Hypnosis

[Garvarn]

Why do so many people, including skeptics, know so little hypnosis, hypnotherapy, and how it's used in the real world, and instead regurgitate misinformation?

I'm also curious about that, although I oppose your end statement.

posted by tonyb
I will address one particular post in the thread and try to actually state the reality of hypnosis. I will point out now that my I am actually a qualified and practicing hypnotherapist. So I think I know *something* about the subject.

What do you mean by "qualified" hypnotherapist. Have you taken a correspondence course or a weekend course? Do you have a diploma or a certificate, and what do you have to do to get one of each in your particular "school"? As you may be aware of, there are loads of "institutes" "teaching" hypnotherapy and issuing impressing documents on achievements. www.hypnotherapy-control-board.org is one of them (VERY impressing name).

I quote from Key Concepts in Hypnosis, by Campbell Perry, whos knowledge and experience in hypnosis by far exceeds both yours and mine, tonyb:

"A further difficulty in finding a properly qualified clinician who is trained in hypnotic procedures is that many of the lay hypnotists confer upon themselves and each other official sounding names, titles and letters after their names; some even designates themselves as 'Doctor', or 'Professor'. These letterings after the name and pseudo-titles imply a legitimacy that, usually, does not exist. The Bulgarian Institute of Hypnosis or the Norwegian College of Hypnotherapists, for instance, could be the name of a legitimate professional practice, but it could, as equally, be the name of a lay hypnosis organization."
http://www.fmsfonline.org/hypnosis.html

So if you state that you are a qualified hypnotherapist, that tells us nothing. If you state that you are a practicing hypnotherapist, it must be remembered that hypnosis is fairly easy to learn -- some say it can be learned in a couple of hours, so your practicing doesn't tell us that much either. Above all, it does not automatically qualify you to tell us about the "reality" of hypnosis.

posted by tonyb
If you're referring to mainstream psychiatry, psychotherapy and counselling then this is mainly true (although quite often some of these therapists are using it to a degree without realising it). It's interesting, though, that hypnotherapists often need to see patients for far fewer sessions that the other "non-hypnosis' approaches.

Could you please provide me with a study based on "reality" that backs that up?

posted by tonyb
There were a limited spate of these incidents over a few years, which represents a TINY minority of the actual work performed by hypnotherapists around the world.

It scares me a bit that someone claiming therapeutic skills belittle this atrocity, especially since it so clearly illustrates the danger of glorifying hypnosis as a therapeutic tool.

posted by tonyb
There's lots of studies if you care to look:
http://www.altor.org/et-bulk.htm

No, those are excerpts taken from studies, out of context.

posted by tonyb
It is a perfectly valid therapeutic method for those with traumatic events, and something I reguarly use hypnosis for and with highly effective results.

Yes, it can be a valid therapeutic method for those with traumatic events, but it is not to be practiced by poorly educated hypnotherapists lacking a wider psychological understanding of trauma and its effects.

posted by tonyb
What does a repressed memory amount to? All it means is something that has been consciously forgotten, often because it was uncomfortable for the person to deal with at the time. Why is this concept so difficult for some people to accept? I don't seek out repressed memories, and I certainly don't implant any, but I can assure you that they do occassionally crop up.

This is simply not true, but I understand why it is necessary for you to nurture this popular myth - it adds excitement to your profession, "the key to the soul". The problem with hypnosis is that it boosts imagination rather than expose alleged repressed memories. Fantasy takes on reality value for the hypnotized individual and becomes accepted by him as having happened in reality. Nor the hypnotized or the hypnotizer may be able to distinguish fantasy from reality. I suggest you read the excellent Believed-In Imaginings - The Narrative Construction of Reality, edited by De Rivera.

posted by tonyb
True, there were some that implanted false memories, but that isn't the norm now.

There were "some" that implanted false memories? The phenomena had epidemic proportions! And how do you know that this isn't the norm now? You still spread the myth of repressed memories.

posted by tonyb
But then you're not a trained therapist, are you?

Neither are you, you are a hypnotherapist, and that could mean a lot of things...

 

[tonyb]

Chateaubriand, thanks for your comments, which I will address. I note from your profile that you are a graphic designer. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that despite all your book reading you have never trained or practiced as a therapist of any description. Well I have, so I'd be careful of assuming that your knowledge is superior to mine.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
What do you mean by "qualified" hypnotherapist. Have you taken a correspondence course or a weekend course? Do you have a diploma or a certificate, and what do you have to do to get one of each in your particular "school"? As you may be aware of, there are loads of "institutes" "teaching" hypnotherapy and issuing impressing documents on achievements. www.hypnotherapy-control-board.org is one of them (VERY impressing name).

The course I did lasted over one year, and to maintain my membership of associations I have to take regular ongoing training. I know there are quick courses around, but please don't insult me by assuming that I would only do that.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
I quote from Key Concepts in Hypnosis, by Campbell Perry, whos knowledge and experience in hypnosis by far exceeds both yours and mine, tonyb:

"A further difficulty in finding a properly qualified clinician who is trained in hypnotic procedures is that many of the lay hypnotists confer upon themselves and each other official sounding names, titles and letters after their names; some even designates themselves as 'Doctor', or 'Professor'. These letterings after the name and pseudo-titles imply a legitimacy that, usually, does not exist. The Bulgarian Institute of Hypnosis or the Norwegian College of Hypnotherapists, for instance, could be the name of a legitimate professional practice, but it could, as equally, be the name of a lay hypnosis organization."
http://www.fmsfonline.org/hypnosis.html

I wasn't aware that I made any impressive sounding claims, and to do so contravenes the official code of ethics of all major associations.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
So if you state that you are a qualified hypnotherapist, that tells us nothing. If you state that you are a practicing hypnotherapist, it must be remembered that hypnosis is fairly easy to learn -- some say it can be learned in a couple of hours, so your practicing doesn't tell us that much either. Above all, it does not automatically qualify you to tell us about the "reality" of hypnosis.

Yes, hypnosis is easy to learn - but hypnotherapy takes quite a bit more time and practice. Please learn to distinguish between the two, since it is the therapy that is the major part of the work. And how silly of me to think that being a hypnotherapist would mean that I might know something about hypnosis.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
Could you please provide me with a study based on "reality" that backs that up?

Not offhand. But to give one example, it is fairly standard for a counselling service near to me to expect people to attend about 35 weekly sessions. The most I have ever needed to see anybody for is 13, and it's usually fewer.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
It scares me a bit that someone claiming therapeutic skills belittle this atrocity, especially since it so clearly illustrates the danger of glorifying hypnosis as a therapeutic tool.

I was not belittling anything. I was pointing out the FACT that the number of incidents where this occurred is in the vast minority compared to the total number of hypnotherapy sessions that have ever taken place. It's called not tarring everybody with the same brush.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
No, those are excerpts taken from studies, out of context.

Sorry. Perhaps when I have a spare 5 years I'll do the research for you. And why are they out of context?

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
Yes, it can be a valid therapeutic method for those with traumatic events, but it is not to be practiced by poorly educated hypnotherapists lacking a wider psychological understanding of trauma and its effects.

Agreed. Are you saying that I come into this category? Considering you know very little about me or my knowledge I sincerely hope you are not.

Originally posted by Chateaubriand
This is simply not true, but I understand why it is necessary for you to nurture this popular myth - it adds excitement to your profession, "the key to the soul". The problem with hypnosis is that it boosts imagination rather than expose alleged repressed memories. Fantasy takes on reality value for the hypnotized individual and becomes accepted by him as having happened in reality. Nor the hypnotized or the hypnotizer may be able to distinguish fantasy from reality. I suggest you read the excellent Believed-In Imaginings - The Narrative Construction of Reality, edited by De Rivera.
There were "some" that implanted false memories? The phenomena had epidemic proportions! And how do you know that this isn't the norm now? You still spread the myth of repressed memories.

Do you assume I don't read up on memory, etc? I'm well aware of the subject and the controversy surrounding repression. My assertion is based on first hand experience in clinical settings, not merely from book reading. The studies by Elizabeth Loftus etc. I'm fully aware of, but what she and others test doesn't always mimic what actually happens in a one-on-one therapeutic setting.


So, in summary, my assertions come from actual real life knowledge and experience, whereas yours comes merely from books. I know which I'd rather believe.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Chateaubriand, thanks for your comments, which I will address. I note from your profile that you are a graphic designer. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that despite all your book reading you have never trained or practiced as a therapist of any description. Well I have, so I'd be careful of assuming that your knowledge is superior to mine.


The course I did lasted over one year, and to maintain my membership of associations I have to take regular ongoing training. I know there are quick courses around, but please don't insult me by assuming that I would only do that.


I wasn't aware that I made any impressive sounding claims, and to do so contravenes the official code of ethics of all major associations.


Yes, hypnosis is easy to learn - but hypnotherapy takes quite a bit more time and practice. Please learn to distinguish between the two, since it is the therapy that is the major part of the work. And how silly of me to think that being a hypnotherapist would mean that I might know something about hypnosis.


Not offhand. But to give one example, it is fairly standard for a counselling service near to me to expect people to attend about 35 weekly sessions. The most I have ever needed to see anybody for is 13, and it's usually fewer.


I was not belittling anything. I was pointing out the FACT that the number of incidents where this occurred is in the vast minority compared to the total number of hypnotherapy sessions that have ever taken place. It's called not tarring everybody with the same brush.


Sorry. Perhaps when I have a spare 5 years I'll do the research for you. And why are they out of context?


Agreed. Are you saying that I come into this category? Considering you know very little about me or my knowledge I sincerely hope you are not.



Do you assume I don't read up on memory, etc? I'm well aware of the subject and the controversy surrounding repression. My assertion is based on first hand experience in clinical settings, not merely from book reading. The studies by Elizabeth Loftus etc. I'm fully aware of, but what she and others test doesn't always mimic what actually happens in a one-on-one therapeutic setting.


So, in summary, my assertions come from actual real life knowledge and experience, whereas yours comes merely from books. I know which I'd rather believe.

Elizabeth Loftus testified at the Paul Shanley trial. He was still found guilty. (Basically, he has been given a death sentence). Once Pandora's box is opened, there is no putting the damage done back inside. The public generally believe in repressed memories because they have been told the phenomenon exists, and is "scientifically sound".

The time is coming when just being accused (no matter the ulterior motives of the accuser) will be enough to convict.

It's like Salem all over. And I'm not denying that child abuse happens. Clearly, and tragically, it does. I'm just not convinced that "recovered memories" are anything but implanted memories or confabulation. If we believe these, we should also believe that people have been kidnapped by aliens, taken "somewhere", experimented on, and returned to earth after the aleins have made sure that no scrap of physical evidence is available to support their fantasy.

The McMartin pre-school, Orkney, and Cleveland debacles should be enough to warrant extreme caution.

I accept I jumped the gun with the "Invisible Deck". I apologise.

So, without me having to see the video you refer to, what is Derren's explanation of the invisible deal?

 

[delphi_ote]

Well I have, so I'd be careful of assuming that your knowledge is superior to mine.

The course I did lasted over one year, and to maintain my membership of associations I have to take regular ongoing training. I know there are quick courses around, but please don't insult me by assuming that I would only do that.

You realize your failure to name the institution you attended and specific certifications you were given damages your credibility as an unbiased expert, right? It leads me (an unbiased observer very much interested in the facts on this matter) to believe you are embarassed by them or to suspect your credentials might not hold up under close scrutiny.

I have a BS in Computer Engineering from the University of Cincinnati. If someone questioned my training, the institution that trained me and the exact credentials the institution bestowed upon me would be among the first things I would mention (even if I'm not all that proud to be a Bearcat. Heh.)

 

[flyboy217]

These articles seem to have some merit:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/05.08/01-hypnosis.html

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/08.21/hypnosis.html

 

[Garvarn]

Chateaubriand, thanks for your comments, which I will address. I note from your profile that you are a graphic designer. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that despite all your book reading you have never trained or practiced as a therapist of any description. Well I have, so I'd be careful of assuming that your knowledge is superior to mine.

I recognize your attempt to disqualify my opinion on basis of what I do for a living, but may I remind you that the therapists -- and quite a lot of them -- that were responsible for planting memories of abuse, of alien obductions and of satanic rituals, also trained and practiced as therapists? Reality, and the courts, in an escalating number of processes, have proven that they knew very little about what actually comes out of hypnotic regression.

The course I did lasted over one year, and to maintain my membership of associations I have to take regular ongoing training. I know there are quick courses around, but please don't insult me by assuming that I would only do that.

I notice that you are careful not to tell what course you took and what associations you are a member of.

I wasn't aware that I made any impressive sounding claims, and to do so contravenes the official code of ethics of all major associations.

You claim that your knowledge of hypnosis is superior but the content of your post doesn't back it up.

Yes, hypnosis is easy to learn - but hypnotherapy takes quite a bit more time and practice. Please learn to distinguish between the two, since it is the therapy that is the major part of the work. And how silly of me to think that being a hypnotherapist would mean that I might know something about hypnosis.

After browsing a great number of hypnotherapist's webpages and reading how they present hypnosis, I would say that most of them just repeat the old myths. Are you one of them?

Not offhand. But to give one example, it is fairly standard for a counselling service near to me to expect people to attend about 35 weekly sessions. The most I have ever needed to see anybody for is 13, and it's usually fewer.

That could also be a measurement of sloppyness. If so, how do you rank yourself?

I was not belittling anything. I was pointing out the FACT that the number of incidents where this occurred is in the vast minority compared to the total number of hypnotherapy sessions that have ever taken place. It's called not tarring everybody with the same brush.

In almost every little town, in almost every Western country, there is a drive-in-educated hypnotherapist doing age regressions and telling people that hypnosis brings forward things that are repressed. Look it up in your local paper -- I think the correct header is "Health Care". What happens when the patient decides to fantasize about ritual abuse instead of 17th century life at the French court?

By the way, do you know how many cases of incest memories, satanic ritual abuse and alien obductions that were reported during the 80s and the 90s in the US alone? Could you do an estimate of the numbers that were not reported?

Sorry. Perhaps when I have a spare 5 years I'll do the research for you. And why are they out of context?

Because they are cut and pasted from studies or articles and the conclusions of those are not included. They are cut out of their context, simply.

Agreed. Are you saying that I come into this category? Considering you know very little about me or my knowledge I sincerely hope you are not.

I know only what you write and what you claim. That is enough.

Do you assume I don't read up on memory, etc? I'm well aware of the subject and the controversy surrounding repression. My assertion is based on first hand experience in clinical settings, not merely from book reading. The studies by Elizabeth Loftus etc. I'm fully aware of, but what she and others test doesn't always mimic what actually happens in a one-on-one therapeutic setting.

So you have a contempt for research too, and consider your first hand experience in clinical settings as superior. Does that mean that you regard research in this field as separated from reality? I must tell you, tonyb, it's beginning to get creepy.

So, in summary, my assertions come from actual real life knowledge and experience, whereas yours comes merely from books. I know which I'd rather believe.

I see. And the things that are written in books, do you disregard them too? In this context, factual knowledge derived from studies and research?

 

[The Mighty Thor]

I recognize your attempt to disqualify my opinion on basis of what I do for a living, but may I remind you that the therapists -- and quite a lot of them -- that were responsible for planting memories of abuse, of alien obductions and of satanic rituals, also trained and practiced as therapists? Reality, and the courts, in an escalating number of processes, have proven that they knew very little about what actually comes out of hypnotic regression.



I notice that you are careful not to tell what course you took and what associations you are a member of.




You claim that your knowledge of hypnosis is superior but the content of your post doesn't back it up.



After browsing a great number of hypnotherapist's webpages and reading how they present hypnosis, I would say that most of them just repeat the old myths. Are you one of them?

That could also be a measurement of sloppyness. If so, how do you rank yourself?

In almost every little town, in almost every Western country, there is a drive-in-educated hypnotherapist doing age regressions and telling people that hypnosis brings forward things that are repressed. Look it up in your local paper -- I think the correct header is "Health Care". What happens when the patient decides to fantasize about ritual abuse instead of 17th century life at the French court?

By the way, do you know how many cases of incest memories, satanic ritual abuse and alien obductions that were reported during the 80s and the 90s in the US alone? Could you do an estimate of the numbers that were not reported?

Because they are cut and pasted from studies or articles and the conclusions of those are not included. They are cut out of their context, simply.

I know only what you write and what you claim. That is enough.

So you have a contempt for research too, and consider your first hand experience in clinical settings as superior. Does that mean that you regard research in this field as separated from reality? I must tell you, tonyb, it's beginning to get creepy.

I see. And the things that are written in books, do you disregard them too? In this context, factual knowledge derived from studies and research?

I wonder if tonyb has seen these:

The power of suggestion can play games with memory, persuading people that false memories are real, according to Northwestern University experts.

While we might like to think that our memories are accurate logs of our lives, that's not always true.

Our memories are imperfect to begin with, and forgetfulness isn't the only glitch. The brain can also be convinced that events that never took place actually did occur. That's what happened in Northwestern's recent experiment with 11 adults.

The test was conducted by researchers including Brian Gonsalves, formerly of Northwestern's psychology department and now a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University.

http://my.webmd.com/search/search_r...memories&filter=mywebmd_all_filter&channelId=

Study: Distress Doesn't Necessarily Validate Traumatic Memories

By Jennifer Warner
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD
on Friday, June 25, 2004

June 25, 2004 -- Recalling a traumatic memory may provoke severe distress in people, even if the memory may be a product of their own imagination, according to a new study.

The study showed that people who claim to have been abducted by aliens show the same signs of distress, such as increased heart rate, sweating, and muscle tension, shown by people recalling more plausible traumatic events, such as wartime experiences.

Researchers say these signs of distress are often viewed as a testament to authenticity of a person's memory of a traumatic event, such as childhood abuse. But the researchers say these results show that physiological responses should not be used to verify traumatic memories in the evaluation of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The study also showed that people who said they were abducted by aliens also scored higher on measures of psychological traits that make them more likely to experience alterations in consciousness, to have a rich fantasy life, and to endorse unconventional beliefs.

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/89/100279.htm?printing=true

 

[tonyb]

Chateaubriand and delphi_ote, I will keep this post brief.

My points is essentially that I have read much of the same books as you as regards the controversy over repression, etc , as well as reading the cases for. I have also practiced in the real world. As a net result I have drawn my own conclusions based on what I believe to be an unbiased starting point. If you choose to differ because you only wish to believe one point of view, that is your perogative.

I also choose not to reveal my training organisation because I wish to retain a degree of anonymity on this forum. If you choose to read suspicion into that then that is up to you. I am not going to pander to your goading.

I am well aware that confabulation and false memories are a reality, and that much damage has been done in the past. But if you believe that this represents the common practice amongst hypnotherapists then you are very mistaken.

This will be my last post and final word in this thread, as it is pointless to continue discussion with those who seem to think we are all just charaltans who don't know what we are doing. And if you choose to read suspicious motives into that too, then so be it. My conscience is clear.

 

[Garvarn]

Chateaubriand and delphi_ote, I will keep this post brief.

Thanks, I understand why.

My points is essentially that I have read much of the same books as you as regards the controversy over repression, etc , as well as reading the cases for. I have also practiced in the real world. As a net result I have drawn my own conclusions based on what I believe to be an unbiased starting point. If you choose to differ because you only wish to believe one point of view, that is your perogative.

Again you fail to refer to something specific. I have mentioned one book, Believed-In Imaginings, and would gladly have discussed it, since it deals explicitly with the phenomena of "repressed" or "recovered" memories, but somehow I sense that you are not inclined to be specific.

I also choose not to reveal my training organisation because I wish to retain a degree of anonymity on this forum. If you choose to read suspicion into that then that is up to you. I am not going to pander to your goading.

I respect your anonymity -- although I'm curios to what "schools" or organizations are so small that exposing them would reveal the identity of one individual. Your first instinct was to disqualify my opinion due to my occupation; now you're refusing to back up your own. Fishy...

I am well aware that confabulation and false memories are a reality, and that much damage has been done in the past. But if you believe that this represents the common practice amongst hypnotherapists then you are very mistaken.

In the past? Most hypnotherapist still practice "age regression" and "previous life experiences". I'll bet you do too.

This will be my last post and final word in this thread, as it is pointless to continue discussion with those who seem to think we are all just charaltans who don't know what we are doing. And if you choose to read suspicious motives into that too, then so be it. My conscience is clear.

Of course it is, since you have little understanding of the limitations or dangers of hypnosis.

 

[Minkster]

I think the term hypnosis is a broad term. If we are talking about stage hypnosis or regressive hypnosis then the act itself isn't necessarily woo (as suggestion really does take place) however the actual result is not what it seems to someone observing - so someone barking like a dog is not under the 'control' of the hypnotist, and someone re-living a past live clearly isn't but is instead being 'led' by the hypnotist. So, suggestion isn't woo but the overall belief that hypnotists are 'controlling' the subject IS woo.

Mainstream hypnotherapy is a slightly different kettle of fish though. And maybe it has the wrong name - far better for it to be called 'relaxation therapy'. Yes, there is a strong element of suggestion being applied when the subject is in a very relaxed state, but thats okay in itself. Self-'hypnosis' works by the same technique and is akin to meditation. This, coupled with a placebo effect can prove very useful in treating people who want to give up smoking, want to sleep better, want to be more confident or want to avoid food temptation and so on. It will work for some and not others, but I can't see that it harms anyone.

So, to summarise - in my opinion I would say :

Stage Hypnosis = Woo
Regressive Hypnosis = Woo
Hynotherapy (for self-empowerment) = Probably not Woo

 

[delphi_ote]

I also choose not to reveal my training organisation because I wish to retain a degree of anonymity on this forum. If you choose to read suspicion into that then that is up to you. I am not going to pander to your goading.

tonyb, I dropped into this forum because I am honestly curious and have yet to come to a conclusion on this subject. I found it wonderful that an expert with certification in the field would comment on these issues. My comments were not goading, just trying to point out that you're weakening your case. I want the facts on a very important issue, and you're arguing with one hand tied behind your back.

Being a certified expert lends weight to your arguments, but anyone can claim to be an expert in any field. I have no idea what your certification means. When I asked for this information, you got angry. You called an honest question "goading." This lends more to my suspicions that you're just trying to take a shortcut in your argument. Rather than give a convincing arument, it's easier to claim to be an expert.

Please either make your case without appealing to your own authority, or explain to me how you came to be an authority.

 

[delphi_ote]

These articles seem to have some merit:

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/05.08/01-hypnosis.html

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/08.21/hypnosis.html

These are interesting articles, until I hit something like this:

"I am also interested in using hypnosis to help people get better physically. That means using the mind to make structural changes in the body, to accelerate healing at the tissue level.

She implies that the mind acts on the body in a unique way under hypnosis, but she does not suggest a mechanism. Her conclusion does not follow from her experiments, either: "hypnosis acts on the mind and we note a correlation with changes in the body. Therefore, hypnosis makes the mind change the body." Maybe so, but her experiment does not necessarily demonstrate this.

Or this:

"What we have shown for the first time," Kosslyn concludes, "is that hypnosis changes conscious experience in a way not possible when we are not under hypnosis."

That statement clearly does not follow from their results. "Not possible... when not under hypnosis" implies they measured the mind under all conditions which are not hypnosis and the resulting data showed that altered brain activity was not possible. Clearly that was not their experiment. They only showed that it IS possible under hypnosis.

These are basic failings in elementary logic. I'm not being pedantic here. Without the correct interpretation of results, we draw very wrong conclusions from them.