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 GIL BOYNE on November 24, 2009 at 6:11am

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.

To the many who reponded with your dire views and ideas, I am pleased to see your commitment to your personal beliefs and your willingness to defend an unpopular cause. I hope that some of the responses may have caused you to rethink some of your positions.
To those who believe as I do in this issue, I feel strengthened by the knowledge that this profession is well protected from those who project shadowy images of "what the Professions and Society" think of "our different behaviours".
Finally, Thank you, Scott, for providing this amazing forum that produces such erudite, sometimes funny and always informative posts. I said before, that for many years, I have been posting on hypnosis related forums and none have ever come close to the diversity, valuable information input and debate opportunities that you have created with Hypnothought'. When it comes to this technological format you are undoubtedly the "MASTER"

I will be posting less in the near future as I will be in Barcelona on holiday (and business) and a group there is interested in promoting a Master Class for me. However, " I shall return".

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 24, 2009 at 8:43am

"To the many who reponded with your dire views and ideas, I am pleased to see your commitment to your personal beliefs and your willingness to defend an unpopular cause. I hope that some of the responses may have caused you to rethink some of your positions."


Hello Gil,

Not only am I "willing" to defend an unpopular cause in the (probably vain?) hope of helping the art and science of hypnotherapy to achieve more than just the tiniest fraction of its true potential, but I've dedicated years of my life to
realizing that goal. However, I am also a "realist", and thus understand full well that it is simply too much to expect those who make their living (and often a good living at that!) by exploiting this blessed phenomenon for the purpose of "entertainment" and by providing their audiences with cheap thrills for a few bucks, to reconsider the terrible harm they're doing to its IMAGE as a force for HEALING and to rethink THEIR position.
Human nature being what it is, I KNOW that is not going to happen anytime soon, and it saddens me to think that another century of two of LOST POTENTIAL will almost certainly pass by before anything changes. Maybe even never.
But just in case anyone here is even remotely interested in learning from the past, I've decided to copy & paste a few pages of my book that deal with this SAME issue way back in the 1800's. Actually there is plenty more where that came from (numerous other quotes from a great number of other sources), but if these words of wisdom from the past don't at least raise a FEW doubts in your minds, then it would be a total waste of your time to read any further...




Throughout the years, stage-hypnotists often claimed that, if it hadn't been for their "public exhibitions", the phenomenon of hypnotism would have been totally forgotten after being abandoned by the medical establishment back in the 1780’s. This justification is misleading however, for considering the extensive harm that such exhibitions always caused to the image and reputation of hypnotism, its relegation to obscurity would have been the best thing that could ever have happened! At least, until mankind was capable of displaying a rational, dispassionate, scientific attitude when undertaking its examination.
Sensationalistic exhibitions would never fail to attract attention all right, but who needed that kind of attention!?

This sentiment was eloquently expressed by Martineau (1845), when writing:
“I believe there is no doubt that the greatest of all injuries done to Mesmerism is by its itinerant advocates. This appears to be admitted by everybody but the itinerants themselves...But no man of enlarged views, of knowledge...would venture upon the perilous rashness of making a public exhibition of the solemn wonders yet so new and impressive, of playing upon the brain and nerves of human beings, exhibiting for money on a stage states of mind and soul held too sacred in olden times to be elicited elsewhere than in temples, by the hands of the priests of the gods...It is true, the blame of their desecration rests with the learned men who ought to have shown themselves wise in relation to a matter so serious, and to have taken the investigation into their own hands. It is they who are answerable for having turned over the subject to the fanatical and the vulgar. It is they who have cast this jewel of knowledge and power into the lap of the ignorant; and no one can wonder that it is bartered for money and notoriety. The spectacle is a disgusting and a terrible one,- disgusting as making a stimulating public show of what cannot be witnessed (even) in the quietest privacy without emotions of awe...and terrible as making common and unclean that which, at least at present, is sanctified by mystery, (and) by complete unfitness for (public) use. It is urged that public exhibitions of mesmeric phenomena attract much attention to the subject...This may be true, but what an amount of mischief is there to set off against this! There is much more wonder, doubt and disgust caused than conviction, and the sort of conviction so originated could, on the whole, be very well dispensed with...It would be something gained if the honest among these lecturers could be taught and convinced that they had better be quiet, and let the matter alone, rather than propagate Mesmerism by such a method...”
(pp. 48-49)

As far as that goes, moreover, Bell (1792; in Sibly, 1810) had already noted back in Mesmer’s day that: “...a prudent man, willing to do good to his fellow creatures who labour under any infirmities, will never treat his patients in public, and make them walk in their sleep, or do many other things: it is very well to convince incredulous people of the effects, but cannot do good to the patient.” (p. 264)


* * *


There were those who would say that “cannot do good to the patient” was a gross understatement. Take Hoek (1852) for instance, who’d warned that: “It shouldn’t surprise us that some despise and ridicule (the phenomenon) when they see that her proponents themselves have so little respect for it that they travel with carnivals from town to town, like jugglers and magicians, to demonstrate their art for a handful of money...they have humiliated the phenomenon, and made it a “con game” for the public.” (pp. 5-6)

In fact, to hear Barth (1853) tell it:
“Many would rather suffer from disease than accept a cure at the hands of the mesmeriser. If we would ascertain the cause of their dislike to mesmerism, we shall find that they are not alarmed by the statements of its opponents, but disgusted by the follies and injudicious conduct of some of its avowed friends and supporters. It is indeed questionable if the spread of mesmerism is not as much retarded by friends as by enemies...The practice of mesmerism for any other purpose than the cure of disease has been especially deprecated...Phenomena which would excite the wonder and serious contemplation of the profoundest of philosophers are made a matter of sport, fun, and idle amusement...and a game at mesmerism becomes for grown-up children what blind man’s buff is for the juveniles. The tricks which are played on the unfortunate subject very often end in distress or mischief, and thus one of the most worthy powers which has been conferred on humanity is desecrated and turned into a matter which serious people view with apprehension, and suffering invalids reject because they can feel no respect for that which they have known only as something causing innocent unsuspecting people to suffer or to do ridiculously absurd things and be laughed at by others.”
(pp. 89-91)

After all, as Stigter (1900) reminds us: “No matter how heartily people laugh at somebody who drinks bitter water thinking it’s wine, or who, puffing with imaginary warmth, loosens his clothing- hardly any of them would want to be in the same situation, not for all the money in the world.” (p. 4)

Finally, consider the following bit of sage advice from Gregory (1851): “I would once more repeat, that Animal Magnetism is not a plaything, not a toy, not the amusement for an idle hour, not a means of gratifying a morbid craving for novelty, or for the marvellous...Neither is it a thing to be exhibited to gaping crowds for money; to crowds who stare and laugh, and go away thinking it very strange or very funny. It is a serious subject, well worthy of the most earnest and devout attention we can give to it. It is painful to see it abused to raise a laugh; and so strongly do I feel this that, for my own share, I object to all exhibitions of it, public or private...All exhibitions in which mere amusement is the object tend to degrade science, and to retard its progress.” (p. 335)

Permalink Reply by Lee Pelletier on November 24, 2009 at 12:21pm

First, let me ask Gil, have you updated Transforming Therapy since 1989, or is it still the best of your work to buy in that area? I looked it up on Amazon and they only have the 1989 edition available. Tempting to buy it.

Now, on to the discussion at hand. As I said in an earlier comment on this discussion, sometimes the need to be right about issues overshadows the more important question. "How can I be more effective as a hypnotist" (since I am in NY I cannot legally represent what I do as hypnotherapy). Gil has proven himself to be extraordinarily effective in his hypnotic work. Some others that have posted on this topic have made extraordinary contributions as well.

This subject area may be where my background as a clergyman might be helpful. If you attend enough church services of different denominations, you will experience a multitude of different ways of calling people to faith in God. Should you attend a Roman Catholic service you will find extraordinary attention to the sacraments and to certain liturgy. Should you attend an Episcopal service, most of the time you will find it very much like a Roman Catholic service and it will again be very formal and liturgical. A Methodist service will ordinarily be less tied to the liturgy, but will still be a staid and conservative service. I could go on through the list of denominations that have services that are staid and conservative. On the other hand, if you attend an African Methodist Episcopal service you will find lots of action and emotional intensity. Similarly, if you attend a Charismatic service, you will find lots of expressiveness and emotion, with some added expressions of the Power of God. While the music in the former settings will be conservative and old fashioned, at the AME or Charismatic or many Baptist Churches, the music and program will amaze you. Likewise with sermons. Jonathan Edwards wrote a remarkable sermon that kicked off the American Great Awakening called "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." He read the sermon from his notes in a monotone voice so as not to let his emotion interfere with the work of the Holy Spirit. That is one of the most legendary sermons ever preached. Today any hypnosis professional reading it is likely to notice some hypnotic elements, but you know that Edwards would have known nothing of hypnosis as we understand it, because when that sermon was written and delivered in 1741 Anton Mesmer would have been 7 years old. As I listen to preachers, my own taste runs to preaching that draws me emotionally closer to God and creates Vivid word pictures, but my Episcopal friends would call me shallow. If you want to hear sermons by an amazing hypnotist who has no idea that he is using hypnotic techniques, listen to the sermons of Ravi Zacharias. But, I digress (I do that as a preacher and as a hypnotist and as a teacher).

My point is that different people respond to different things. Some people respond much more favorably to the kind of work done by Gil Boyne. It amazes so many of the senses and he has skills at reading people of which he may not even fully be aware. Others respond more favorably to what Dave calls the emasculatedly maternal approach of the wordy PLR and non-directive approaches. Remarkably, the discussion has gone on long and some "ad hominem" attacks have developed, which serves no one well. I look forward to us keeping the discussion at the idea level instead of at the "personal" level. I derive great benefit when each shares his or her rationale for their approach. The value diminishes sharply when discourse descends to the level of "ad hominem" attack (attacking the person as oppose to discussing the ideas).

As to whether public shows (Hypnosis Stage Shows) have a positive or negative impact, along with the kinds of techniques that Gil showed in the videos from Budapest, I can tell you roughly what percentage of the person will like it and what percentage will be turned off by it. Between 25% and 35% will absolutely be drawn toward hypnotism in a favorable way because of the shows. Approximately 20%-30% are likely to be so turned off by the stage shows as to doubt that there is any real value in hypnosis. The rest are in the so-called "muddy middle" and will neither be put-off nor turned on. Overall, physicians are much more likely to fall into the "turned off" category. Why? It has to do with their DISC profile that I mentioned in an earlier post. "D" factor and "I" factor high people are drawn to that which is flashy and showy and can make them look good (most stage hypnotists will be "D" or "I", but not all). The "S" factor high tends to like to avoid the spotlight and eschew the showy. The "C" factor high will be so concerned for process and procedure as to find shows difficult to take. The unpredictability of the stage show will often make it hard for "S" or "C" factor high folk to want to be stage hypnotists. Similarly, they will tend to shy away from the instant and rapid approaches favored by Gil and many others. (Again, I unpack the 4 styles in an earlier post so don't want to go on about that here).

Why should you care? Because your effectiveness will be enhanced if you know that different people respond differently to different approaches to hypnosis. You already know that, but this explains some of the difference. We will ALWAYS need multiple approaches. Some people will not, as Roy Hunter suggests, ever fly from Seattle to Denver (Football fans know, for example that John Madden will drive all night rather than to fly). Some will want to take the back roads, while others want the 8 lane super-highway. It is all a matter of individual preference.

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 am so grateful to be part of a profession for which there is no one right way, but a number of workable approaches.

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.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• Next ›
• Page