talkmagic.co.uk

Can I add, possibly interfering here, but I believe it's a lot to do with perception.

I performed PK touches by Banachek over new year to a select audience, and the reaction of the seated spectator was rather worrying... she was in fact convinced she'd been hypnotised.

Whilst I could have played along, she was rather fraught at the idea of me putting her in some sort of trance. I hadn't. I'd merely ensured she was relaxed to the point of being almost docile.

I didn't perpetuate the idea, I added simply that this was a demonstration of suggestion.

Tomo wrote:

Strawbs wrote:What are your views on hypnosis? Like when people are put into trances ect. by magicians. Is that actually possible?

No, clearly none of it is possible. ...you're not from around here, are you.

You've already attracted the attention of the local, apparently ironic, electronic village idiot.

`

Well sorry, I just find Hypnosis confusing. Everyone has to start somewhere. And just because Im not addicted to a magic site dosnt make me any less of a magician.... You really are a very welcoming bunch!

Ive done some reading on the subject though by no means would I consider myself clear on the subject.

From what I understand, its all down to the subjects perception. Some people are easily persuaded, and can even persuade themselves that they have experienced something that did not actually occur. OR, they may just be to embarrassed to fail and so 'play along' to save face.

I once read somewhere that a subject was made the promise of £50 to play along and pretend to be hypnotised. At the end of the show, the performer said that the subject would awake and be convinced he is owed £50 by the performer and would become more angry the more the claim was denied.

On other occasions, people act like they are under the influence of hypnotism with no untoward prompts from the performer. It is these subjects to which it really depends on their take on the situation. As previously stated, they may be easily influenced to the point where they convince themselves they have experienced something or they may have their personal reasons for 'going along' with it.

Either way, I dont believe it is possible to put people under a 'trance like state'.. however, performers who have put a lot of time into studying mentalism and various pyschological concepts are able to influence people in a way laymen find impossible. Therefore, people can be influenced into saying a something, acting a certain way and feeling emotions required by the performer. This is not to say they are in 'trance' but more that they have been mentally misdirected or mentally influenced into saying or acting a certain way.

But I could be wrong..

Cardza wrote:With regards to the therapy/stage trance comment, well... it depends! The intent is most certainly different, but if the stage hypnotist really is inducing a genuine trance state as opposed to a pseudo one then they are the same.

Some hypnotherapists will agree with you - I could name two vociferous ones, who both have a stage hypnosis background - but I can assure you that the trance state I use as a hypnotherapist is nothing like the state used on stage; it's more like the hypnagogic state between waking and sleep. The words "trance" and "hypnosis" have several different meanings and IMHO it's a mistake to consider them all as the same phenomenon.

Barry

strawbs, tomo wasnt havent a go at you...he was jabbing at another member who has very stiff views on this subject...

the best advice i can give (certainly no expert on it, though i have learned certain things to do with trance/suggestion) is to just go out and buy a few books and make up your own mind...

the ones i read on were:
milton erikson (spelling)
ormond mcgill
trance this! by kenton knepper

now, the kenton knepper one would be good to get as its all about how to perform effects with psuedo hypnotic overtones...whether people who watch you perform these effects believe it to be "real" hypnosis or influence, leave to them to decide...

trance this should give you the framework of how to apply that thinking to your magic...if thats what you are after...

if not, i'd say look at the ormond mcgill books...he, again, was a fully fledged hypnotist, as well as magician...

but i reckon its best to make up your own mind, on this very interesting subject...there seems to be no real hard and fast answers or truths, if you believe it exists, then it does...end of...my opinion anyway...

magicofthemind wrote:Some hypnotherapists will agree with you - I could name two vociferous ones, who both have a stage hypnosis background - but I can assure you that the trance state I use as a hypnotherapist is nothing like the state used on stage; it's more like the hypnagogic state between waking and sleep. The words "trance" and "hypnosis" have several different meanings and IMHO it's a mistake to consider them all as the same phenomenon.

Point taken - I guess I didn't phrase it properly; I meant that if both are genuine inductions, then they are both utilising the same underlying mechanisms.

You're right, I was using the terms a bit loosely there.

Tomo may call me a "village idiot" if he wishes but I can assure him that I am far more intelligent than he. I got my degree in the University of Evil and he didn't. Besides this thread was going along quite swimmingly until he decided to insert a note of malice aforethought.

In fact he went back and edited his harmless post to make it nasty and personal once I gave my opinion on the matter. If that is not against the rules here I don't know what is.

As for the opinion of psychiatrists they are of no consequence since all psychiatrists are madder than their patients.

mark lewis wrote:In fact he went back and edited his harmless post to make it nasty and personal once I gave my opinion on the matter. If that is not against the rules here I don't know what is.

I edited it for spelling.

mark lewis wrote:As for the opinion of psychiatrists they are of no consequence since all psychiatrists are madder than their patients.

Never a true word has been said. Psychologists, psychiatrists or whatever you want to call them.. they have serious issues that need resolving!!

Id say pull the camel foot out of your own eye before taking a peek at the splinter in mine!!

Tomo has been caught in an untruth. Shame on him. I saw with my very eyes his post where there was no mention of village idiots then later after I posted there was.

I would put a psychic curse on him if he weren't cursed already.

mark lewis wrote:Tomo has been caught in an untruth. Shame on him. I saw with my very eyes his post where there was no mention of village idiots then later after I posted there was.

I would put a psychic curse on him if he weren't cursed already.

Not everything is about you, you know...

Don't be silly. Of course it is.
And even it wasn't you have just made it so by your silly comment. If you don't want this thread to be about me then don't say things about village idiots.

I will concede however that you are an expert on village idiots. After all you see one every morning when you look in the mirror.

By I.D. Never a true word has been said. Psychologists, psychiatrists or whatever you want to call them.. they have serious issues that need resolving!!

"Psychologists, Psychiatrists" 2 totally different things. My sister is a Psychologist, and whilst she is mad, most of them aren't. Psychiatrists... different story.

Psychologists I have found relatively sane. Psychiatrists definitely not.

Did anyone esle see the stories about John Travolta and Psychiatry earlier this month?

NEW YORK (AP) - John Travolta says his thinking is in line with fellow
Scientologist Tom Cruise, who has publicly defended the religion's
stance against psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry.

Cruise, during a famously heated debate on NBC's "Today" show in 2005,
criticized Brooke Shields for taking anti-depression drugs and berated
host Matt Lauer for suggesting that psychiatric treatment might help
some patients.

"I don't disagree with anything Tom says," Travolta says in the July
issue of W magazine, on newsstands Friday. "How would I have presented
it? Maybe differently than how he did, but it doesn't matter. I still
think that if you analyze most of the school shootings, it is not gun
control. It is (psychotropic) drugs at the bottom of it."

"I don't want to create controversy; I just have an opinion on things,
and there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion if you are
asked," he continues. "Everyone wants that right, and because you are
famous doesn't mean you have less of a right."