Video Blurbs Yes/No

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Donna Carter on August 4, 2009 at 7:42am

Although, I personally...do not see any value in Glenn Beck's skit,
it wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if 10 out of every 10 Fox News viewers believed that Glenn was really hypnotized.
(they believe all the other non-sense that is said...why not this?)
Nor would it surprise me if those viewers "hope" others caught the episode, so as to straighten out their thinking.
haha...
So, if we look at it from that frame of mind...
I would say it was good advertisement!

OMG! that is soooooo funny to me.

~D.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Bittner - Ocotillo Hypnosis on August 4, 2009 at 1:01pm

Conrad Cook said:

I dunno.. sometimes I watch Reno 911. Should I be asking myself if it helps or hinders law enforcement?


C.

Although Lt. Jim Dangle is as preposterous as Glenn Beck, the context in which they are presented is different. Reno runs on a comedy channel while Beck runs on a news and information channel, although I can understand how one might confuse the two in this case.

Another way of looking at this is to ask would you find other branches of the healing arts community participating in this sort of lame shtick? I think it highly unlikely.

Having said that, I think the impact of hypnosis as entertainment is a wash for the general public, but definitely harms the credibility of hypnosis in the eyes of other healing professionals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Bittner - Ocotillo Hypnosis on August 4, 2009 at 4:16pm

Conrad Cook said:Well, I don't watch a lot of TV; but last I knew, the German-accented psychiatrist was an old standby.

Well, see, I tend to make a distinction between actors playing healers and healers themselves.

BTW:

A man goes to a psychiatrist, and says, "Doc, you've got to help me. My brother's gone crazy!"

"Uh-huh," the psychiatrist says. "And what leads you to believe that your brother is crazy?"

"Well, he thinks he's a chicken."

That's a really old yoke, Conrad.

Yeah, I'm still thinking about that one. Since it doesn't look like I'll be called on any time soon to decide whether stage hypnosis will be forcibly halted, I'm taking my time on it. Although, if you have some evidence that shows stage shows harm the credibility of hypnotherapists, I'll be glad to look at it.


Conrad.

Nah, do your own research. I don't have a problem with stage hypnosis. I don't care what Dr, Alda or Dr. Laurie think

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pattie Freeman CH.t, MST on August 4, 2009 at 4:48pm

I had seen the blurb also Beck was making fun of hypnosis he wasn't hypnotized he was having fun with the idea..my question was what did he gain from it? Just my thoughts....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Krüger on August 4, 2009 at 5:09pm

Does "frivolous" use of hypnosis harm "serious" hypnosis?

My take is that if the "frivolous" hypnotists are very good at what they do (supreme hypnotic skills, supreme entertainment skills, highly responsible, good at picking up what goes too far in a given situation), it will only further the positive image of the toolkit hypnosis.

In the video, the "problem" is that hypnosis itself isn't taken seriously. The whole communication on Beck's side reeks of "this is all a joke".

Now, in hypnotherapy, there are two things that can be "attacked": a) the "tool" hypnosis and the way it's used, b) the integrity and skills of the therapist. If you're good at communicating and at hypnosis, b) isn't an issue.

Given the way I see hypnosis as a toolkit for change, one of those tools is not calling it hypnosis. It's a tool for sidestepping any existing negative connotations of hypnosis, no matter where it came from. If you make up any other explanation for what you're doing (you don't even have to give it a name) that sounds sensible, you won't ever have trouble with any negative image hypnosis may have. If you prefer explicitly calling what you do hypnosis, well, I could simply say it's your fault if people get a wrong idea about what you do. I'm mean like that. ;)

The last couple of times I hypnotized people, I didn't ever mention the words "hypnosis" or "trance" or "sleep"; in most cases I didn't even talk about relaxation. That didn't stop it from being effective. One had a very strong experience of focus (tunnel vision, strong self-perception) during the session (in which there was no goal other than inducing an altered state); another stopped being in (non-physiological) pain for the rest of the day (which was the implied goal of the session) which he hadn't been rid of for a single day in over a year; another woke up refreshed and energized the night after the session, even though he had only had time for two hours of sleep (which was the specific goal of the session).

I don't care quite as much about "defending the name of hypnosis" to people as I do about getting results. I find the balance between effort and chances of success to be much better according to my preferences when I provide a different explanation of what I'm doing. And I don't blame hypnotic entertainment ventures for that. I don't feel like I have to blame anyone or anything, in fact. I just deal with what's there and that's that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Nongard - NLPBoard.com on August 4, 2009 at 5:25pm

I think it was lighthearted fun. It was obvious to anyone with the iq of a rock that it was in fun. Now I would suspect Cerbone originally thought beck would take it serious but when he didn't he just let him have his fun. The bit didn't hurt or help hypnosis it just was what it was - fun - there is nothing wrong with fun. Those who worry too much should lighten up self depreciation can bring a little levity to life and is much needed in our world.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pattie Freeman CH.t, MST on August 4, 2009 at 6:24pm

I understand the side of fun and the side of how hypnosis is looked at from the person watching that show. If I was not a hypnotist I would say Hypnosis is not real that's what I got from it and then you can look at it from Richards viewpoint it is a fun thing to do without seriousness..This I feel might harm the person looking to use hypnosis on a therapy basis and I still get skeptics bringing up TV shows like the office and others using hypnosis as one of their topics.

No matter what..Hypnosis I feel is taken serious for those people who are open minded and not such a thinker like Beck. He is the type of person even if he was in the state of Hypnosis he wouldn't accept that he was...so take it as you see it, something like this just makes me more vocal and keeps me alert in letting others know more information about what Hypnosis is really about.

Just my thoughts....

~Pattie

Jan Krüger said:

Does "frivolous" use of hypnosis harm "serious" hypnosis?

My take is that if the "frivolous" hypnotists are very good at what they do (supreme hypnotic skills, supreme entertainment skills, highly responsible, good at picking up what goes too far in a given situation), it will only further the positive image of the toolkit hypnosis.

In the video, the "problem" is that hypnosis itself isn't taken seriously. The whole communication on Beck's side reeks of "this is all a joke".

Now, in hypnotherapy, there are two things that can be "attacked": a) the "tool" hypnosis and the way it's used, b) the integrity and skills of the therapist. If you're good at communicating and at hypnosis, b) isn't an issue.

Given the way I see hypnosis as a toolkit for change, one of those tools is not calling it hypnosis. It's a tool for sidestepping any existing negative connotations of hypnosis, no matter where it came from. If you make up any other explanation for what you're doing (you don't even have to give it a name) that sounds sensible, you won't ever have trouble with any negative image hypnosis may have. If you prefer explicitly calling what you do hypnosis, well, I could simply say it's your fault if people get a wrong idea about what you do. I'm mean like that. ;)

The last couple of times I hypnotized people, I didn't ever mention the words "hypnosis" or "trance" or "sleep"; in most cases I didn't even talk about relaxation. That didn't stop it from being effective. One had a very strong experience of focus (tunnel vision, strong self-perception) during the session (in which there was no goal other than inducing an altered state); another stopped being in (non-physiological) pain for the rest of the day (which was the implied goal of the session) which he hadn't been rid of for a single day in over a year; another woke up refreshed and energized the night after the session, even though he had only had time for two hours of sleep (which was the specific goal of the session).

I don't care quite as much about "defending the name of hypnosis" to people as I do about getting results. I find the balance between effort and chances of success to be much better according to my preferences when I provide a different explanation of what I'm doing. And I don't blame hypnotic entertainment ventures for that. I don't feel like I have to blame anyone or anything, in fact. I just deal with what's there and that's that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Bittner - Ocotillo Hypnosis on August 4, 2009 at 7:33pm

Conrad Cook said:

It sounds like you're trying to imply that you yourself have done research that you're basing your claims on; but I suspect that this is not the case.


Conrad.

Your inference is incorrect. I expressed an opinion in a sentence that began with the words, "I think..." Many people understand the words "I think..." to mean an expression of opinion and that was my intent. I did not make any "claims" of fact. In spite of my opinion that entertainment hypnosis diminishes its therapeutic value in the eyes of other practitioners, I don't have any objections to stage hypnosis. I'm pleased to discuss my opinion, but I don't feel obligated to justify it to you with research.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antonio on August 5, 2009 at 3:21am

Man, Glenn Beck. What else needs to be said about him? I remember a few months ago I saw a video where he was talking to Penn Gillette about how he is re-writing Thomas Payne's "Common Sense" for modern times. WHAT!!!

'Nuff said

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Bittner - Ocotillo Hypnosis on August 5, 2009 at 4:15am

I disagree that I'm trashing stage hypnosis by expressing my opinion that it diminishes the therapeutic value of hypnosis in the eyes of other practitioners. In fact I'm now stating for the third time that I have no problem with stage hypnosis as entertainment.

Opinions are formed on the basis of one's experience and knowledge and are a valid form of expression in the exchange of ideas. Virtually everything on this board is opinion. Now if you wish to categorize opinion as bias to gain points in a discussion go right ahead. I don't mind. In fact, I'm a very open minded person and will be happy to look over any studies that you have to back up your opinions of stage hypnosis with fact.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Witherspoon on August 5, 2009 at 11:57am

This is just my two cents worth. I think John was used as a prop rather than an authority. I personally did not see anything malicious about the spot. It was a bit of stick. John got his name mentioned with the mention that he had done work with members of Glenn's staff. Has anyone gotten feedback from John on this event?

Conrad Cook said:

I finally searched out and viewed the specific vid we're talking about (link here).

Personally, I find Beck very disagreeable. I dislike his politics and his way of doing politics. I guess he's a kind of conservative Jon Stewart, with the understanding that Stewart claims to be a comedian while Beck claims to be a newsman.

It was an unsympathetic portrayal of John Cerbone. They used "monster lighting" on him -- unflattering lights when they're trying to make a person look bad; Beck talked over him and then went into a goofy pseudo-trance. I did feel the pull in Cerbone's routine, though -- I was a little distracted by Beck's antics, but that's not necessarily a bad thing for the purpose of hypnosis.

*I* wouldn't want to do an interview like that; but then again, I'm not into stagecraft. The only hypnosis I do in front of audiences are technique demos. But Cerbone is a stage hypnotist, so I don't see why he shouldn't be on TV; nor do I think it's useful to second-guess his choice of venue in a backward-looking way.

John Bittner wrote:

I did not make any "claims" of fact. In spite of my opinion that entertainment hypnosis diminishes its therapeutic value in the eyes of other practitioners, I don't have any objections to stage hypnosis. I'm pleased to discuss my opinion, but I don't feel obligated to justify it to you with research.

Well, any time we make a claim about something being true, we're making claims of fact. And you're kinda trashing stage hypnotists, who are a substantial portion of the HypnoThoughts community, by saying that they dimminish the therapeutic value of hypnosis.

So it seems a little unfair to then back off to 'everyone has a right to his opinion, and I don't need to justify my accusations with facts.' That doesn't sound like an opinion to me; it sounds like bias. And don't you see that it's a lot like the way of thinking we try to help our clients recover from?

I think R.D. Laing has a story about a family that was all torn apart because their unmarried teenage daughter had to have an abortion, no matter what she wanted. Her father didn't care personally - he'd just as soon let her have the kid: but her mother (he said) wouldn't be able to deal with it. The mother said she was fine, herself, with her daughter having a baby - but what would the neighbors think?

They were all living in the world of what other people thought. And of course what other people think is a terrible tyrant, because you can't reason with it. And largely what other people think - what people will say - feeds on what individual people say about what people will think.

In other words, I wonder if it isn't possible that any damage to hypnotherapy actually comes from guys like you, John, saying that stage hypnotists damage hypnotherapy's credibility?

This is why I find your disregard for facts - for evidence - a little worrying. Because without evidence, we don't have a good reason to accept one statement as true over another. Don't you want your opinions to be true? Don't you want them to be well-grounded?


Conrad.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by janadra on August 6, 2009 at 7:06am

What I see as a problem - with absolutely no scientific proof at all - - I would be willing to bet that lots of folks who saw that bit on TV have been turned off permanently from what they already thought might be a crock - hypnosis.

Why do I think this? Because so many of the folks I tell about how hypnosis has helped me with a number of issues, look at me like I'm such a sweet, trusting person and continue to suffer with severe physical pain, continue to see their psychotherapists for PTSD, continue to pay out big bugs to the guy who is doing laser acupuncture (???) (apologies to anyone out there who does this) rather than going to a hypnotherapist (hypnotist).

The "maps" of the people I know who watch FOX are filled to the brim with the info they glean from FOX, and for them, that info is all "true". (And I might be able to prove this scientifically)

Whether we like it or not, whether we realize it or not, these type things on TV turn people off of the idea of ever considering hypnosis as legitimate, and as hypnotists, we should realize that those pictures, thoughts (whatever) stay in the subconscious of the viewers.

When hypnosis is depicted as foolishness, I think harm to this helpful therapy is being done.

jana

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion