talkmagic.co.uk

Very well put I think. The only thing that surprises me (pleasantly I may add) is your statement that many or perhaps even most people that practice it professionally believe it is a load of baloney (although of course you put it more politely than that!).

I had always thought that most practicioners were on Cardza's side. I am amused to find they are not. I know that 50% of stage hypnotists believe in it including Lord Freddie. It is of course no coincidence that all the legendary and most prominent people in the business believe it is bunkum.

I certainly agree that a stage hypnotist does not have to read all the psychological and technical stuff. I did in the beginning and I actually believe that it retarded my progress. In my upcoming book on the subject I will be cutting out all reference to that stuff because I believe it hinders rather than helps.

The fact that Jae does this professionally bears out my comments to Cardza that knowing who the poster is DOES have more bearing on the matter. I am far more inclined to listen to his arguments because of his credentials. Besides he mostly agrees with me so it is perfectly obvious that he is a genius of the highest order.

The row seems to have cooled so I'd just like to add my support to the position Jae has put forward.

I'm a qualified hypnotherapist of several years standing and have dabbled with stagework. IMHO his post is one of the most succinct and sensible that I have read in a while.

I also approach it from a nonstate viewpoint and consider that a great deal of misunderstanding is indeed the result of believing hypnosis to be an effect in it's own right. My personal experience and understanding is rather that "hypnosis" is better seen more as a label that encompasses various known psychological processes based on expectation, belief, conformity, etc. It is the degree and ratio of each that dictates the suggestibility of individual subjects and any "hypnotic" success - either on stage or in a therapy room, or even in life in general.

Is hypnosis baloney? I'd say not by virtue of the effects and personal changes that can result by the use of "hypnotic" techniques. Most people simply aren't interested in any underlying known psychology so hypnosis is as good an umbrella term to use as any - these underlying principles undeniably exist after all. As long as clients/subjects want and believe in the process and one can promote suitable conviction of desired aims then, within limits, it's usage can rightly be seen as working.

Whilst the general population's belief from the likes of DB's (excellent) shows that hypnosis is some mysterious mind control force is in reality deeply misguided, it is that very belief that gives hypnosis it's "power" in the first place!

Jon.

Further confirmation of my genius status!
My Mother always believed in me and I am a member of MENSA.


To slightly clarify what I said; there is a difference between psychologists and therapists. In the world of hypnotherapy practitioners are generally believers in the trance state and that there is some weird, mystic thing which happens re hypnosis. Psychologists, psychotheraists and others of a more medical background etc tend to have a majority opinion against the notion. That said from my experience so I can't or rather am not inclined to provide proof for this. The latter group tend to use 'hypnosis' as one of a number of tools whereas a hypnotherapist only has the one hammer... unless they divert into one of the many and varied other 'therapies' out there.

This division comes in part from the training received. I don't wish to unduly knock many excellent hypnotherapists but they are invariably trained by someone who believes in the theory because that is how they were trained and so on back down the line and because they have no reason or don't question what they are told beliefs appear to become facts. There are also some highly profitable training establishments and organisations out there who do know the reality but would rather retain their 'credibility' and profits. Many counselling type courses latch on to the idea of incorporating hypnosis and unfortunately most go for the popularist route as it best suits their interests and how most counsellors prefer to work.

People will probably remain polarized as to which side of the debate they wish to accept irrespective of any comments in an obscure little corner like this so its probably not worth arguing or discussing technicalities, semantics etc here - especially on a Magic rather than medical or therapy forum.

If you want to incorporate what appears to be hypnosis into your act or repertoire none of this need bother you at all; likewise the Hypnotism Act (though you can belt & braces yourself quite easily). I'll happily organise a course if there is sufficient interest.

I don't want to get involved in whether Hypnotism is "real" or not... all I'd like to add that many years ago (when I was in my youth) I found a small book offering to teach hypnotism. Being innocent I read it and then went forth and tried.

Initially I had mixed results buit as I figured out what worked and what didn't the results got better. The culmination was sticking a friend to the floor (during which time he missed the last bus home).

Now I have no idea whether this was hypnotism, suggestion or anything else all I know is that for a while I could do this to "certain" people (with some it worked.. with others nothing). It also took me over half an hour in a quiet place to get them "hypnotised" so there was no practical quick "magic" application..

I let this lapse many years ago (like 20 or so) and haven't done anything since but for a while I could stick some people to the floor (after a lengthy period of whatever I was doing (suugestion, hypnotism.. whatever)).

So from my point of view I did get some results.. as to whether this was hypnotism, NLP or anything else.. I have no idea.. all I know is that something worked.

Slippery