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 Saul Rosenfeld on November 26, 2009 at 5:22am

James,

I'm glad you now remember our calm and respectful conclusion because, like I said, I ultimately enjoyed our intelligent discourse even though we ended up having to "agree to disagree".
That was in stark contrast to my feelings towards certain others on that thread, who ganged up on me in such a cowardly fashion that I only have the greatest contempt for them, and to this day still regard them as a pathetic bunch of smarmy, ignorant buffoons.
I have no problem whatsoever dealing with those who hold dissenting views in a respectful manner- provided they are worthy of respect, as I felt both you and Gil Boyne were.
As for those others (and you know who you are), I wouldn't waste another 10 seconds of my time replying to anything you have to say.

Take care James, and have a great Thanksgiving!

Saul


P.S. as for your being unconvinced by what I tried to convey regarding the problem caused by the PUBLIC display of highly authoritarian techniques in those chapters on my website- please keep in mind that those 7 chapters only represent a fraction of my book, and I can't help feeling that you'd be a LOT more willing to agree with my argument if you ever decided to read the rest of it...; - )

Permalink Reply by GIL BOYNE on November 26, 2009 at 5:42am

Hello Rene, I have read several posts from hypnotists who state that they never "touch" clients and others who say they ask permission to touch and others who video/audio tape every session. There are some schools here in England that teach, "you must never touch the client". For the record, for fifty-six years of full time practice, I have always touched every client in appropriate ways (and I teach the therapeutic value of touching) Everyone past the age of six or seven knows what parts of the body can be called" Naughty Touching" and what is "Nice or OK touching". My personal view is that the touching issue is a "tempest in a teapot"

Rene Frederiksen said:

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 Saul Rosenfeld on November 26, 2009 at 5:54am

Michael H.,

Thanks for taking the trouble to share your thoughts. I don't mind admitting that I'm not sure I understand what some of them have to do with the historical problem of hypnotism's terrible IMAGE ("forms of dualism", "objectification of the human experience", the fact that "hypnosis predates modern medicine", and "the association of this modality with healing"), but you do appear to credit the "power and submission" factor which is at the very heart of my thesis.
As for "trust", well, that is of course an exceptionally vital component of the hypnotist/subject interaction (I devoted an entire chapter of my book to this issue); and one of the MAIN reasons for subjects' lack of trust is their reluctance to place their trust in someone whom they feel will "take control of their minds", or "overpower their will" with their "commands".
And it is precisely THIS very Fear that's caused by witnessing (or hearing about from others) the "Now I have you in my Power!" techniques and routines employed, in PUBLIC demonstrations (either live or on YouTube), by stage hypnotists.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, and have a wonder-filled (like it!) Thanksgiving too!
To be continued...

Saul







Michael Haifleigh said:

Saul,
Off the top of my head (so to speak), I think it has to do with multiple factors: One would be a certain aspect within the forms of dualism that “The West” sees in existence.

The objectification of the human experience of “Me” or “I”. This object, which may be considered very precious, can be viewed as vulnerable to corruption and/or loss.

The concept of trust is another factor. Trust is something that may be seen as being built up or earned over time and through multiple acts/actions. This trust once built can be wiped out with a single act.

The ideas of power and submission also seem involved.

And something else that seems to be a factor here is the fact that what we call hypnosis predates modern medicine and may well be as old as human interaction itself.

The association of this modality with healing also seems potentially problematic. Healing, as a concept applied to the thoughts and perspectives people hold (consciously/unconsciously) is in my experience laden with subjective perspectives.

The query you present seems potentially, extremely, large in scope. And well worth an ongoing process.

I will in fact tuck this in to my sub-conscious and listen for additional perspectives to emerge.

Saul, I would agree with you (to some currently unknown degree) that the manner of employing the phenomenon is a relevant factor. That would it seems to include making or not making a sufficient distinction between three sub-domains: entertainment, personal growth/change, and healing/treating/curing an illness.

It’s time for a glass of Cabernet.
Have a wonder-filled Thanksgiving.

Michael
<</body>

Permalink Reply by Fable Goodman on November 26, 2009 at 6:05am

Hello Saul,

Speaking (i suspect) as one of the
"pathetic bunch of smarmy, ignorant buffoons."

I remember clearly the previous thread, (December 2008)
which is being refered to in the last few posts on this thread


Frequently when people did not agree with your conlusions
you resorted to bitter insulting comments,
similar to those in your last post.

(your comments are still there for anyone to see)

and now you wonder why people are less than enthusiastic
about responding to your current posts,
going over the exact same ground.

In that thread,
you promised several times, that
"this would be your last post" on that thread.
and then went to to send several more.
(which of course is your right)

I truly hope that on this occasion, you will stick to your word,
and not waste another 10 seconds replying to my post.

Please do not respond to anyone else on this this forum with such disrespect,
(whether or not you name them).
As if this thread turns into another 'flame war',
I shall have little hesitation in closing it.

Love and hugs,

Fable

Permalink Reply by John R. Brochu on November 26, 2009 at 7:59am

Fable:
Isn’t it odd that the only redemption for us "pathetic bunch of smarmy, ignorant buffoons", is to buy Saul’s book. As they say in my home state of New Jersey “Go Figure”. I feel that this topic has made some interesting points and to close it down would be premature.


Saul:
You diminish your position and your book by making this thread personal.
At first I was interested in your book and figured that it brought a fresh prospective to stage hypnosis and held hypnosis to a higher standard. Now I fear that it might just be the pedantic myopic witch-hunt of public hypnosis.
The author should never over shadow his work.

Yours in Health,
John

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 26, 2009 at 8:46am

John,

I'm afraid you got (or perhaps I mistakenly gave you) the wrong impression, because that statement did not refer to folks on THIS thread, but rather to several people on a thread back in December 2008 who all ganged up on me in the most cowardly and disrespectful manner imaginable- to which I then replied in kind. Would it have been more mature and prudent of me not to have lowered myself to their level? Sure, "my bad" as they say. But if you'd seen the way I was treated (and not only me- Michael Ellner was tarred with the same brush), you might have a bit more sympathy for my loss of control, and my less than gentlemanly commentary.
As far as that goes, all you have to do is read my posts on THIS thread in order to determine if I've been "out of line" with those who hold contrary views. In fact, I even refrained from replying in kind when Fable mocked both me and my book with comments that were FAR beneath anyone who was granted the privilege of being a moderator on this Forum.

(his comments are still there for anyone to see)

Once again, take a look at everything I've been saying here and then judge for yourself if I've overstepped ANY bounds whatsoever.

You're 100% correct about one criticism however: I HAVE dedicated myself to trying to present a fresh perspective regarding the terrible and longstanding harm caused to hypnotism's image as a modality for HEALING by exhibitions of stage hypnosis with their highly authoritarian techniques and routines, and you wouldn't even be out of line in calling it a "pedantic witch hunt".
However, as for it being a "myopic" with hunt, well, I prefer to regard it as having the courage of my convictions- and I AM 100% convinced of what I'm trying to convey to others, EVEN though I realize full well that it is a highly UNpopular standpoint, directly threatens their livelihoods, and brings a great deal of rancor down upon me.
Nevertheless, I steadfastly believe that it's for the most noble of causes, and is therefore worth it.

Sincerely,

Saul




John R. Brochu said:

Fable:
Isn’t it odd that the only redemption for us "pathetic bunch of smarmy, ignorant buffoons", is to buy Saul’s book. As they say in my home state of New Jersey “Go Figure”. I feel that this topic has made some interesting points and to close it down would be premature.


Saul:
You diminish your position and your book by making this thread personal.
At first I was interested in your book and figured that it brought a fresh prospective to stage hypnosis and held hypnosis to a higher standard. Now I fear that it might just be the pedantic myopic witch-hunt of public hypnosis.
The author should never over shadow his work.

Yours in Health,
John

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 26, 2009 at 9:45am

John,

P.S. I hope that you (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't think for even ONE minute that I give a rat's behind about selling a few more copies of my book because of this thread, and thereby enriching my coffers with the stupendous royalty of about $3.80 per book?
I've probably spent in excess of 5 or maybe even 6 hours pouring my heart out on this thread purely in the hope of convincing some of you to at least CONSIDER the point I'm trying to convey; and if anyone thinks that I've been doing this in order to earn perhaps $12 (and that would be if 3 people on here bought my book, which is highly doubtful!), then you couldn't possibly be more mistaken.

As far as that goes, I actually chose to SELF-publish my book at my OWN expense, NOT because I thought it wouldn't be accepted by a "traditional" publisher, but because I felt it important to keep TOTAL editorial control over the contents, and to not have to compromise in any way shape or form with what has been my life's work. This included being able to post as much of it as I wanted to for FREE on a website- something a traditional publisher would never have permitted (certainly not 7 full chapters!!).
Indeed, I'm probably one of the few members of this Forum who has NO financial connection whatsoever with hypnosis:
I'm retired from private practice, I neither give nor attend any seminars or workshops, I'm not affiliated with ANY organization, society or School, and have never been (nor will I ever be) on any "lecture circuit".
In other words, I'm a "free agent" in the strictest sense of the word, and have no need to concern myself with earning a single dime with hypnosis, or with appeasing or alienating anyone connected to any part of this profession.

I spent thousands of dollars out of my own pocket buying research material for, and then reading/translating and ultimately writing, and then self-publishing, my book in order to do it the RIGHT way; and have never deluded myself into thinking that I'd recoup even a small FRACTION of that outlay- ESPECIALLY since I'm not willing to actively promote it by going on the "lecture circuit" or joining any organizations or attending any conferences.

So disagree with me all you like (I mean "you" in the plural sense of the word), but to think, even for a moment, that my motives are anything but altruistic would be a grave mistake as to my motivation.

Sincerely,

Saul







John R. Brochu said:<<br /> Saul:
You diminish your position and your book by making this thread personal.
At first I was interested in your book and figured that it brought a fresh prospective to stage hypnosis and held hypnosis to a higher standard. Now I fear that it might just be the pedantic myopic witch-hunt of public hypnosis.
The author should never over shadow his work.

Yours in Health,
John

Permalink Reply by John R. Brochu on November 26, 2009 at 11:33am

Saul:
I’ll accept that you were throwing stones at a past thread and that you are not trying to profit from book sales.

Do you object to the public display or the style?

I will ask you If Gill could prove that his induction was the most effective induction bar none, would you still object to that induction?

Yours in Health,
John

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 26, 2009 at 2:20pm

John (I'm almost too stuffed to write...),

I've NEVER had a problem with the authoritarian "style" per se'- as long as it's merely one of several different tools that should all be individually tailored, as needed, on a case by case basis. What I do object to- no, make that "vehemently" object to- is employing highly authoritarian techniques (what I've referred to several times already as "Now I have you in my Power!" techniques) in PUBLIC- particularly in stage exhibitions for the purpose of "entertainment", but ALSO for instructional purposes in a public venue such as YouTube that can be seen by anyone and everyone.

As far as stage exhibitions go, I highly recommend that you read Chapter 3 of my book which is available for free on my website, along with brief chapters on various types of "instant" hypnosis; but I'd also like to offer you a quote from the mid-1800's which Martineau (1845) eloquently expressed as follows:

“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)

Or, as Barth (1853) similarly noted:

“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)


So EVEN if Gil could prove that his (authoritarian) induction was THE most effective induction on earth, bar none, I would STILL object to its use in a PUBLIC forum, in front of an audience. And I would do so strictly because of the terribly harmful IMAGE of hypnotism that such techniques engender in the minds of the public (and health care professionals!). An image that is absolutely 100% COUNTERproductive to hypnotism's role as a serious modality for HEALING.

That is my ONLY objection, but in my (not inconsiderable) personal experience, as well as years and years of fanatical research, I've come to the conclusion that it is THIS distorted image of hypnotic trance that has hampered its progress for the past two centuries, and has seen to it that the phenomenon has always been popularly regarded as a "sinister form of mind control".

Saul


P.S. I don't want to keep repeating myself ad nauseam, so if you scroll through my replies in this thread you'll come across a number of other points I've been trying to make as a means of backing up what I've said about this issue.









John R. Brochu said:

Saul:
I’ll accept that you were throwing stones at a past thread and that you are not trying to profit from book sales. Do you object to the public display or the style? I will ask you If Gill could prove that his induction was the most effective induction bar none, would you still object to that induction?
Yours in Health,
John

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on November 27, 2009 at 9:46am

Hi Lee,

I trust that DISC is a very effective tool for helping you help individual clients in your practice --
I do not believe statistics based on the same personality profiles are accurate when applying it to groups of people with regard to how they might react to hypnotic demonstrations. In fact, my direct experience tells me your guesstimates are completely off base.

I have had contact with tens of thousands of desperate people with AIDS and cancer who were investigating alternative medicine who were willing to try just about anything that might help them short of hypnosis, because as desperate as they were, they had greater concerns and fears about losing control. My guess is that 75-80% of people sampled about their opinions of hypnosis would share those misconceptions.

I have also had contact with 1000s of family physicians, neurologists, oncologists, and pain specialists and I have been shocked at how these otherwise well-educated people believed hypnosis involves losing control.

John B.
You have asked Saul and myself: "If there was a way that Gil could prove that his induction was the most effective induction bar none, would you use that induction?"
None of us can demonstrate that any induction is effectively putting people in "hypnotic" states simply because "There is no practical "scientific" method to prove hypnosis." at least according to the keepers of the Guineness World Records. (Hat tip to Sean Michael Andrews AKA The Worlds Fastest Hypnotist)

We could look at outcomes, but here the decisive factor would be the effectiveness and comfort of the practitioner in using a technique rather than the effectiveness of the technique being used. In that context, Gil could certainly declare (and I think he already has) that the induction was the most effective one for HIM, but he could not prove it was the most effective induction for OTHER PRACTITIONERS to utilize (and I do not believe that Gil has said that). So, the question presupposes a condition that doesn't and can't exist, and it's not answerable. The technique is not the magic bullet - it's the skill of the operator utilizing the tool.

Fable -
I was/am disappointed in your mean-spirited posts concerning Saul and his book. In my opinion, this kind of mockery has no business in any HT-discussion; it is especially inappropriate when the poster is an HT- Moderator"

Saul-
I take some responsibility for the overall tone of this discussion because of the way I posed the questions - I was shooting from the hip and thinking with my emotions instead of my intellect - Sorry Gil.

I would advise you to learn from my/our mistake in future posts.

Dear Readers,

I have never met Saul; I have no direct or indirect financial benefit from the sales of his book. Before closing this thread I want to share that I believe Saul's book should be read by hypnosis professionals of all persuasions and at the very least his opinions concerning stage hypnosis and authoritarian approaches are worthy of consideration.

I will keep the discussion open for final comments and close this thread to new posts this evening.

Dear Hugh --

I could delete this discussion - I do have that POWER!
Actually we all have the ability to delete any discussion that we have started and this discussion will remain for all to see.

Thank you all for participating.
Michael E.

Permalink Reply by Fable Goodman on November 27, 2009 at 10:45am

Amongst other valuable comments,
Michael said:

Fable -
I was/am disappointed in your mean-spirited posts concerning Saul and his book. In my opinion, this kind of mockery has no business in any HT-discussion; it is especially inappropriate when the poster is an HT- Moderator"

Thanks Michael,

I value your opinion.

and I also think that there are two separate points here.

One is a member of hypnothoughs, posting a less than supportive comment in a thread.

on that point I am happy to 'suck up' your feedback.
I could have either said something more positive, or said nothing at all.

the other point is
linking that to
me being a moderator.
I guess that the post that you are reffering to, when saying I was mean spirited,
was the one that I wrote as a member of the hypnothoughts community.

As such a member,
Like yourself,
am allowed to make an ass of myself from time to time,
and still expect the general respect of the community.
if my general behaviour warrants it.

In a later post,
I issued a warning which I think was clearly in the role of moderator.
which I think was warranted. ( I may be wrong)

I do not think I confuse the two roles,
although I appreciate that others might.

Does being a moderator mean
am not allowed to have the same rights
to post my thoughts and opinions
as any other member of the community,
to make my mistakes, and learn from them, (or not)?

I hope to remain a human being,
who sometimes gets things just right,
and sometimes, not so right.

I do not excpect because I am also amoderator,
that I am not allowed to express my opinion,
wether it be spot on, or off the mark


does this make any sense?

Love and hugs,

Fable

Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on November 27, 2009 at 12:12pm

Michael,

Thank you so much for starting this thread, because I'm sure you realized full well that your initial statement would provoke heated dissent (if not outright "outrage") from the majority of folks on this Forum. It was a courageous act, and the end result, not surprisingly, was the usual knee-jerk "shoot the messenger" response from those who simply don't WANT to consider the inarguable FACT that their PUBLIC displays of highly authoritarian techniques, and especially "INSTANT" or "SPEED" inductions, wreak absolute havoc with the general public's PERCEPTION of hypnosis as a serious modality for HEALING. Indeed, as you've sadly discovered yourself:

"I have had contact with tens of thousands of desperate people with AIDS and cancer who were investigating alternative medicine who were willing to try just about anything that might help them short of hypnosis, because as desperate as they were, they had greater concerns and fears about losing control. My guess is that 75-80% of people sampled about their opinions of hypnosis would share those misconceptions.
I have also had contact with 1000s of family physicians, neurologists, oncologists, and pain specialists and I have been shocked at how these otherwise well-educated people believed hypnosis involves losing control."

And as the gentleman who emailed me the other day after reading this thread told me:

"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."

Nevertheless, I fear that human nature being what it is, it's simply far too much to expect those who make their living by exploiting this remarkable phenomenon for public "entertainment" to acknowledge ANY proof, to consider ANY facts, no matter HOW convincing, that would pose even the slightest risk to their livelihood.
And herein lies the answer to the burning question of WHY a marvelous, God-given, "all-natural" force for healing called hypnosis has, all throughout its two hundred year history, been FEARED, been SHUNNED, been MOCKED, and been cast aside time and time again by both the general public, as well as the very health care professionals who would otherwise have made its study a veritable CORNERSTONE of their education!
Because it is an inarguable FACT that the VAST MAJORITY of psychologists, psychotherapists and physicians know next to NOTHING about the potential healing powers of hypnosis! My own daughter, who earned her M.D. at Rotterdam University in Holland (known the world over as having an excellent modern, progressive medical school) told me that her entire knowledge of hypnosis came from a single ONE-HOUR lecture on the subject!
Are there psychologists, psychotherapists and physicians that DO know about hypnosis and even employ it? SURE there are; but those folks are the EXCEPTIONS to the rule, and represent but a TINY FRACTION of the profession as a whole!

And unless one day a radical SEA-CHANGE takes place in the way hypnosis becomes universally regarded, then the terrible prejudice against what is STILL considered by MOST folks as a (more or less "sinister") form of "MIND CONTROL" will remain in effect.
Forever...!
To witness somebody being put into hypnosis by ANY variant of the "Now I have you in my Power!" approach (be it harsh commands such as "Now your eyes are stuck tightly together, you cannot open them no matter HOW hard you try- stuck tight, tighter, SLEEP!"; or by suddenly jerking on their neck and bellowing "SLEEP!", etc.) can ONLY result in propagating the almost-universal view of hypnosis as a form of "mind-control". Can such techniques be effective with certain subjects? SURE they can, absolutely! But they should ONLY be used in a PRIVATE setting- NEVER in PUBLIC; because MOST of those who witness such highly authoritarian inductions will inevitably conclude that a hypnotist has some kind of mysterious "Power" over his subject!
That's the way it's been happening for TWO HUNDRED YEARS (and counting...), and this harmful perception of hypnosis is NEVER going to change as long as the REASON for it remains in effect...


To the others on this thread:

I think by now you understand just HOW passionate I feel about this subject, and hopefully realize that my motives are 100% altruistic (e.g., I have NO financial interest in ANY aspect of hypnosis/hypnotherapy, and have never expected to recoup even a FRACTION of the money I spent researching, writing, and self-publishing my book). So forgive me if my tone has sometimes (frequently...?) been a tad strident, because it's very frustrating to be so damned CERTAIN about something that also happens to be such an "unpopular" viewpoint.
Indeed, when all is said and done, I shall probably have to take solace from the fact that at least I gave it my best shot, and that it was for the most noble of causes.
All that remains for me to say is:

Feci quod potui faciant meliora potentes

(I did the best I could, let those who can, do better)


Saul

www.HistoryOfHypnotism.com

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