the Free Hypnosis Social Network
What the "Experts" are saying -- Dr Yap- on the Merits of Hypnos who are licensed HC professionals
I wish I could have made the last paragraph RED because I saw "Red" when I read it--
Michael Yapko: Your Focus Shapes Your Life
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-yapko/your-focus-shapes-your-...
This first blog of the new decade is all about developing the kind of focus that can not only help you feel better, but be better. I have much more than a casual interest in the topic of how your focus influences your life experience: For nearly three decades, I have focused on two primary domains of professional interest: Applying clinical hypnosis in short term psychotherapies, and treating depression in individuals, couples and families. I have written many times on depression already, but a blog on the merits of clinical hypnosis is long overdue.
The field of clinical hypnosis has undergone a quiet revolution from seemingly being little more than a party gimmick to an established and vital component of behavioral medicine programs in the finest academic and clinical institutions you can name, including Harvard, Yale and Stanford. There are sophisticated scientific journals dedicated solely to advancing clinical practice on the basis of research into hypnotic phenomena. There are national and international meetings devoted entirely to the subject of how hypnosis informs clinical practice and illuminates complex mind-body relationships. Someone unfamiliar with hypnosis might be surprised to discover that hypnosis has been subjected to a wide variety of empirical investigations, particularly clinical and neuroscientific ones, attempting to better understand how a clinician's words can become the basis for seemingly remarkable experiences in a focused client.
Hypnosis involves selective attention, a narrowing of focus and an increased absorption in suggested experiences. Contrary to popular mythology, people absorbed in the experience of hypnosis are fully aware of what's going on and are fully in charge of themselves. But, they are deeply focused on listening to and absorbing the therapeutic ideas the clinician introduces, taking them in and using them at more profound levels than they otherwise might. Hypnosis isn't magic; Hypnosis simply amplifies what goes on in any good therapy when a skilled clinician introduces new possibilities to a client seeking positive change.
Hypnosis is not generally regarded as a therapy in and of itself. Rather, it is considered a therapeutic tool for creating a more relaxed, focused and attentive context for absorbing the therapy. Thus, the salient question to ask is not, "How does hypnosis compare to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) (or some other specific form of therapy) in treatment success rates?" Rather, the appropriate question is, "If CBT is performed without hypnosis and CBT is performed with hypnosis, does the addition of hypnosis enhance the efficacy of the treatment?" The evidence is substantial that the answer is yes. (Clinicians reading this blog may be interested in a detailed review of the status of hypnosis as an empirically supported treatment for a variety of medical and psychological disorders which were published in the April and July, 2007, special issues of the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.) No treatment is successful with all people, of course, but the ability of hypnosis to enhance treatment results in most individuals is impressive.
Hypnosis sessions are most effective when structured according to the unique profile of the client. This includes things like the client's goals for the session, attentional capabilities, cognitive style, and personal interests. Generally, hypnosis sessions are about 20-30 minutes in length, embedded within the larger therapy session. Hypnotic procedures typically involve directing the client to close his or her eyes, relax, focus intently on the clinician's words, and actively engage in the internal process of adapting the ideas and perspectives the clinician offers into a meaningful approach to resolving or changing the specific problems or symptoms under consideration. As a common example, a clinician might suggest to a client in hypnosis the idea that he or she be more deliberate about gathering objective information ("reality testing") before jumping to an erroneous and self-damaging conclusion, an unfortunate but typical cognitive pattern often associated with depression. Of course, this is the same sensible idea a clinician might suggest without the benefit of hypnosis, but the client's absorption of the message is considerably more rapid and intense when focused in hypnosis.
Most interestingly, responses occur at levels outside of the client's awareness that further intensify the hypnotic experience. Suggesting to a client in pain, for example, that he or she can, "detach from your body and allow a comfortable sense of numbness to gradually replace the discomfort" is not a rational suggestion to offer. But, to the person in hypnosis, it is one he or she can absorb and respond to with the development of an analgesia sufficient to even withstand surgical procedures done without the use of chemical anesthetics. That's remarkable! How this change in sensory awareness occurs is poorly understood at this time. There are neuroscientific studies going on all over the world employing sophisticated scanning technologies with hypnotized research subjects to try and understand how the mind in hypnosis can influence the brain in such extraordinary ways.
Anyone who practices clinical hypnosis does so with the firmly entrenched and therapeutically invaluable belief that people have many more abilities than they consciously realize. Hypnosis creates an amplified experience for people to explore, discover, and use more of their innate abilities. Hypnosis also makes it easier to learn new skills. Hypnosis isn't the therapy, and hypnosis itself cures nothing. Rather, hypnosis is the vehicle for empowering people with the abilities and realizations that ultimately serve to help them. It isn't the experience of hypnosis itself that's therapeutic, it's what happens during hypnosis in terms of developing new and helpful associations.
There are many ways to use hypnosis in treating depression including building positive expectations to counter hopelessness, reframing emotion-laden memories, enhancing perceptual flexibility, instilling better coping skills, and increasing self-efficacy. Hypnosis as a subject of serious study, both in clinical and neuroscientific domains, is already reaping great dividends, and as new applications emerge, hypnosis has great potential to help people in ways they may never have considered before. If you want to learn more about hypnosis, you can visit my website: www.yapko.com for materials and educational links.
One piece of advice: I'm obviously encouraging the use of hypnosis as an established means of helping people feel and be better. But, I am strongly advocating that you only seek hypnosis from a well trained clinician. You may ask how to determine if someone is qualified and my answer is that the person must be qualified to do therapy without hypnosis before they are qualified to do therapywith hypnosis. In other words, only someone with a formal academic degree who is state licensed to provide health care. The practice of hypnosis is not regulated, and so there are many people out there who do hypnosis with only titles (such as "certified hypnotherapist" ) despite having no degrees or licenses appropriate to conduct therapy. If you want a local referral, a good place to start is by visiting the website of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis at www.asch.net or by calling your local medical or psychological associations. There you'll find a referral list of professionals for you to interview as possible therapists to consult.
=^..^=
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
===============================
Michael Yapko: Your Focus Shapes Your Life
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-yapko/your-focus-shapes-your-...
This first blog of the new decade is all about developing the kind of focus that can not only help you feel better, but be better. I have much more than a casual interest in the topic of how your focus influences your life experience: For nearly three decades, I have focused on two primary domains of professional interest: Applying clinical hypnosis in short term psychotherapies, and treating depression in individuals, couples and families. I have written many times on depression already, but a blog on the merits of clinical hypnosis is long overdue.
The field of clinical hypnosis has undergone a quiet revolution from seemingly being little more than a party gimmick to an established and vital component of behavioral medicine programs in the finest academic and clinical institutions you can name, including Harvard, Yale and Stanford. There are sophisticated scientific journals dedicated solely to advancing clinical practice on the basis of research into hypnotic phenomena. There are national and international meetings devoted entirely to the subject of how hypnosis informs clinical practice and illuminates complex mind-body relationships. Someone unfamiliar with hypnosis might be surprised to discover that hypnosis has been subjected to a wide variety of empirical investigations, particularly clinical and neuroscientific ones, attempting to better understand how a clinician's words can become the basis for seemingly remarkable experiences in a focused client.
Hypnosis involves selective attention, a narrowing of focus and an increased absorption in suggested experiences. Contrary to popular mythology, people absorbed in the experience of hypnosis are fully aware of what's going on and are fully in charge of themselves. But, they are deeply focused on listening to and absorbing the therapeutic ideas the clinician introduces, taking them in and using them at more profound levels than they otherwise might. Hypnosis isn't magic; Hypnosis simply amplifies what goes on in any good therapy when a skilled clinician introduces new possibilities to a client seeking positive change.
Hypnosis is not generally regarded as a therapy in and of itself. Rather, it is considered a therapeutic tool for creating a more relaxed, focused and attentive context for absorbing the therapy. Thus, the salient question to ask is not, "How does hypnosis compare to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) (or some other specific form of therapy) in treatment success rates?" Rather, the appropriate question is, "If CBT is performed without hypnosis and CBT is performed with hypnosis, does the addition of hypnosis enhance the efficacy of the treatment?" The evidence is substantial that the answer is yes. (Clinicians reading this blog may be interested in a detailed review of the status of hypnosis as an empirically supported treatment for a variety of medical and psychological disorders which were published in the April and July, 2007, special issues of the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.) No treatment is successful with all people, of course, but the ability of hypnosis to enhance treatment results in most individuals is impressive.
Hypnosis sessions are most effective when structured according to the unique profile of the client. This includes things like the client's goals for the session, attentional capabilities, cognitive style, and personal interests. Generally, hypnosis sessions are about 20-30 minutes in length, embedded within the larger therapy session. Hypnotic procedures typically involve directing the client to close his or her eyes, relax, focus intently on the clinician's words, and actively engage in the internal process of adapting the ideas and perspectives the clinician offers into a meaningful approach to resolving or changing the specific problems or symptoms under consideration. As a common example, a clinician might suggest to a client in hypnosis the idea that he or she be more deliberate about gathering objective information ("reality testing") before jumping to an erroneous and self-damaging conclusion, an unfortunate but typical cognitive pattern often associated with depression. Of course, this is the same sensible idea a clinician might suggest without the benefit of hypnosis, but the client's absorption of the message is considerably more rapid and intense when focused in hypnosis.
Most interestingly, responses occur at levels outside of the client's awareness that further intensify the hypnotic experience. Suggesting to a client in pain, for example, that he or she can, "detach from your body and allow a comfortable sense of numbness to gradually replace the discomfort" is not a rational suggestion to offer. But, to the person in hypnosis, it is one he or she can absorb and respond to with the development of an analgesia sufficient to even withstand surgical procedures done without the use of chemical anesthetics. That's remarkable! How this change in sensory awareness occurs is poorly understood at this time. There are neuroscientific studies going on all over the world employing sophisticated scanning technologies with hypnotized research subjects to try and understand how the mind in hypnosis can influence the brain in such extraordinary ways.
Anyone who practices clinical hypnosis does so with the firmly entrenched and therapeutically invaluable belief that people have many more abilities than they consciously realize. Hypnosis creates an amplified experience for people to explore, discover, and use more of their innate abilities. Hypnosis also makes it easier to learn new skills. Hypnosis isn't the therapy, and hypnosis itself cures nothing. Rather, hypnosis is the vehicle for empowering people with the abilities and realizations that ultimately serve to help them. It isn't the experience of hypnosis itself that's therapeutic, it's what happens during hypnosis in terms of developing new and helpful associations.
There are many ways to use hypnosis in treating depression including building positive expectations to counter hopelessness, reframing emotion-laden memories, enhancing perceptual flexibility, instilling better coping skills, and increasing self-efficacy. Hypnosis as a subject of serious study, both in clinical and neuroscientific domains, is already reaping great dividends, and as new applications emerge, hypnosis has great potential to help people in ways they may never have considered before. If you want to learn more about hypnosis, you can visit my website: www.yapko.com for materials and educational links.
One piece of advice: I'm obviously encouraging the use of hypnosis as an established means of helping people feel and be better. But, I am strongly advocating that you only seek hypnosis from a well trained clinician. You may ask how to determine if someone is qualified and my answer is that the person must be qualified to do therapy without hypnosis before they are qualified to do therapywith hypnosis. In other words, only someone with a formal academic degree who is state licensed to provide health care. The practice of hypnosis is not regulated, and so there are many people out there who do hypnosis with only titles (such as "certified hypnotherapist" ) despite having no degrees or licenses appropriate to conduct therapy. If you want a local referral, a good place to start is by visiting the website of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis at www.asch.net or by calling your local medical or psychological associations. There you'll find a referral list of professionals for you to interview as possible therapists to consult.
=^..^=
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
===============================
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Henxy on -
Bearing in mind the hideousness of the ligitious societies we are subjected to living in, how else would 'you' ensure that 'you' protected 'your' readers from charlatans? How would 'you' get across that not everyone is ethical and professional, with the client's best interests at heart? What caveats might serve to help, rather than to hinder?
I appreciate that there's a great deal of distress caused by Yapko's comments to those 'lay' HTs who are all the things a client could wish for. But realise that healthcare professionals are vetted on so many levels that recommending them may be the best way that Yapko has found to help potential clients to see an appropriately caring and experienced HT, without having to write reams of 'if they have a criminal record, then it might not be a good idea to see them...' etc.
I don't think that Yapko is trying to offend anyone here. I think he's trying to protect the reader.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on -
I have "five" words for you- Richard,
"Hi," =^..^= "The Dodo Bird Effect"
Let's remember personal warmth, the ability to connect with people and listening skills make the most effective therapists and/or hypno-"therapists" In my Nov 28, 2009 reply to you on the "Hypnotists that are also PhDs"-Discussion (Link below) I suggested that you would be hard pressed to produce just one study that explains why any psychological technique works. Ya never got back to me?
"Researchers call my revelation the "Dodo Bird Effect" and it is as simple as this: the relationship that one has with their psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, clinical social workers and counselors is more important than the therapeutic techniques these mental health "experts" are using. Academic credentials don't create the ability for people to connect with one another. Some observers might claim that the relationship is actually the opposite of that. So no, I don't believe in any magic technique that is universally successful and I don't believe that the academic background of an individual automatically confers superior therapeutic rapport with the client."
I think it is exploitive when licensed mental health professionals claim that feeling stuck, unhappy, lonely, sad, afraid and/or stressed are mental disorders! - Inventing mental disorders so that people in licensed professions can get paid to treat them (there is no way to get payment through insurance without a diagnosis) is actually detrimental to their patients. If you want to understand the extent of that problem, see the growing literature on the adverse effects of "medicalization" of complaints...in behavioral health as well as physical medicine. We are not encroaching on the turf of licensed professionals - Instead of helping people with real mental illnesses, some academically qualified individuals try to protect their incomes by positioning themselves as the only ones who can use hypnosis to legitimately help ordinary people with every day problems and challenges -- Suddenly, PhDs are the only legitimate experts for helping people reach their goals. I think it's bull!
Michael E.
http://www.hypnothoughts.com/forum/topics/hypnotists-that-are-also-...
Richard Clark MFT said:Hi Brian,
We've had this discussion before yet I think it bears repeating here.
I am pretty darn sure that Michael Yapko turns away more clients a month then all but the busiest hypnotist on this forum sees in a year.
In our current culture there is a massive amount of demand for mental health treatment. Hell about one out of every four people that ever end up in front of a judge get compelled to attend therapy these days.
There are, conservatively figured, 50 times as many licensed mental health professionals in any geographic area as there are hypnotists. They are far busier competing with the other 49 similar practitioners in their neighborhood then they are the one hypnotist.
Psychologist etc.. are not widely unemployed and think no more of hypnotists as competition then they do palm readers.
As misguided as anyone might argue the reasoning is behind what Yapko and others preach regarding seeing only mental health professionals for hypnosis... Fear of loss of income is not part of the equation.
Richard
Brian David Phillips said:Market share . . . pure and simple.
-
Permalink Reply by Jan Krüger on -
Henxy said:I don't think that Yapko is trying to offend anyone here. I think he's trying to protect the reader.
I agree, but credentialism isn't protection at all, it just looks like protection. I once was in a mental hospital for a few weeks (voluntarily, I might add, and only because it was a more immediate option than regular therapy). A brief summary of what they did might read like this: medication (not for me, though, thankfully), half an hour of personal therapy a week (with no real overall strategy other than "let them raise some concern and talk about it"), hours and hours of physical exercise, art etc., and classes about stuff like social skills and "attentiveness". I'm sure that these things aren't totally useless, but by far the best thing that happened to me during that time was that I could talk to the other patients and, at the same time, realize that there is a huge lack of decent options for people who have serious issues. Imagine that guy who had had his abdominal pain diagnosed as purely psychosomatic in nature and then spent more than a year getting nothing but ineffective drugs and ineffective therapy... and then I come along and take the pain away for an entire evening, just by spending half an hour talking to him.
I would agree that proper certification would be an important criterion in choosing who to get therapy from, if I believed that the scientific training that preceded it made the difference. I don't believe that. I believe that clinical psychology as a science combines the worst parts of invalidly concluding causal relationships from experiments with rejecting (large parts of) obviously effective treatments just because they are difficult (or perhaps even impossible) to measure reliably.
Personally I think mental health is one area where science does not offer the best perspective if you exclude everything else. I would definitely get my scientific training again if I had to start over, not least because it got me to the point where I can see its inherent limitations, but I consider all official training in clinical psychology (that I know of, anyway) as fundamentally flawed and dangerously skewed.
Note that I'm not saying that doctors who do psychotherapy should be avoided. Just like with less officially certified people, I think it's important to look at a practitioner's success rate in the past, and to make them convince you that they're good at what they do. You can never be absolutely certain, of course, but that's life.
It's legal to practice psychotherapy in my country after passing certain legal hurdles (which are somewhat hard to pass sometimes because they depend on the good will of a medical doctor working for the department of health, along with a few other people). The process for getting that permit involves making sure that you know your clinical psychology (most importantly the cases in which people really endanger themselves), and I think that's a good thing... but your personal approach to and experience with therapy and your understanding of human nature and the meaning of the word "individuality" is much more important than a few so-called in most of the clients you work with.
I suppose my opinion is a little bit controversial...
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Clark MFT on
-
Hi Michael!
Boy I wish I had more time to reply in depth. I'll gloss over my thoughts.
I agree with you (and consequently disagree with Mellisa) that it is the relationship more then the technique that makes the difference in therapy. I would not try to argue otherwise hence my not doing so before :o) I also agree people have natural abilities to either connect or not connect with others along a continuum and believe, as I'm sure you do, that these skills can be improved with practice and training.
Here's the rub and the place where I understand Yapko (I didn't say agree). In academic counseling programs many techniques are presented and taught at an introductory level. Students have opportunity to take advanced training in techniques they feel comfortable with. However throughout every single course in the program the topic of "What is a Professional Therapeutic Relationship" is stressed over and over and over.
The internships and written and verbal exams required to get licensed in most states focus to a great extent on issues of law, ethics, and appropriate professional therapeutic relationships much more then techniques.
So as Richard N. pointed out anyone can learn hypnosis from reading Yapko's book. And, as Henxy points out, Yapko can cover his litigiously vulnerable area by suggesting you see someone licensed to manage a professional therapeutic relationship when utilizing his techniques.
RIchard
(BTW Richard, I believe I can learn to fly a plane from a book).
Michael Ellner said:I have "five" words for you- Richard,
"Hi," =^..^= "The Dodo Bird Effect"
Let's remember personal warmth, the ability to connect with people and listening skills make the most effective therapists and/or hypno-"therapists" In my Nov 28, 2009 reply to you on the "Hypnotists that are also PhDs"-Discussion (Link below) I suggested that you would be hard pressed to produce just one study that explains why any psychological technique works. Ya never got back to me?
"Researchers call my revelation the "Dodo Bird Effect" and it is as simple as this: the relationship that one has with their psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, clinical social workers and counselors is more important than the therapeutic techniques these mental health "experts" are using. Academic credentials don't create the ability for people to connect with one another. Some observers might claim that the relationship is actually the opposite of that. So no, I don't believe in any magic technique that is universally successful and I don't believe that the academic background of an individual automatically confers superior therapeutic rapport with the client."
I think it is exploitive when licensed mental health professionals claim that feeling stuck, unhappy, lonely, sad, afraid and/or stressed are mental disorders! - Inventing mental disorders so that people in licensed professions can get paid to treat them (there is no way to get payment through insurance without a diagnosis) is actually detrimental to their patients. If you want to understand the extent of that problem, see the growing literature on the adverse effects of "medicalization" of complaints...in behavioral health as well as physical medicine. We are not encroaching on the turf of licensed professionals - Instead of helping people with real mental illnesses, some academically qualified individuals try to protect their incomes by positioning themselves as the only ones who can use hypnosis to legitimately help ordinary people with every day problems and challenges -- Suddenly, PhDs are the only legitimate experts for helping people reach their goals. I think it's bull!
Michael E.
http://www.hypnothoughts.com/forum/topics/hypnotists-that-are-also-...
Richard Clark MFT said:Hi Brian,
We've had this discussion before yet I think it bears repeating here. I am pretty darn sure that Michael Yapko turns away more clients a month then all but the busiest hypnotist on this forum sees in a year.
In our current culture there is a massive amount of demand for mental health treatment. Hell about one out of every four people that ever end up in front of a judge get compelled to attend therapy these days.
There are, conservatively figured, 50 times as many licensed mental health professionals in any geographic area as there are hypnotists. They are far busier competing with the other 49 similar practitioners in their neighborhood then they are the one hypnotist.
Psychologist etc.. are not widely unemployed and think no more of hypnotists as competition then they do palm readers.
As misguided as anyone might argue the reasoning is behind what Yapko and others preach regarding seeing only mental health professionals for hypnosis... Fear of loss of income is not part of the equation.
Richard
Brian David Phillips said:Market share . . . pure and simple.
-
-
Hi Jan,
Again I'm challenged for time right now so this will be brief.
Inpatient treatment is Psychiatry.
Psychiatry, Psychology, Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Professional Counseling are all distinct disciplines and have different scopes of practice and different legal and ethical guidelines and different guiding principles.
Learning the similarities and differences would be a great benefit to any Hypnotist that wants to understand scope of practice and how a Hypnotist might fit in with other helping professions.
Richard
Jan Krüger said:Henxy said:I don't think that Yapko is trying to offend anyone here. I think he's trying to protect the reader.
I agree, but credentialism isn't protection at all, it just looks like protection. I once was in a mental hospital for a few weeks (voluntarily, I might add, and only because it was a more immediate option than regular therapy). A brief summary of what they did might read like this: medication (not for me, though, thankfully), half an hour of personal therapy a week (with no real overall strategy other than "let them raise some concern and talk about it"), hours and hours of physical exercise, art etc., and classes about stuff like social skills and "attentiveness". I'm sure that these things aren't totally useless, but by far the best thing that happened to me during that time was that I could talk to the other patients and, at the same time, realize that there is a huge lack of decent options for people who have serious issues. Imagine that guy who had had his abdominal pain diagnosed as purely psychosomatic in nature and then spent more than a year getting nothing but ineffective drugs and ineffective therapy... and then I come along and take the pain away for an entire evening, just by spending half an hour talking to him.
I would agree that proper certification would be an important criterion in choosing who to get therapy from, if I believed that the scientific training that preceded it made the difference. I don't believe that. I believe that clinical psychology as a science combines the worst parts of invalidly concluding causal relationships from experiments with rejecting (large parts of) obviously effective treatments just because they are difficult (or perhaps even impossible) to measure reliably.
Personally I think mental health is one area where science does not offer the best perspective if you exclude everything else. I would definitely get my scientific training again if I had to start over, not least because it got me to the point where I can see its inherent limitations, but I consider all official training in clinical psychology (that I know of, anyway) as fundamentally flawed and dangerously skewed.
Note that I'm not saying that doctors who do psychotherapy should be avoided. Just like with less officially certified people, I think it's important to look at a practitioner's success rate in the past, and to make them convince you that they're good at what they do. You can never be absolutely certain, of course, but that's life.
It's legal to practice psychotherapy in my country after passing certain legal hurdles (which are somewhat hard to pass sometimes because they depend on the good will of a medical doctor working for the department of health, along with a few other people). The process for getting that permit involves making sure that you know your clinical psychology (most importantly the cases in which people really endanger themselves), and I think that's a good thing... but your personal approach to and experience with therapy and your understanding of human nature and the meaning of the word "individuality" is much more important than a few so-called in most of the clients you work with.
I suppose my opinion is a little bit controversial...
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Nongard - NLPBoard.com on -
Richard,
I will let you hypnotize me after reading a book. And I actually do think a naturally talented person could learn to fly with a book - and you might be that 1:1000000 person. However, unlike hypnosis, you only get one chance to get it correct, and I will not be flying with you on that first flight.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh Cole on -
I guess I would take a more simplistic approach to this. I adore Yapko's book. I have read it, reread it, and rereread it. There is almost as much useful information there as there is in Don Gibbon's Hyperemperia. I love it when a teacher gives real and valuble information rather than the fluff I have experienced in other hypnosis books. So Yapko has been good to me. But.. I would never expect Yapko to be "supportive" of lay hypnotists. Quite the contrary. From his "frame", only those that know the secret handshake are "worthy" to ascend to "practitioner" status. It's a reality, accept it, but don't buy into that frame. I have said all along that I am not a therapist. I don't do therapy. I do Hypnosis. There is no turf war here. I am a specialist and I will take referrals from psychiatrists if they care to do so. (and I have had several such referrals and have done presurgical and post surgury work with a psychiatric professional)
From my frame ... Yapko's blog is a vein of gold with wonderful quotes and validations crisscrossing it at every angle It as an asset to be mined, The gold is gold and the dross is dross, I can use it as an educational tool if need be because I know the differance between gold and dross. Fortunately for me, many if not all of my clients, don't read Yapko's blog or even know his name. Most of them measure succes in terms of "number of days" to fit into the size six dress. I have a niche and it's my job to market it. If I wanted to compete with Yapko and his ilk there is always UTD night school. but I am a bit old for that now,
Hugh Cole
The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet.
-
Permalink Reply by Donna Carter on -
Hugh,
I see your point. I do.
But...I have strong words (hypocrite?) for people who make a good chunk of money off the (lay?) hypnotist... and then damn them in the next breath. I bought his book, and I loved it - but his words make me feel cheated in who I thought he was. To buy his book...means to support that of which I don't believe. Isn't it? Kind of like buying chicken when I have seen the cruelty. Makes no sense... and yet, one has to learn and one has to eat.
And...just as a side note: Isn't it also hypocritical to say - "hey, if you aren't educated in my field (even though you can help in that field) you aren't allowed to help." and then.... on his website mentions he has done exactly what he professes against? And...although I know that human psychology classes do dive into some animal behaviors... the last time I checked Animal Psychology had a different degree.
For someone who is so aware of 'papers' - it is a quandary.
I am curious - maybe he is the only one who can help others, without the 'papered' qualifications?
What?
Wish he was here to discuss it with us.
~D.
Hugh Cole said:I guess I would take a more simplistic approach to this. I adore Yapko's book. I have read it, reread it, and rereread it. There is almost as much useful information there as there is in Don Gibbon's Hyperemperia. I love it when a teacher gives real and valuble information rather than the fluff I have experienced in other hypnosis books. So Yapko has been good to me. But.. I would never expect Yapko to be "supportive" of lay hypnotists. Quite the contrary. From his "frame", only those that know the secret handshake are "worthy" to ascend to "practitioner" status. It's a reality, accept it, but don't buy into that frame. I have said all along that I am not a therapist. I don't do therapy. I do Hypnosis. There is no turf war here. I am a specialist and I will take referrals from psychiatrists if they care to do so. (and I have had several such referrals and have done presurgical and post surgury work with a psychiatric professional)
From my frame ... Yapko's blog is a vein of gold with wonderful quotes and validations crisscrossing it at every angle It as an asset to be mined, The gold is gold and the dross is dross, I can use it as an educational tool if need be because I know the differance between gold and dross. Fortunately for me, many if not all of my clients, don't read Yapko's blog or even know his name. Most of them measure succes in terms of "number of days" to fit into the size six dress. I have a niche and it's my job to market it. If I wanted to compete with Yapko and his ilk there is always UTD night school. but I am a bit old for that now, Hugh Cole The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet.
-
Permalink Reply by Danie van der Merwe on -
I could not say it better. Amen
Ian Jay said:"In the 14-year period between 1950 and 1964, more American deaths occurred in state and county mental institutions than in all of the nation's armed conflicts beginning with the Revolutionary War and ending with the Persian Gulf War. Between 1965 and 1990, the total number of mental-hospital inpatient deaths exceeded the number of battle deaths in the same wars by 70 percent. Inpatient deaths topped out at 1,103,000 during this 25-year period, compared with 650,563 recorded deaths in battles."
Kelly Patricia O’Meara: "The Forgotten Dead of St. Elizabeth's", Insight Magazine, June 16, 2001
I rest my case, your honour ....
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh Cole on
-
Thanks Donna.... I think the answer lies in your statement but his words make me feel cheated in who I thought he was., He is obviously ... NOT the person your brain made him out to be. Since you are a kind loving and heroic lady, you look through kind loving and heroic filters and may have ascribed some bigger than lfe virtues to him. He is actually deep in his intellectual professorship PhD trance. Like any other hypnotized subject he is centered and focused on a single idea and is congruently supporting that as his current reality. To him I am sure this all makes perfect sense. To him all Therapists are Yapkonians or they are not Therapists, let alone hypnotists. Actually if you read the blog.. Hypnosis is only a "tool" best wielded by skilled Yapkonians as a part of Yapkonian Theraputic Modalities. Keep in mind that... from That frame some of the heros of hypnosis look a lot like Yapko. Dave Elman for instance ONLY taught doctors (and Gerry Kein). He was a stickler about that. Without a lay hypnotist named Gil Boyne, little of his work would be around today to share with the more Plebian lay hypnotists. How about ... Uncle Miltie?? While his "stage show" was boring .. he usually played medical conventions.,,, sometimes to less than rave reviews and when he did "teach"... It was to Folks like Dr. Richard Bandler and Dr. Ernst Rossi and Dr. John Grinder, We have his work today because through the entire litigious mess of the last quarter century.. Richard was sucessful in getting NLP more or less available to the general public. Has anyone ever tried to get tapes from the Erickson foundation without being a University ???? or seen what happens to bootleg youtube postings ?? Hmm Nod Your head if you understand. Yapko is cut from the same mold. Love him for who he is.. smell the roses ..watch the thorns!
Hugh Cole
The Pretty Goodest Hypnotist on the Planet
-
Permalink Reply by Saul Rosenfeld on -
Paul (and Richard, and Michael, and everyone else on this thread),
I don't pretend to "know" what Yapko's reason was for making this blanket statement about avoiding "lay" hypnotists, but I strongly suspect that this was merely a "generic" warning, and was not meant to disparage the serious, intelligent and highly competent "lay" hypnotherapists out there (like you, Michael).
Unfortunately however, there are also a goodly number of incompetent hacks and charlatans who are ALSO legally permitted to call themselves "hypnotherapists", and seeing as how the profession is more or less totally UNregulated, and that there is NO way for a prospective client/patient to be able to tell one from the other since there's NO form of "quality control", he probably decided to err on the side of caution and to tar all "lay" hypnotists with the same broad brush as a precautionary measure.
What I DO know, from PERSONAL experience, is that Yapko is most definitely not on a "witch hunt" against ALL "lay" hypnotists. How can I be so sure about that? Well, because he knows that I am such a "lay" hypnotherapist, and that not only do I lack a Ph.D. or Masters degree, but I never even graduated from college (I dropped out after a year). Yet despite knowing this beforehand, and despite knowing that I had been active for many years as a clinical "lay" hypnotherapist, he not only gave my book a glowing testimonial, but he actually suggested that I link my book's website to HIS so that it would gain more exposure among his colleagues!
Once again, according to the rules and regulations of the very organizations HE belongs to (A.S.C.H., Erickson Foundation, etc.), he "should" have nothing whatsoever to do with an unlettered "lay" hypnotherapist like myself; but after having seen that I had an important contribution to make to the profession, he was willing to support me DESPITE the fact that, in the eyes of his colleagues and the professional organizations he belongs to , I am but a lowly unlettered "lay" hypnotist!
By the same token, I'm confident that if he knew how well qualified YOU were Michael, that he would be fully supportive of you TOO.
This is what Yapko wrote to me after reading my book. The only reason I'm offering it HERE (because it was, after all, a private communication) is because he allowed me to publish it in the "reviews and testimonials" section of my book's website, and as such it's now in the "public domain":
"Dear Saul,
This holiday weekend plus the mandated down time as I recover from shoulder surgery a couple of days ago has given me the time (finally!) to read your book, which I did in one long sitting. That alone tells you how much it held my interest. My congratulations on a job very well done.
You’re right—the writing style is unconventional. Your editorial comments peppered throughout made it quite clear how strong your opinions were about the topics you addressed. I’d wince occasionally (from the bluntness), but can’t really think of a time I flat out disagreed.
You did an amazing job of amassing a great deal of history in this book. A scholar’s endeavor and you pulled it off. You managed to find some extraordinary pictures along the way, too, most of which I’d never seen before... Anyway, a long overdue thank you for sending me a copy. I’m glad I finally had the chance to read it, consider it, appreciate it and tell you about it.
Thanks again, Saul.
With best wishes and appreciation.
Michael"
Does THIS sound like someone who has nothing but disdain for ALL "lay" hypnotists?
Saul
www.HistoryOfHypnotism.com
-
Permalink Reply by John R. Brochu on -
Saul:
Yes…
I believe that your book might be bringing wood to Yapko’s fire.
Those in the industry that have an “internet” PhD after their name also strengthen his case.
Yapko is following in the footsteps of Dr. Hartland and other that felt that hypnosis was only meant for those who have navigated the labyrinth of a University or medical school education.
I am a Hypnotist or as the NGH prefers a consulting hypnotist. I welcome all that want to strengthen our hypnosis community.
Yours in Health,
John Brochu
BrochuHypnosisCenter.com
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Featured Advertising
Latest Activity
Roy Hunter replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'What is your favourite tool ?'
Barry Neale replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'Wow'
Hypno-Jay replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'What is your favourite tool ?'
Roy Hunter replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'Wow'
Spellbinde, Kevin Cole-NLPTrainingQuest.com and 2 other members joined Michael Ellner's group
Spellbinde, Suggestive Celine -"The Queen of and 3 other members joined Leshem Yosef's group
© 2012 Created by Scott Sandland.
About Us
Contact Us
Subscribe To RSS