talkmagic.co.uk

Mark, don't be ridiculous. How you can know all the facts when you haven't read all the facts is beyond me. You're a stage hypnotist. These people are psychologists. You may come back with some witty retort about psychologists being barmy, but that doesn't further your argument whatsoever.

I've PM'd you... best to make sure it suits your requirements first after all as I feel that this is just a debate between us two now.

I fear that the debate is Mark Vs the rest of the world, not really hypnosis as such.
So sad to become that bitter...

Wow!

Well I don't want to get drawn into the middle of this one, so instead will simply offer the following link to an excellent site that gives the various theories from a scientific (no BS) position:

http://www.hypnosisandsuggestion.org/index.html


Magic Chris - I know of this London course but can't offer any opinion of it:

http://www.stagehypnosis.uk.com/

Jon.

I hate to tell Lord Freddie this but I happen to know that Paul Mc'Kenna doesn't believe in hypnosis either!

As for "psychologists" I can list quite a number of them that support my position and I have already listed them in the past.

I DO know all the facts. I am MARK LEWIS. I have studied "hypnosis" extensively including the state theorists. Furthermore I am a master psychologist myself and in fact from a street wise point of view I am actually superior to those university psychologists who have never had to steal for a living.

mark lewis wrote:I hate to tell Lord Freddie this but I happen to know that Paul Mc'Kenna doesn't believe in hypnosis either!

As for "psychologists" I can list quite a number of them that support my position and I have already listed them in the past.

I DO know all the facts. I am MARK LEWIS. I have studied "hypnosis" extensively including the state theorists. Furthermore I am a master psychologist myself and in fact from a street wise point of view I am actually superior to those university psychologists who have never had to steal for a living.

Steal, maybe not. Lie - most definitley!
I love the way you put words in the mouths of people like Paul McKenna.
In your own little arrogrant way, you're quite delusional.

If you were the maestro that you claimed to be then it would be your name that woud be a household one & you wouldn't have to hire a car or rent accomodation. The fruits of your success would be there for all to see.

Keep on rattling away in your little padded cell... no one is listening.

Since I do more shows in a month than Lord Freddie does in a year I rather think my credibility is somewhat superior to his.

I will be performing for 8 weeks in Latin America whereas Lord Freddie would be lucky to be travelling to Balham social club.

mark lewis wrote:Since I do more shows in a month than Lord Freddie does in a year I rather think my credibility is somewhat superior to his.

I will be performing for 8 weeks in Latin America whereas Lord Freddie would be lucky to be travelling to Balham social club.

Quality not quantity old boy. Surely if you were as busy as you claimed, then you wouldn't have time to frequent every forum on the net that you can find?

Self-hypnosis folks - it works! A penniless, pensionable, bachelor has managed to auto-suggest to himself that he's talented, wealthy and successful!

Emile Coue would be delighted...

I am going to ignore Lord Freddie since his only argument seems to be personal abuse. Instead I am going to concentrate on the fellow with the rather odd name of Carza who at least is trying to discuss the subject at hand in what he imagines is an intellectual manner.

He has sent me private messages regarding this and I have no idea why he doesn't just put it on here for everyone to argue about. Here is his missive to me:
..........................................................................................................

Here it is - please, drop the bravado. If you're really interested and wish to maintain your position then this is the evidence you need to disprove; it's all throughly explained in the articles but if there is anything you don't understand let me know.

I don't carry on this as an ego thing but rather because I worry about people getting the wrong impression about it and thinking it's okay to mess around with it when it's really not. If you can show me evidence utterly disproving this I will happily concede.

What's really relevant is this:

Taken from this article:

Joe Griffin and Ivan Tyrrell wrote:
All mammals are programmed with species-appropriate instinctive behaviours during REM sleep while still fetuses in the womb. REM sleep accounts for a high proportion of sleep in fetuses and newborns and drops off markedly as an organism starts to mature. The laying down of instinctive templates at these times explains all our species-specific behaviours, such as birds' ability to know what materials to use to build nests, wild animals' ability to recognise a predator, and babies' knowledge of the need to locate the nipple and to search out human faces to establish bonding.

But these instinctive patterns cannot be too specific. They need to be flexible enough to enable them to be completed in different ways in different environments.

So a human baby will accept the teat of a bottle from which to take milk; baby birds will recognise a range of the kinds of sounds that their parents may make and infants will be able to speak the language that they hear around them, whatever it is. The more complex the life form, the more rich and varied are the instinctive templates laid down and the more flexibility available to it to complete the pattern in the environment.

The pattern-matching process is, then, an instinctive part of human brain functioning. It is behind our natural inclination to describe one thing in terms of another ("Such and such is like ...") and express ourselves in metaphor.


Taken from this article:

Joe Griffin and Ivan Tyrrell wrote:
It provides the first scientific explanation for hypnosis (showing that the REM state and the state known as hypnosis are one and the same).


This is what's really relevant here; it's very hard to summarise because it ties in with many other areas of psychology: dreaming, psychoses, learning - which is why the implications of their work is having a great beneficial impact upon those in therapy.

Basically: the REM state is where our brain is quite literally programmed before birth - this programming allows us to function as human beings. When you hypnotise somebody you are accessing the REM state externally.

So when you give somebody a post-hypnotic suggestion and they later act upon it, they are not just playing along - they are carrying out a programme, just as when you get angry that is the anger drive instilled in you before birth being run out.

That's what's relevant. The articles and the books go into far greater depth and cite their references etc.

Indeed, dreaming every night occurs within the REM state and serves to keep any activated drives which we have not acted upon that day intact by metaphorically experiencing them as the dream - I refer you to this article for further information.

And here is my reply:

"I don't need to prove anything. You do. And so far you haven't. I shall have a look at all this gobbledook but you should have posted it on the main forum. I far prefer an audience. Nature of the beast I am afraid."

I then read the waffle and sent him another response thus:

"I have now read it and all I see is baloney. Just statements without any evidence whatever for those statements.
My evidence is overwhelming. It is called common sense."

And finally his reply to me
..........................................................................................................

Whatever Mark. It makes perfect sense. How you can't understand it is beyond me. The support is out there in the world in thousands of instances. If you want to deny the existence of hypnosis then you have to deny the existence of the REM state. (By the way, in the articles those little numbers in square brackets - [] - refer to the end of the article where resources are cited.)

To be honest, your arguments are so awful they're not even worth refuting. You're swimming against the tide.

I didn't expect you to be able to accept it easily though, someone who has spent much of his life fervently believing a lie - promoting it by word of mouth, on forums and video tapes. Just don't go propagating your unsubstantiated claims.

I'd rather believe the empirical evidence of modern psychologists than a stage hypnotist any day. Hard to accept Mark, but I think you'll find most others would as well.
..........................................................................................................

I shall respond to this person by saying that it is stage hypnotists that have kept the interest in "hypnosis" alive. However it is not just stage hypnotists who say "hypnosis" is claptrap. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of "modern psychologists" say it as well. If Cardza wishes to appear as an intellectual I suggest he contacts Dr Graham Wagstaff of Liverpool University for a start. He can show his supposed "new evidence" to Dr Wagstaff and ask him to comment upon it. If Dr Wagstaff exhibits a change of mind over the matter then I shall have another look. He may even know about it already. Psychology professors have more interest in reading this kind of claptrap than I do. They may even have the time.

However the point is that I do this stuff for a living. Cardza doesn't. Or if he does he should tell us. We have no idea who he is. It might help his credibility if he gives us some background as to who or what he is. Is he a college student (which I suspect from his persistent eagerness and naivety) or a hypnotherapist? Is he a high school kid or a professor with degrees? Is he a professional entertainer (which I doubt) or something more sedate? Is he a learned 60 year old or a 13 year old kid who read a book and believes every word in it because it is full of big words?

You all know who I am. We don't know who Cardza is. Explanation please.

The book Human Givens actually addresses Wagstaff's research.

It's probably best as well to include the links to the original article as well: http://www.hgi.org.uk/archive/articlesondreaming.htm .

Who I am is irrelevant. I am not 60. I am not 13. I do work as an entertainer part-time. Psychology is not a professional pursuit of mine but it is something I read a lot about and speak to people in the industry - stage hypnotists, therapists, psychologists - and have been for years. The psychology of sleep and dreaming particularly fascinates me as does biological psychology.

What is relevant is the research. Attempting to undermine me Lewis does not change that. If I were a newborn who didn't speak a word of English it would not change the fact that the research is what is relevant. I did not conduct it, thus who I am has no bearing on it.

The conclusions they have put forward is current. If empirical research - not bits and piece of experiments conducted decades ago, or a stage hypnotist's denial of it all - disproves these findings I will happily concede. Oh, and yes, lots and lots and lots of modern psychologists may not believe in hypnosis; but unless they have read this research and can explain why they do not believe in it, or have evidence showing that this research must be flawed, their belief is neither here nor there. It's the common sense approach.

Mark, you seem to have a lot of contacts, I'm sure you know a few professional psychologists. Ask them to give the information a look over and see what they say. Perhaps that will convince you.

Oh, and about my eagerness - I have no concern as to what you believe. It's when you start

Who you are is VERY important. I am far more likely to listen to the wafflings of a learned professor than I am of an 18 year old college student. Even if I didn't agree with the learned professor I might be more inclined to examine his hypothesis. For example if a well known state theorist and considered expert in the field were to come on here and state his case I would still argue with him but because of his status I might be more inclined to examine what he had to say.\

You must remember that I completed my studies in this years ago. It is quite dull and uninteresting stuff to me and I did it because I had to. I no longer have to and I don't want to subject myself to boring myself to death with it all over again. I exhibit mild curiosity about the stuff but little else at this stage. I have to make a living and what I do works and works well.

I have to be practical and the most practical way of performing stage hypnosis is to proceed with the knowledge that it is a load of baloney. Aspiring stage hypnotists will learn a lot faster with that attitude. As for the ridiculous supposition put forward by Cardza that great harm will befall the subjects with my supposed uneducated approach I can assure him that I have never been sued and my subjects have all come out unscathed over thousands of performances. Since they weren't scathed in the first place it wasn't hard to unscathe them.

When my book on stage hypnosis finally comes out it will be far more useful to aspiring entertainers than the book that Cardza propagates with such enthusiasm. Please consider this post as pre hype advertising and hopefully all the usual suspects will jump up and down in great indignation which of course will further sales of the great tome in question.

I never said that YOU were harming your participants; rather that carelessness can. The evidence is all there to show that this is the case.

I think the debate has run its course... I've provided links to the research I mentioned (which in turn provide sources of further support) and you, well, you've said it's not true - people can make up their own minds.

I am nobody notable by your terms. I still know what I talk about, and it means I did not approach the research I mention with any biases: I've switched between the two sides - the evidence I found here I found to be pretty conclusive, especially how it related to other aspects of what I know. I'm certainly not the kind of person to stick to one position no matter what.

As to who's correct, well, as ever, time will tell...

As long as we all have differing views on what represents "hypnosis" this debate will continue. all the better since I find it interesting.

however, just to clarify, if we are refering to the poor souls who get up on stage and "theoretically" (beyond their control or even conciousness) believe themselves to be farm animals... I am forced to draw from that most entertaining of stage hypnotists Derren Brown who says... and I paraphrase here... "it's TOTAL c*** (not the best)!".

I was loathe to enter the fray whilst this pair battled it out but as someone who manages a very well respected business which amongst other things provides psychological help to private individuals and corporate clients which at times utilises 'hypnosis', ie I use it almost every day in some form or another I support Mark in what he is saying.

I really don't see how or why such threads crop up in a "Magic" forum as they really belong in the those catering for therapists etc. On the stage front all you need to know is that there is some skulduggery afoot; all is not as it appears. You don't need to learn how to hypnotise people in order to create the stage hypnotism effects you want. Many of the courses will happily fleece you blind, bombard you with all manner of hokum and extraneous information (in many cases highly suspect information) etc. Find a practicing stage hypnotist and persuade them to tell you how its done. Suitable amounts of cash and the promise to keep your mouth shut and not work in their area may help there.

I've studied the Human Givens approach and I like it; it's easy and quite a straight-forward approach which works with most people. It is a counselling method and not dependent upon hypnosis. I've not read the particular book being quoted so can't comment on that.

Hypnosis is fundamentally the invoking of imagination (usually visual) and peoples beliefs or desire to believe. Yes, there is very conclusive hard fact evidence demonstrating exactly which parts of the brain are responding to 'hypnotic' stimuli and a large amount of neurological data and papers acknowledging physical as well as psychological effects. Do not, however, fall into the trap of believing that the evidence produced is evidence that hypnosis exists as anything other than the mind accessing and addressing imagination, belief, understanding processes etc. To some this may constitute hypnosis, however, neurobiologists and eminent others in related fields generally do not hold with this. There is a measurable change in brain activity but the same or very similar can be recreated without recourse to hypnotising the patient using other psychological methods. The only information with credibility is that written in the formal medical and scientific publications where set standards have to be upheld. Books and other sources may have valid ideas but I'm afraid they do not count as evidence.

Mark is wrong, in my opinion, to totally refute that 'hypnosis' exists but only as it is a handy term to use when we convince people they are going into a relaxed state, for them to visualise etc etc and there are close links with sleep and dreaming here. The problem with hypnosis is that what most people generally believe it to be is complete rubbish and the term is open to so many different interpretations (intentionally so). He is also wrong to suggest that no harm can come from people using 'hypnosis'. I say that because anyone who sets out to play with their own or others' minds is quite likely to cause themselves or their victims some disturbance and harm. Nothing to do with hypnosis just that you would not want someone who did not know what they were doing play with the brakes on your car, an amateur surgeon perform heart surgery on you and so on. Only people who have trained and are aware of the potential psychological effects should be playing about with peoples brains. That is the therapy side of things. Mark is, however, absolutely correct in stating that stage hypnosis can in no way be considered dangerous unless someone gets over excited and falls off the stage. I obviously don't walk in the same circles as Mark so won't quote anyone but I do know many people who have been famously or professionally connected with hypnosis agree that there is no such thing at least as per what people generally believe it to be.

If you are looking to perform stage hypnosis be under no illusion that it is all cleverly crafted manipulation and that your 'volunteers' will either comply with instructions or not comply with instructions. It is a skill and you will need to be good at reading people if you want to be good at it. I'm tempted to say that the stage use is probably more difficult than the therapeutic use but only because clients requesting therapy tend to already want to believe in the effect and can more readily be convinced that physiological changes are psychological (thereby achieving the desired psychological effect). to learn stage hypnosis watch a few videos of others performing, get some practical training with a stage hypnotist and forget about any of the technical books as you won't need them.

I have had clients tell me that they enjoyed and benefited from my hypnotising them when I had done nor attempted to do any such thing; likewise I've had others tell me nothing other than corroboration of the fact that they were not hypnotised when we've gone through the motions of 'putting them under' so to speak. I really don't care either way what they believe so long as they benefited; I'll deploy a wide array of methods in order to help my clients.

I have been working in this field for over 20 years so believe I have a sound background of experience to base my opinions upon. I still read new literature on and off to keep abreast of what others believe but am yet to see anything to prove the existence of states of trance or mans ability to control another other than through the use of 'brain washing' techniques and those take us into very different territory.

If people wish to believe there is more to hypnosis, NLP and several other related 'ideas' so be it - it helps me that many of my clients will respond to what they believe to be my use of such methods and everyone has a right to read the facts and then make their own informed decisions. I'll just caution that it is nigh impossible to read everything which comes out on this subject; that most information is dubious and even if wrapped up as such has little scientific credibility; that some respected people really do believe in trance state hypnosis; that many (most?) who use it on a daily or professional level don't believe in it except as a term to explain a process.