talkmagic.co.uk

I think this is an interesting subject and hopefully it can be discussed without all the name calling on another thread. Let it be noted herewith that I am innocence personified as usual and no name calling was perpetrated by me.

I should point out to Darrel that the website in question has nothing to do with me whatsoever and is not that of Mark Lewis Entertainment. Here is the Mark Lewis Entertainment one: www.marklewisentertainment.com None of the alleged statements are here.

He is obviously talking about the site (now defunct I believe) of the producer of my psychic and hypnosis videos. Nothing to do with me old chap. I make no profit from that site and all the alleged statements by me weren't by me and neither was the interview of me. I was simply paid a fee for the use of my information and that was that. However I now sell a very few of these the courses privately but have refined them a bit and deleted all the useless extraneous information which was simply included for marketing purposes.

But to my point. I do NOT believe in the existence of hypnosis as a trance state or supposed altered state of conciousness. And neither do a lot of eminent psychologists and indeed stage hypnotists and hypnotherapists.

I shall post extracts of my book here which will put my point of view on the matter. For those of you who are interested in the sceptical point of view I would suggest reading "They Call it Hypnosis" by Robert Baker.

Anyway here is a little extract from my book which first gave me the inclination that the thing was pure baloney. I cannot name the person in question because he is still alive and working as a prominent hypnotherapist. In his day however he was considered to be the number one stage hypnotist of his time. In fact I would consider him to be one of the leading stage hypnotists of the twentieth century. Some of the more erudite among you will already know his name.
Here you are:
.........................................................................................................

Before I leave this topic I’d like to tell you a story. When I first started my performing career I asked a legendary stage hypnotist for advice. This fellow had retired from the stage and had become a hypnotherapist.

I looked him straight in the eye and asked him straight out “Are the people on stage really hypnotised? Are they really in some sort of altered state of consciousness or are they just kidding me and themselves?” My guru started to look uncomfortable and become evasive in his answers. However, I persisted and he gave in. He looked shiftily at his receptionist outside in the hallway then closed the door so she wouldn’t hear the conversation. He then looked at me and proceeded in a few sentences to explain the key to stage hypnotism. And it was probably the most profound lesson I had ever heard or will hear on the subject. This is what he said. “Look, I was a pioneer in this field. I was number one for about 30 years. In that 30 years I am quite sure I never hypnotized a single person on stage!”

This was quite a shock to me and although I had pushed for the answer I was nevertheless stunned to receive it. One of the most legendary stage hypnotists of all time had just, in so many words, told me he had been faking it for 30 years! After I recovered I asked him “Well, in that case, how do you make the people do all those crazy things?” He stared at me and then uttered the key revelation which opened up a new career for me. “You manipulate them, don’t you?” You do, of course “manipulate them” and I’ve been
manipulating them ever since.

You have a consciousness. It can be altered into other states. I think that is a fairly accepted idea in most psychology circles.

Hypnosis is NOT a state of being. Does hypnosis exist like many people think it does? No I do not think it does. But, I do think it is possible to change someones state of consciousness via all forms of communication. I appears to me possible to communicate people into states of consciousness that are more receptive to your suggestions than the state they were in prior to your communication. And I consider it possible to remove "conscious" barriers that might otherwise stop someone from carrying out an act they previously would not have done.

Is this manipulation? Or is this "hypnosis"? It most certainly is manipulation. But so is almost all communication. So is it hypnosis?

If what you are doing on stage, or in the therapy chair, or otherwise... works because the client (and possibly operator) believe what they are doing is hypnosis... does it really matter if it is or isn't?

Let me ask you this. If I go up to a person I do not know. If I do Milton Erickson's famous handshake induction. And the person stands there staring into space with hand held out in full catalepsy... and this person and I have had no previous conversation nor has anyone even mentioned hypnosis...

Is this person hypnotized?

If hypnosis doesn't exist in some form... what of the work of Milton Erickson?

I don't think hypnosis is what it is commonly thought of. Infact, I hate the word hypnosis and do not think it should be called that. I think of it as a tool to change the state of consciousness of those around you. But we do that all day everyday anyway. If we are aware of it or not.

To me, hypnosis is just highly effective communication.

I recently came across an article written by the people who wrote the book with the findings I mentioned in the other thread. While it is all very well finding people who believed they were faking it, or whatever, no matter what your view if you want to maintain a belief then you have to look into the new findings.

After all - and this is quite an exaggerated analogy, granted - centuries ago it was generally accepted that the Earth was flat. Of course we know that it is not flat now, and if such a person were to travel to this age and still proclaim the Earth to be flat we would point them in the direction of the evidence in support of the Earth being spherical (and not the centre of the universe).

My point is, they could go on claiming that the Earth was flat, all they wanted - but to maintain this position they really would have to look into the evidence in support of the Earth being spherical and refute that first.

As such, HERE is said article. It is primarily about why we dream - but as the article touches upon (and their monograph expands upon) there is plentiful evidence to show that the REM and Hypnotic State are essentially the same thing.

Mark I think you need to define what you mean by hypnosis before we can comment on it's existence.

I do NOT believe in the existence of hypnosis as a trance state or supposed altered state of conciousness

I think everyone has experienced trance state to some degree or another (day dreaming for example, driving home on "auto" pilot etc.) you can't deny these altered states exist, are you saying you don't believe one individual can induce them in another?

I'm a hypnotherapist and I don't do stage hypnosis. I'm inclined to the opinion that it's not possible to define hypnosis or trance because the terms are used to cover a number of different things. The trance which may or may not be used by a stage hypnotist is quite different from the deep relaxation which I normally induce in my consulting room, and in fact it serves a different purpose anyway. The trance which makes me miss my stop on the Tube if I'm engrossed in a book is yet another kind.

Barry

magicofthemind wrote:I'm a hypnotherapist and I don't do stage hypnosis. I'm inclined to the opinion that it's not possible to define hypnosis or trance because the terms are used to cover a number of different things. The trance which may or may not be used by a stage hypnotist is quite different from the deep relaxation which I normally induce in my consulting room, and in fact it serves a different purpose anyway. The trance which makes me miss my stop on the Tube if I'm engrossed in a book is yet another kind.

Barry

I couldn't agree more. I believe that altered states of consciousness do exist and can be induced by certain practicioners. However, is this hypnosis? This depends entirely on your definition of the word, as it is commonly used to refer to so many different things. I don't think that your question can be effectively answered without your definition of the term.

Mark, I had mentioned items from the "other" website at Magic Bunny, where I write as Magic Miles. In the thread from here, what I mentioned came from your site under press releases. HOWEVER, I am not going to push that. What I would like to say is thank you for your post here. It is an interesting, informative post on what you believe.
In the past, I have said that you have so much advice you can and have given, but it was too often written with snide comments. Yes, I do enjoy both reading and writing some myself. It was the amount that starts getting peoples backs up. This is not an apology, as I am happy that it may have contributed to the creation of this thread.
I can only echo your words and ask that the thread carries on in the manner that it has started.

Now to the topic.
For me, the idea of hypnotism isn't clear cut. Do I believe that someone can be put under a trance in a deep sleep? Not as such. Can someone have suggestions made to make them THINK they are in such a state? Yes. Now the fact and fiction parts get obscured. When drug trials are undertaken, placebos are given. As some of the people on these make better recovery than people on drugs, do we count that power of persuasion to be the same as hypnotists claim to have? People will say no, but how far are the two methods actually away from each other?

One last question. Although I would think it isn't legal to try to hypnotise children nowadays, was this attempted in the past? If so, what ratio felt they were in a hypnotised state compared to adults? I'm not sure if that is relevant, but am just thinking out loud about the whole power of suggestion factor.

magicofthemind wrote:I'm a hypnotherapist and I don't do stage hypnosis. I'm inclined to the opinion that it's not possible to define hypnosis or trance because the terms are used to cover a number of different things. The trance which may or may not be used by a stage hypnotist is quite different from the deep relaxation which I normally induce in my consulting room, and in fact it serves a different purpose anyway. The trance which makes me miss my stop on the Tube if I'm engrossed in a book is yet another kind.

Barry

I agree too. I must say that I have little experiece in this area, other than making classmates hands get stuck to desks, which isn't really the same thing.
Derren Brown writes extensively on the topic in his book Tricks of the Mind, and his view is similar to that of Barry, which is the only idea I am really able to fine believeable.
The most important factors in my opinion are those of social compliance, exceptancy and the confidence of the performer.

People can be put into a trance state irrespective of whether they believe they are going into one or not when you understand why it works; if you're scientifically minded, see the article I linked to above .

Thanks Cardza.

Your answer does give rise to a couple of other questions.

Do performers use the "excuse" that he needs to pick several people, as some can't be hypnotised as either: a way to make the end hypnosis effect stronger. IE, that person MUST be hypnotised, as they wouldn't be ysed otherwise. Or is it just a way of rooting out anyone that could prove troublesome.

I know you have said that anybody CAN be put in a trance, but am interested in hearing the explanaition from those who don't believe this is the case. Mark, this is genuine, as you have performed hypnotism, shall we say "acts", while saying it doesn't exist, perhaps you would be a good person to answer this.

By the way, I don't feel you need to believe in hypnotism to perform it. Who believes in real magic?
You just need to believe in your own ability to perform.

No worries...just to clarify my point before Mark replies, I do hold that anyone (whose mind is functioning properly of course) can be put into a hynpotic state with some induction methods provided they follow along; others only tend to work with the right people (read 'suggestive').

Whatever you believe about hypnosis (and I think the reality has been somewhat clouded by films, etc), it certainly possible to influence people with extreme suggestion.
Look at the power of the media and perfectly normal individuals that join cults, etc.
It all depends on the person and their frame of mind, but to dismiss hypnosis is an opinion anyone is entitled to, but to dismiss those who are interested/believe in it is just plain arrogant.
Hypnosis has been about in some form or other for hundreds of years and although it is not as powerful as it is portrayed in novels and films, there is certainly something in it, as there is in brainwashing.
You certainly need to be someone with a commanding and powerful presence to pull it off and also be a quick-thinking word weaver. A nervous, bumbling person could not put anyone in a state of suggestion.
Look at someone llike Hitler who could influence so many. When people are confronted with a powerful presence, strong body language and quick fire commands, their brain often seems to submit to it.
whether this is actual hypnosis as commonly defined or extreme influence, we, that's open to debate.

Lord Freddie wrote: but to dismiss those who are interested/believe in it is just plain arrogant.

True, but this is a fresh thread where this argument has been put aside. Forget the other threads. This has been a very good discussion, which I hope will continue.

I must inform Darrell that he hasn't read my press release properly. I suggest he tries again. I did NOT say that 75% of my hypnosis was real. I said that 75% of my psychic ability is real. Psychic ability and hypnosis are two different things.

Furthermore I said that people should go to hypnotherapists because I think they should. Hypnosis is indeed bunkum but very useful bunkum and I believe a benefit to mankind. It is not a panacea but a very useful therapeutic tool which can aid in smoking cessatio, weight loss, stammering, nail biting, stress relief and many more maladies. However it is the relaxation and the power of suggestion along with a strong placebo effect which is causing the positive results rather than the non existent "hypnosis"

It you are tut-tutting simply because the evil Mark Lewis is suggesting this then perhaps you will cease tut-tutting when I tell you that Dr Graham Wagstaff, Nicholas Spanos, Theodore Sarbin, Irving Kirsch, William C Coe, Theodore Barber and many other eminent psychologists who are leaders in their fields also believe just as I do. They will state the matter in more tactful and fancy psychological language but when it all boils down to it they are simply saying just like I do that IT IS A LOAD OF COBBLERS.

There are lots of people who require education on this thread. I cannot possibly answer them all because I am a very busy and important person. However I will post more extracts from my wondrous book to give you an idea of what I personally think "hypnosis" is.

And now here is an extract from my book which will give you an idea how I view these matters:

..........................................................................................................


Let me explain what I believe happens on stage. I can’t speak for what happens in one to one therapy situations since that is not where my level of expertise lies at the present time. I believe that the people who come up on stage all do what they do for different reasons. One person may be an exhibitionist and love showing off, still another may be desirous of experiencing the hypnotic state for reasons of curiosity, another again may be interested because he or she has a weight problem or wishes to give up smoking and is wondering whether an insight into hypnosis will help, still another is simulating a trance state because he wants to please the hypnotist. To go off on a temporary tangent, with regard to this simulation of hypnosis, I treat such volunteers according to their acting ability. If they are good actors and really look as if they are hypnotized I will keep them on stage; if they are bad actors that give the appearance of faking it I will send them back to the audience.

Anyway my point is that people have all sorts of reasons for doing things on stage. Very often, I believe the subjects con themselves into believing that they are hypnotized. Self delusion, basically. They think they are hypnotized and they consequently act in a manner that they think hypnotized people would be expected to act in. This is helped along by the unfamiliar stage situation and environment. They are in a stage of hypnosis because they believe they are! Of course all this may be a matter of semantics and this state of self delusion is in and of itself, hypnosis. I was once criticized for this theory. A state theorist said I was being too simplistic. Perhaps so, but often obvious truths tend to be quite simple. Intellectuals sometimes can’t see the wood for the trees.

Anyway, the important thing from an entertainer’s point of view is that hypnosis works on stage. People will do strange things for whatever reason. It is not really the concern of the entertainer whether the word “hypnosis” should be in inverted commas or not. I would recommend the student study and read all he can about the subject so he can form his own theories but in the end, for practical purposes it doesn’t really matter a whole lot. The key thing is to put on a good show.