talkmagic.co.uk

Tomo wrote:....... It may be with "your" consent, but it's the subconscious consenting to act, not the conscious. There are a million and one ways of achieving that.

good point, and also on that, its been proven that even if someone is in a deep trance, you mainly cant get them to do anything that they wouldnt do anyway... (not all the time, there are exceptions)

It has to exist. Were discussing it aren't we?
The real question is "What's the definition of hypnosis?"

I've never studied nor performed hypnosis, so flame away if you wish. Anyway, this is what I think:

We have 2 mind states. A Concious one, so that we can solve problems, socialise, etc... and a sub concious state, so we can survive attacks, avoid accidents, catch food, etc...
If you can strip away the concious layer with distraction (hypnosis) and keep it seperate, then you're left with the basic prime functional elements of the mind. With no higher brain functions feeding the basic mind, it takes whatever signals and instructions it can get.

I'm sorry if I am reopening a dead thread but having a particular interest in hypnosis - I earn my living out of it to a fair extent - I could not help but type in the subject in the search box. It appears there has been quite some debate (possibly heated) on these forums on the subject in the past. I have no intention of going and searching those out but some of you may be interested in my take and opinions given that although a new boy here I have been using 'hypnosis' for over twenty years; mainly in the therapeutic arena.

Point 1 - I can not disagree with a single word said by Mark Lewis in this thread.

2 - There are many definitions re hypnosis but what you need to remember/realise is that many of those definitions are from secondary sources and repeats or rephrasing of what others have stated without independent evaluation.

3 - Stage Hypnosis is based on some rather clever manipulation of peoples beliefs (sometimes even the beliefs of the performer who thinks they are doing something more mysterious and special than they really are) combined with some equally clever trickery. The end result is the form of entertainment we take as being Stage Hypnosis. There really is a change in the way people think but it is fundamentally compliance with instructions.

4 - Clinical Hypnosis is NO DIFFERENT to stage hypnosis in how it works. It is usually more subtle, generally requires a significant knowledge on the therapists part re psychology etc and has significant and provable value in helping people overcome their problems but works pure and simply because of the persons belief system. In a therapeutic setting it works more than just as a placebo because of the added dimension of beneficial input of professional counselling and (for want of a better explanation) psychological trickery.

5 - There is huge debate within hypnosis circles over this and most of the arguments tend to end up revolving around each persons definitions of particular words or phrases.

6 - There is a huge amount of pride, ego and financial stake hanging in the balance as each of the Hypnosis societies, schools, coaching courses etc all vie with one another. The majority will not readily open up and be honest in what they do as their credibility would disintegrate. I'm happy to talk freely here in a rather dark corner of the net where very few will ever hear what I have to say in the knowledge that it won't affect my income or reputation. I reckon I could teach most of you to be quite effective hypnotist in a matter of a few hours - it does not take long courses. To be a therapist will take the rest of your life though as you never stop learning then (although the hypnosis bit never changes). I suspect that is the same as any of you teaching me a card trick or illusion; it will always be the same although practice will make it better but its still always the same trick. Off the top of my head I can't think of a magical effect which can be used as part of something ongoing in quite the same way. (Sorry).

7 - A big problem comes from the fact that over time some people have come to believe in the myths and bunkum surrounding hypnosis and have gone on to teach that as fact to others and so on. The result being that there are people who genuinely believe. It certainly aids them that they believe it as that makes them even more convincing to those who they then hypnotise or teach. It's self-fulfilling.

8 - Bear in mind that Mesmer (all acclaim him as the father of hypnosis) was a Stage Hypnotist and not a Hypnotherapist and you will start to see where this is all coming from.

9 - Depending upon what company I am in I will inform people that I am a Clinical Hypnotherapist or a Hypnotist. To me, I am really the former, as I mix some of the theatrics and plays on peoples perceptions of stage hypnosis with proven psychological and counselling skills but to the lay person I can apparently make them do whatever I feel like. Strange how nobody has given me all their money and I don't have the Worlds most beautiful women hammering at my door every day, not even from the inside wanting out!

10 - I and many others make a good living from helping people in this way and there is no doubt that the placebo effect with the added personal attention, counselling and psychological help make hypnosis a very good tool in my box of tricks when clients pitch up to see me. Some clients like the extra crutch that 'hypnosis' gives them; others just benefit from an hour or so of relaxation but its good for them so no harm done and I'm happy with my fee and sense of satisfaction of a job well done.

11 - It gets interesting though when I achieve the same results and levels of success without using hypnosis! I have told some clients that they will be wide awake and fully alert throughout the session yet the same processes come into play and the same end results. Much of this is down to being able to listen to, read and respond to people. An art just like other aspects of magic. I certainly won't profess to be a great mentalist or mind magician (or what todays trendy term is) but from what i do know there are some strong similarities in how the professions work - albeit for different purposes.

12 - As for trance states; forget them. You (the client/spec) are either compliant or non-compliant to instructions (veiled). I was originally taught the whole states of trance, have to use specific language forms etc etc etc spiel but quite amazingly when I ignore all that and use methods borrowed from stage hypnosis I get the same results, sometimes even better (as people see the stage stuff and consider that to be what its all about).


Just 12 type as I go answers. I doubt I can persuade any of you who disagree with me - even if I hypnotised you - to change your minds but I am speaking from experience. I won't get into a table tennis debate on the subject but hopefully what I have had to say will be of interest to some who happen upon it. The pain relief and surgery applications of hypnosis are equally explainable without a huge amount of knowledge re human physiology; especially if you take a look at some of the old circus tricks. (Just glossed up and modernised applications).

Other than amongst friends & family I don't perform stage type hypnosis as I feel I should protect my 'therapy' image but if truth be told there is no great difference between the two. The client/spec needs to believe in the process and the performer and the practitioner needs to have the knowledge and skills to accomplish the act. It is not something everyone can pull off but it certainly is not real magic.

Right, I hope I have not instantly made a load of enemies having only just arrived but I believe that if I am going to ask you guys to help me in other areas all I can do is give you the benefit of what I know in return. just don't kill the messenger.

By the way NLP is a bit of a con too... LMAO

Here we go again.................................
And I do agree about NLP. I saw one of the founders walking about a psychic fair and I instantly formed an instinctive judgement just by looking at him that NLP stood for Not a Lot of Plausibility.
I am not sure whether it was Bandler or Grinder that I saw. The one with the pony tail anyway.

LOL Sorry if I've stepped into the local minefield! Tell me to shut up if its a taboo or too contentious subject in these parts.

I at one time fell for the whole mythology but a chance encounter and an intensive weekend where the proof kept on coming and coming convinced me as to the reality. It suits my purposes if people wish to believe but as I've managed to "hypnotise" people by all manner of non-hypnotic means I know what I know and won't be swayed unless someone can come up with provable scientific evidence to the contrary!

Excellent and highly effective marketing by NLP'ers. Just enough truth and probability to carry them through. Contacts of mine are very dismissive of them. I say well done on making a lot of money but wordplay alone is not going to convince me.

You have indeed stepped into a minefield. I haven't read your post as thoroughly as I should just yet but I promise to get around to it. However it does seem as if you are a non-state theorist just like myself. In other words you doubt the reality of what is known as hypnosis. I believe apart from yourself I am the only one here that takes that position.

As for the minefield analogy I am afraid it is quite true. People will be coming along to blow you up shortly. And may God have mercy on your soul.

Bloody Hell, I'm doomed then. What if I don't believe in God either?

I am a convert. A few years ago I was merrily unaware of any other concept but as soon as it was revealed to me it was a total revelation. Enough of the religious theme!

No, don't believe in varying states of trance or even in trance per se. There is a changed condition; one of relaxation and openness to compliance but there isn't much else save some clever build up of credibility and application of some subtle (and some very unsubtle) 'tricks'.

I'll supply some sandbags if you like. Prepare for incoming!

More seriously - I am in the Teesside/South Durham area and will happily arrange to demonstrate to established members of this forum why what I am saying is correct. It would completely change your entire view re hypnosis. It's highly beneficial in a therapy setting and hilarious at times on stage but it does not work the way people tend to believe.

While I find the plausibility of complete stage hypnosis a little far-fetched, I have attended one hypnotist show in my lifetime (a few years back by a fellow by the name of Anthony Cools). What made me doubt my own feelings is that a colleague of mine was one of the volunteers to be hypnotised (and thus I knew THAT wasn't staged because he was in my party). Around halfway through the show, when the "hypnotised" individuals were performing all kinds of ridiculous and obscene antics, my colleague was "sent off" along with a few others, because apparently they were not in a total trance. The thing that really got me going was that my colleague was WEIRD for the rest of the night. I sincerely worried for his ability to drive home. He said he felt fine, but he didn't look fine. He acted odd. THe next day at work he said how weird he felt, and that it felt like someone was "messing with his head". He couldn't sleep properly, and it took a day or two to fully "reset".

Now this colleague of mine is a bright guy, and a IT (Information Technologies this time) specialist - a computer guy, and therefore a very rational, scientifically-oriented kind of guy. WOuld he make this up? I do not believe that he "believed" in it so much that he let it affect him so.

SO I'm still wondering.......

I used to have a video of Anthony Cools. He is filthy. One of the X-rated hypnotists of whom there are now so many.

A hypnotist should make sure the person is OK before he sends them back. They may look all right but they could still be in a funny state. No. That state is not "hypnosis". It is a state of the subject conning himself that he has been hypnotised. Perhaps this state of self delusion is hypnosis in itself and if that is your point of view I won't argue with you.

The mind is a powerful thing and can do things to itself without the help of a bad hypnotist. Agaraphobia is an example. The person cons themself that they cannot go outside. Or panic attacks. The person cons themself.

However these people are not hypnotised since there is no such thing. They have merely deluded themself about false premises. People can become mentally ill because they get some daft idea in their mind and delude themselves as to the reality of it. However they don't have to be hypnotised to do so.l

Jae thanks for your input on this. I'm really interested in hypnosis but there's a part of me that just doesn't trust it. Views like yours are comparatively rare but chime with what I suspect.

I think hypnosis is the performers ability to persuade the subject into 'thinking' he has been hypnotised. Depending on how receptive the subject is to suggestion will determine the level to which he can be 'persuaded' to act a certain way.

And from what I believe, subjects that are not as receptive to suggestion can still be persuaded by what I can only describe as outs, and there is an example of this in tricks of the mind. I know its not technically referred to as an out, but I dont know the right terms.

There was an example where a subject was told he would be given £100 if he 'played along'. and so he did. At the end of the show when he was 'wakening' them he said that the subject would be adamnt the performer owed him £100 and be more frustrated the more the performer denied the claims.

I am afraid the 100 quid example was a Jonathon Royal technique and as such may well not be a recommended one since Jonathon induces rather a lot of tut-tutting at times.

I.D wrote:There was an example where a subject was told he would be given £100 if he 'played along'. and so he did. At the end of the show when he was 'wakening' them he said that the subject would be adamnt the performer owed him £100 and be more frustrated the more the performer denied the claims.

Thanks for that. It's cheered me up for the day!

I've only just found this thread. I find it curious how many people want to tell Mark Lewis that he's wrong. Since not many (I'm being generous) of them have had careers as stage hypnotists I know who I am more likely to believe.

'State' as applied to 'states of consciousness' in itself seems to be a woolly term whose meaning no-one can explain satisfactorily. If Mark can produce the practical effects of stage hypnosis working from a model which doesn't include the 'trance state' (or whatever) then it's probably not right to dismiss that model.

I thank Charles for his comments. However it is only fair to comment that many stage hypnotists also believe in the trance state. However quite a few don't and I am one of them. There are also hypnotherapists too who are sceptical. I have read a book on hypnosis by Peter Blythe a noted hypnotherapist who quite boldly states that hypnosis doesn't exist.

i reckon it's also to do with the old "what you define, you create" principle...

you tell someone you are a hypnotist, they believe you, you then have a very good chance if delivered properly, to then go on to hypnotise that person...

thats what i reckon anyway, only from my small experience, i can quite easily stick peoples hands together, or to tables etc...yet i've no real hypnotism "training"...if you act confidently, and correctly then as far as my bit of experience goes...its works...

ed wollf's little book was the first thing i read ages ago, then the mcgill books - oh and trance this! by kenton knepper...and thats pretty much it...making people bark etc doesnt appeal to me...i've never done it "for a laugh"...just as demonstrations...