder then it is) - isnt that well suitet for clinical Hypnosis .- I agree...

2.
Again YES (And NO)
Before the hypnosis I ALWAYS talk with my client and show how I will touch them if I want to touch (Boink the forhead etc..)
So Touch is OK as long as they know whats comming!

3.
Sure - Convincers are more the ok - the client is there to get help achiving results in one or the other way rigth?
Do you use "Rapport" with the client - Why not convincers too - It helps the client understand the "power" they have to follow the surgestions -
I ALWAYS tell them that it was THEM doing it - NOT me...I just surgested it - They DID it....
Understanding this - The result of the session gets better I think (Could be wrong - But thats the way I work)
:-)

Permalink Reply by Hugh Cole on November 25, 2009 at 8:29am

Namaste, My friend, Its good to hear from you.

Hugh Cole
The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet.

Michael Haifleigh said:

Lee Pelletier said:

I wonder what would happen if we kept discussion of concepts like this at the idea level and left off the "ad hominem" attacks?.

I wonder.

Permalink Reply by Lee Pelletier on November 25, 2009 at 8:46am

Saul:

You ask an entirely valid question. I wanted to think about my response rather than just provide a quick response. The more I think about it, the more I think that there are more important issues afoot in the lack of respect we have earned in the broader “helping” community. The first issue is the presuppositions of the observer. The trouble with presuppositions is that we tend to look at observable data in a way that reinforces our presuppositions. We see what we are expecting to see. Not only do we see what we expect to see, the presuppositions tend to close our thinking to alternative points of view. When any of us sees a technique work well our belief in the efficacy of that technique is reinforced. I have seen this tendency in a variety of environments. In religion, for example, you would be amazed at how strongly people argue about which method of baptism is “biblical”. Others argue with incredible passion about how salvation is obtained. There are those who argue that there are so many arguments about religion and faith that some suggest that the problem is “faith” as a concept. If we eliminate “faith” then we will have fewer arguments.

As humans we are thinking beings (well some of us). We also tend to be drawn to arguments. Like gamblers who will bet on anything, many of us will debate anything. When we adopt a point of view, we can find amazing data to support our point of view. The more we argue, the more committed we become to an idea. The more committed we become to an idea, the more likely we are to reject data that is contrary to that idea.

Add into the equation the fact that as humans we tend, overall, to look for the path of least resistance. A medical professional might be inclined to prescribe a medication rather than tell a patient to endure the pain. Antibiotics are over prescribed, because patients have learned to believe that you go to the doctor to get a pill to instantly solve the problem. The anti-biotics are over-prescribed, not because of good medical sense or efficacy, but because it is the path of least resistance. Fortunately, that is changing somewhat, but it remains a problem.

Saul, as I first considered your arguments, quite honestly gave them a lot of weight. The more I have considered the issues, the more inclined I am to think that you may be falling into the trap that is illustrated by the H. L. Menken’s statement: H.L. Mencken said: "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple—and wrong." Instead of wrong, I am more inclined to say “insufficient.” I did read the preface to your book, by clicking on the link you put in a prior post. In the preface you make it clear that your starting place is a point of view and that the purpose of the book is to prove your thesis.

Honestly, I think you are on to one of the causative factors for the problem. Most people would be shocked to know that the same basic issues that cause problems today have caused similar problems for we humans from time immemorium. The "have you in my power" has certainly fed the resistance to hypnosis in the religious communities of which I am a part. The fictionalized portrayals of hypnosis have, until recently, been entirely antithetical to a good image of our profession. This again supports your view that authoritarian approaches create a harmful impression of our profession. There are additional complications. There are some in our profession who focus on religious ideas in their hypnotic approach. I am frequently asked about Past Life Regression (PLR) when I make a public appearance. I realize that PLR is a relatively new concern and the "Power of the Hypnotist" question has been there more-or-less from the beginning with Anton Mesmer. PLR is very troubling to those who practice and believe in biblical Christianity.

Physicians have long been authoritarian in their approach. Most of us are familiar with the joke: "What is the difference between God and a neurosurgeon?" The answer: "God does not think He is an MD."

Clearly, Saul you take our profession very seriously, as do so many others including Gil. While I think the image of our profession has a long way to go, I think the way to enhance our image is with ongoing success. It will help to limit the "esoteric" and focus on the scientific. I think it is more important to note and explore the effectiveness of both indirect and authoritarian approaches than to worry too much about image. As we get our success rates up our influence will increase. I run into little physician resistance. Many are honestly intrigued.

I can also tell you that the next generation of clients (those from 16-35) have been positively influenced by hypnosis shows and authoritarian presentations. They have seen the unleashing of the subconscious mind and been impressed. They have listened as the stage professional has urged those in the audience to look into hypnosis to help them effect changes in their own lives. As the number of effective hypnotists increases, I believe our profession will increase in credibility. As we realize that, as Roy Hunter says, there are many pathways to the subconscious and hypnotic efficacy, we can respond to the concerns that may arise among those who have seen hypnosis shows. I enjoy telling clients how I was trained to select participants when I took stage training. They laugh and understand. They are amused at the thought of clucking like a chicken or barking like a dog. Some are both relieved and disappointed when I respond that “it is up to them.”

What I am saying, Saul, is that it is a mixed bag. Perhaps they are right in Hollywood when they say there is no such thing as bad publicity. Right now, I will take almost any conversation generator. I don’t always agree with how Hypnosis and NLP are portrayed on “The Mentalist” but it is so far an improvement on other presentations that I am very grateful for the quality of writing. It is showy. It might scare some people into believing they can be hypnotized into telling the truth. But, overall, I think it portrays both hypnosis and NLP more favorably than not.

One of the very positive initiatives of the NGH is to establish hypnosis as a separate and distinct profession. That will work to all of our advantages. We will not be well served by absorption into medicine or psychology. What we do is different from medicine and psychology. We need people willing to travel down different paths to find useful answers. We are as different from psychology as chiropractic is from allopathic medicine. Watch over the next 10 years as our profession takes off. I believe we are in for a fascinating ride. We all, as professional hypnotists need to be at the top of our game. We need to always be learning and improving. The question is not, “am I a good hypnotist today.” The important question is “am I a more effective hypnotist today than I was yesterday?” Clearly, Saul, you care about that, and it is my hope that every hypnotist browsing through hypnothougts.com cares about that as well.


Saul Rosenfeld said:

Hello Lee,
I'd never heard about DISC before and find it quite interesting, entirely plausible, and it certainly sounds as if it would make a VERY helpful indicator when applied to strategies for induction/therapeutic approach with individual clients. However, my concern all throughout this discussion has not been with various tactics/techniques for individuals, but rather the influence and effect that public demonstrations of highly authoritarian induction techniques have always had on the population at large- for the past two centuries (and counting).

I'd be interested in hearing what you thought of the question I posed in my book's introduction: namely, WHY has this marvelously beneficial modality for HEALING invariably been regarded, ALL throughout its history, with such horribly NEGATIVE connotations? Don't you agree that it's at least "possible", if not likely, that this has a great deal to do with the ONE "common denominator" linking the practice of hypnotism through the years: the general public's aversion/apprehension/trepidation after witnessing the "now I have you in my Power!" approach employed by highly authoritarian hypnotists...?

Saul

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 25, 2009 at 8:49am

Hugh,

I can't help wondering what you (and Michael H.) think about "passive-aggressive" ad hominem attacks-
such as, for instance, completely ignoring, or simply declining to answer, a serious thought-provoking question posed by a serious member-in-good-standing on this thread?
Not once, but twice.

I wonder...

Saul


P.S. Thanks at least for YOUR reply Lee, I have to go out for a while, but will respond later





Hugh Cole said:

Namaste, My friend, Its good to hear from you.
Hugh Cole The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet. Michael Haifleigh said:

Lee Pelletier said:

I wonder what would happen if we kept discussion of concepts like this at the idea level and left off the "ad hominem" attacks?.

I wonder.

Permalink Reply by Hugh Cole on November 25, 2009 at 9:27am

For my part Saul, the discussion has run it's course. I don't believe I launched an "ad hominem" attack on you and if you feel I did I apologize for it. I don't believe your premise is faulty because you authored it, I believe it is faulty because it is counter to my observations and my intuition. But That's just me. I don't see this as a worthwhile productive debate for me. I'd rather you debate whomever you were debating when you wrote your book. It is not my job to prove or disprove the hypothesis that you and your referances postulated over the duration of several lifetimes, I am going to let you do that as any good scholar must if his research work is to gain acceptance. I am wishing you only success with your self publishing efforts. While I would love to be in Barcelona with Gil, sadly I am not, I am at home preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving with those I love.

Namaste,
Hugh Cole

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page