(Close Window)
Topic: Why does hypnosis work?
Message: Posted by: hypnokid (Apr 20, 2011 03:55AM)
Hello

I didn't want to bump a week-old thread so thought I would start a new one.

If you have an idea of why hypnosis works, and can fit it into three or less short paragraphs (going for hand wavy statements rather than the devil in the detail), and are happy to share, then let's have it.

It would also be interesting to know why you think you believe what you do ref hypnosis.

Many thanks

HK
Message: Posted by: hypnokid (Apr 20, 2011 04:18AM)
It might be bad form to reply to your own post, but heh.

One of my many questions is does trance exist or was it jus invented by a scientist somewhere? I mean, is it like a philosophy or is it like physics? Is there any proof?

HK
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Apr 20, 2011 04:48AM)
Hypnokid, I would be a firm believer that trance does not exist, outside of being in a coma. Up until a few weeks ago I was of the view that hypnosis itself does not exist, but I have had my eyes opened a bit.

I believe that the key to it is social compliance. People find themselves in a situation and respond to the suggestions through politeness and a desire not to be awkward. But there seems to be a bit more to it than that; at some point their compliance becomes automatic. They stop thinking they will play along, and begin responding automatically to the suggestions. At that point you have hypnosis.

I don't believe you ever have trance. I have seen no evidence for it in more than a decade of doing this. I know that will be controversial, but I am not saying it to get up anyone's nose. It is my genuine belief, and it has not limited my performance of hypnosis.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 20, 2011 06:19AM)
Isn't social compliance just a fancy term for trance? To be honest Tony most people don't think they are playing along most think they have been hypnotised. that's my experience anyway. And the ones that say they were playing along are lucky if they remember 20% of what they supposedly played along to. I believe those people can't admit they were under the control of someone and claim they played along.

Coma and Trance have no connection so Im not sure why you bring the two together. I really think like most people who don't believe in trance you have the wrong idea of what it is in the first place. I don't believe in whatever you think it is either...

Now you have had an eye opener or should it be eye closer? Just goes to show you cannot base reality on your experience alone. Since reality has now been modified for you. Its possible that reality is even more skewed than you first thought.

I also get the feeling that you enjoy being a contranarian and its one of your "metaprogrammes" the way you filter reality.

that's the big problem with being a "hypnotist" who earned from a book. You don't have enough personal experience to really understand what it is you are supposed to be.

You should seek more training your eyes will be opened a LOT more.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Apr 20, 2011 06:41AM)
MP, I hate to say it but you may be right. And I do agree that most people don't think they have been playing along. That's the weird thing - they feel a compulsion to do what you tell them. But I don't believe any altered state is involved. They can be wide awake and feel the compulsion, as I did when I was hypnotised recently. It was a bizarre feeling, but I was fully in the room and able to chat and discuss what was going on, even though I couldn't change what was happening. So in that sense I was not in a trance.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 20, 2011 08:01AM)
There is a clue "they can be wide awake" as opposed to asleep or comatized? Its a clue that the construction you have for what trance is---isn't what trance really is.

Consider the following Happy love vs angry hate.... These are two "states" and opposite ends of the spectrum. There are dozens of states in between ,, indifference, enthusiastic,bemused, curious,elatated,confident,unconfident etc etc etc...

These are ALL undeniable states but none of them would cover the "state" experienced by those on stage with a hypnotist being highly susceptable to suggestion. An altered sate is simply one of which where we are susceptible to suggestion a place where our senses are turned inwards and our imaginitive faculties are stimulated higher than usual. Its nothing to do with being asleep or out of the box.

Its this "state" that allows suggestion to be of thereaputic value by changing behaviour and attitudes that would otherwise be difficult to move. It is the same "state" that enables volunteers on stage to be in a position whereby they respond to suggestion. And remember different people have different levels of responding. Don't judge the whole of reality by your one experience. There are "somnabulists" that cannot resist the process and will do almost anything you ask them and have no recollection afterwards.

Trance itself is something a litle more subtle. We live in a trance.

For example last night I started my first golf programme. 4 wealthy golfers. One was ready to retire but has problems with freezing on the golf course. After a few questions it becomes clear that his biggest fear is when he retires he won't be able to enjoy golf. Now he live in this problem "trance" 24 hours aday and has done for the last 3 years. And guess what it is also his "reality" he freezes on the course ( used to be a very good player) and he dreads retiring a thing that should be something to look forward to.
Yet he "reahearses" over and over in his mind this awful retirement and this awful problem he has on the course everytime before he plays...

He has no conscious control over these mental programmes NONE whatsoever. He is in a problem "trance"...This all a trance is. We are constantly moving n and out a number of trances each and every day all of us. We are going to build a more appropriate trance for him and install it so he looks forward to his retirement and the problems he has now become nothing but a distant memory...

Yep I deal in designer trances.//

that's what trance really is. Nothing more. You read this post you hear my voice imgane the tonality see my facial expressions. We all do this online to make up for the limitations and missing information in a cold collection of typed in text. Sometimes we carry on the "debates" afterwards in our heads and have to come back to write our reply. These are all trances we go in and out of trance by the very activity of being on here.

However simple it may seem trance dtermines our behaviour what we are willing to do and not do...

Great orators have known this for centuries and are master hypnotists as are great marketers. Its all about trance.
Message: Posted by: Owen Mc Ginty (Apr 20, 2011 08:46AM)
I have to say I agree 100% with Mindpunisher on this one.
I think the social compliance theory is utter bo**ocks. I´ve been willingly hypnotized once, but as I was given the suggestions I felt no pressure to comply and made absolutely no conscious effort to comply.
I almost burst out laughing as I noticed that my body was responding to the suggestions.

I can get people to respond to suggestions (apparently unconsciously) and they are suprised and amazed at their own physical response.... this combined with my own experience makes me believe that people don´t simply consciously respond to avoid making the hypnotist appear to fail.

I think if you believe hypnosis is simply social compliance then you are missing out on the tremendous power that hypnosis as a tool can provide for helping people (change work).

Wether or not trance exists depends on your definition. I personally think it exists, however I reckon trance is a hypnotic phenomenon, and NOT hypnosis = trance.
Some people will slip remarkably easily into trance, but that doesn´t guarantee they will display other hypnotic phenomenon. Plenty of books will give you signs of what the authors consider to be trance.

Whether or not you believe in trance is only important if you make it important. It can be a useful model, but there are many other useful models. No-one invented trance, they just came up with a definition.

Bandler and Grinder mention in one of their books (I can´t remember which one) that they do not pretend to wield the one universal truth, but rather they talk about models and patterns which "work for them". That is not to say they will work for everyone.

I believe what I believe regarding hypnosis because I have taken models and theories and applied them, tested them. I keep what I consider to be useful, and discard models and information which I consider hold me back.

I recommend that you build your beliefs on what you have seen and experienced yourself, not on what other people tell you (yeah ironic me telling you what you should believe whilst at the same time telling you not to believe everything you´re told by others eh?).
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Apr 20, 2011 01:01PM)
MP, your definition of trance is too broad for me. It is so broad as to be virtually meaningless to me. I see a trance as a distinctly altered state, and I see no evidence for that in hypnosis.
Owen, I have been doing hypnosis for more than a decade, so my views are based on observation. I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe in an altered state. I also have doubts about whether the whole induction process increases someone's suggestibility. I think it is a conscious decision at the start of the process to accept or not accept suggestion. If they consciously decide to accept suggestion, hypnosis results. If they don't, it doesn't. No change in state is necessary.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 20, 2011 01:11PM)
Your a complete waste of time Tony...

I guess I will save it for someone who can benefit. We do very little on a conscious level anyway but Im not even giong to bother. Its obvious you won't be able to get it. Thing is your current trance and perception isn't even a conscious decision its an unconscious programe.

Im curious what you actually think an altered state is..

No on second thoughts spare us..
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 20, 2011 01:14PM)
I would say social compliance is a big componant. I would also say expectation is another very large part.

"Hypnosis" (for the lack of a better term) works for the same reason that money is valuable. Money is valuable because the government says it is and we believe it is. Same with hypnosis. You say it will work and the person believes you.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Apr 20, 2011 02:16PM)
MP, if I am in a trance I don't feel I should be able to engage with the world the way I am doing now. You have a different definition of trance (no less valid than mine, I'm sure) and that is where our difficulty lies. Face to face we probably would agree - but not before scoring a few points off each other! Cheers.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 20, 2011 07:18PM)
I can't be arsed with scoring points no more on here that's old and lost its appeal. It was fun for a while though. I was trying to share something with you. And the things that can be done with hypnosis when you adopt some of the more subtle theories and definitions. And not just stage or performance hypnosis. To be honest they no longer hold any fascination for me only a means to make money should the right opportunity arise.

Obviously its what you want to get out of it but I would get more "experiences" like the one you had with Ant through training or whatever it may well change your views.
Message: Posted by: bobser (Apr 20, 2011 07:48PM)
I found these arguments interesting many years ago, then boring as I rolled with what I knew and what I experienced.
I find them entirely fascinating now. And that's because I suspect that everyone might be correct.
I don't think hypnosis is one dimensional. Rather it's on a vast spectrum with lots of parts linked and maybe even unlinked yet racing to the same sweet spot.
I think all your arguments might be like many tributaries, totally different yet all heading towards the same massive river.
At this point in time I'm in love with Tony's arguments. I completely GET IT. He's simply reporting what happened. He was approached (in a hypnotic class) and didn't want to seem bad mannered, liking the approacher and deciding to kinda' go along (no harm done). Hence we have a form of social compliance (no sign of trance). BUT at some point he consciously decides "no". And discovers that he's in some kind of strange loop (my words) where he 'obeys' the hypnotist. I don't like the word obey but it seems to fit perfectly. Indeed arguably 'wants' to obey.
But although I'm comfortable with this (he went through it and is not lying), I can see other ways, based on MY experience, that others fall into this same stuff. This is NOT simple. Nobody knows ALL about this. But to learn I think you 'have to be' open to others' experiences and explanations.

In closing although I'm happy that trance is NOT necessary for hypnosis I am also happy that I have observed many many times where it is in fact fully operational. No doubt in any way shape or form. Sooooo..... I have no idea why some of you guys argue with each other that your belief is the only one. I just don't get it!!!
Message: Posted by: Owen Mc Ginty (Apr 21, 2011 06:51AM)
[quote]
Nobody knows ALL about this.
[/quote]

Bang on Bobser!
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Apr 21, 2011 07:55AM)
Bob, you hit the nail on the head. MP, I am open to new experiences and to changing my view if the new experiences warrant it. In the last few weeks there has been a fairly radical (from my point of view) change in my opinion about what's going on. Keep throwing out the pearls of wisdom. The ground is not as fallow as you might imagine.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 21, 2011 08:26AM)
>>>>I don't think hypnosis is one dimensional. Rather it's on a vast spectrum with lots of parts linked and maybe even unlinked yet racing to the same sweet spot.
I think all your arguments might be like many tributaries, totally different yet all heading towards the same massive river.
At this point in time I'm in love with Tony's arguments. I completely GET IT. He's simply reporting what happened. He was approached (in a hypnotic class) and didn't want to seem bad mannered, liking the approacher and deciding to kinda' go along (no harm done). Hence we have a form of social compliance (no sign of trance). BUT at some point he consciously decides "no". And discovers that he's in some kind of strange loop (my words) where he 'obeys' the hypnotist. I don't like the word obey but it seems to fit perfectly. Indeed arguably 'wants' to obey.<<<<<

that's my whole point Tony's experience has changed his view. There has been a modification in one of his unconscious programmes called perception that has now changed forever. It can't go back.

Hypnosis is not one dimensional this has always been the point I have tried to make. You can see your viewpoint from your experiences. If you want an expanded view point you must seek out more expanding experiences. One of the things or ways of thinking I adopted a long time ago was that if someone was getting results or highly regarded in hypnosis NLP whatever I would try and get an experience that allowed me to understand what they were going on about.

Everytime you have one of those experiences its like stepping up to a higher level and when you look around you see a little further.

Those that haven't taken those steps can't see what you can see and that's the frustrating part sometimes. The biggest mistake I believe is to think you have reached the top because I don't think you will ever reach the top.

Especially in hypnosis overt or covert its when you get up a few steps then you realise its the minute subtleties that make the biggest and most profound impact on everything you do.

But that is waybyond stage hypnosis but I can't see how anyone wouldn't want to take that trip....but then maybe I'm just a freak.
Message: Posted by: Damon Reinbold (Apr 21, 2011 08:32AM)
I agree with Bob also. In doing "hypnosis" since the 70's I've found that the best definition is only six or so words long.
It is a direct communication with the subconscious or unconscious mind. What is done with it is the important thing.

regards,
Damon
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 21, 2011 08:53AM)
>>>In closing although I'm happy that trance is NOT necessary for hypnosis I am also happy that I have observed many many times where it is in fact fully operational. No doubt in any way shape or form. Sooooo..... I have no idea why some of you guys argue with each other that your belief is the only one. I just don't get it!!!<<<

There is no fixed definition it is ALL context dependant and what you want to do with it. I switch definitions when doing stage as opposed to working with sales teams. its like putting on different glasses to see what needs to be done.

However the most "useful" definition I have ever tried on is that hypnosis is the process of guiding natural trance. Trance is natural constant and always present. You switch one for another. Your reality is dependant upon what trance you happen to be in at any moment.

When you try that definition on and study the princible that go with it a whole new world opens up and whats possible explodes.

Somebody comes to you with a problem you start to hear the words they use that give you clues to how they are creating the current trance since most problems are just a mental construct a programme or a "trance". They seem real and the very fact they are being lived in creates real results. But in realty they can be changes modified or swapped for a compltely different reality. And there goes the client out into the world operting from a different place automatically generating different results.

What many hypnotists think of as hypnosis or a trance is really just a doorway a bridge from one trance to another..

At least that's the definition that serves me the best for what I use it for.
Message: Posted by: Shikina (Apr 21, 2011 12:30PM)
[quote]
However the most "useful" definition I have ever tried on is that hypnosis is the process of guiding natural trance. Trance is natural constant and always present. You switch one for another. Your reality is dependant upon what trance you happen to be in at any moment.
[/quote]

I find that to be a really intriguing perspective. MP, where can I learn more about hypnotic techniques that incorporate that point of view?
Message: Posted by: Owen Mc Ginty (Apr 21, 2011 02:19PM)
I think that´ll be a useful idea to bear in mind whatever techniques you´re learning about ;)
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 21, 2011 06:05PM)
[quote]
On 2011-04-21 13:30, Shikina wrote:
[quote]
However the most "useful" definition I have ever tried on is that hypnosis is the process of guiding natural trance. Trance is natural constant and always present. You switch one for another. Your reality is dependant upon what trance you happen to be in at any moment.
[/quote]

I find that to be a really intriguing perspective. MP, where can I learn more about hypnotic techniques that incorporate that point of view?
[/quote]

It comes from an NLP perspective. However there are a few directions from NLP. A few good resources are self hypnosis audios from Stephen Brooks and his indirect suggestion audio set is also excellent. If you can get a hold of any old Bandler's taped hypnosis seminars. The old ones 20 years or more old are far superior to his new stuff in my opinion. Also any of the audios or video programmes from Ross Jeffries are also excellent.

Apart from that good NLP Training to masterprac level or above but it is very pricey these days. The Steve Brooks stuff is a good place to start and if I remember they were quite resonable. Any books on hypnosis by bandler are great. Transformations being one of his most well known. Anything by Tad James....I don't remember where I got a lot of the stuff in my head its just an accumulation...

Now looking at all the above I think I should write a single unifying book of what is in my head.
Message: Posted by: bobser (Apr 21, 2011 06:44PM)
Aaaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!
Tony has said he was NOT in Trance. I believe him.
I have performed hypnosis with appxox 40 - 50 people within the last 4 weeks and without quoting percentages I simply cannot prove, I'd say that based on my own experience of trancework, many of them were IN hypnosis but evidently NOT in any form of trance.
Therefore I do not agree with MP's definition that: 'hypnosis is the process of guiding natural trance'. Understand I'm neither saying it's NOT. I am saying that it CAN be.
And THAT attitude (that it CAN be) allows me the freedom to learn from just about everyone.
My advice? The minute you believe you KNOW what this IS you become incapable of learning. That's a fact by the way. Ask anyone who majored in philosophy.
Message: Posted by: Owen Mc Ginty (Apr 22, 2011 01:17AM)
I may have been hasty in dismissing social compliance, the people I´ve hypnotized complied consciously at least at the start.
my apologies.
Message: Posted by: hypnokid (Apr 22, 2011 05:53AM)
Hello and thanks for all teh responses.

So, what is a trance? If we are not normally in a trance and then in hypnosis we are, how can we tell that they are in a trance instead of just pretending?

If we are always in a trance of some form or another and simply move from whatever trance into a hypnotic trance, how can we tell the switch has occurred?

What I want to know is, can we define the word trance so that we all know what it means?

Thanks

HK
Message: Posted by: bobser (Apr 22, 2011 06:02AM)
[quote]
On 2011-04-22 02:17, Owen Mc Ginty wrote:
I may have been hasty in dismissing social compliance, the people I´ve hypnotized complied consciously at least at the start.
my apologies.
[/quote]

One of the better posts we get in here. A sign of learning and moving on, stronger, fitter and sharper, possessing more knowledge.
This is exactly what this particular forum should be all about. Well done Owen. I hereby re-name you: 'UNLEASHED McGINTY'!!!
The Scottish Spaniards have always been my favourites.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 22, 2011 06:21AM)
You can tell when you have switched trance everything "looks" different. Now reading bobs post he said they were in hypnosis but not in trance. I believe what he meant was that they were not displaying the physiology commonly associated with a "trance". In otherwords they didn't have their eyes closed or slumped forwards. This is a common misconception that you need to display these behaviours to be in trance. Being relaxed eyes closed and deeply relaxed is one type of trance.

You have five senses. Without these senses you would cease to exist. These senses record information onto your hard drive (unconscious mind). We then respond in the real world dependant upon on the content and how that content is organised on the hard drive. There is verly little conscious control over behaviour even although we think we have conscious control in general we don't.

Our senses can operate by seeing hearing or feeling stimuli from the external world. You can read this type for example; you can see the screen hear the processor of the computer and feel the keys on the keyboard while you type.

~But you can also hear my voice picture my face and expressions; hear the "tone" of the conversation and in some cases feel the anger;laughter or whaterver you would feel if yu were having a realtime conversation with me. You can also create constructs. For example you could look across the room and imagine someone you know standing there. You could if you wished right now hear your favourate track in your head.

Your mind is very talented. All a trance is - is when all those senses cross over from external to inside. Say a lion walked into your room. All yoursenses would be external in fact you would be very aware of what was happening you would be very conscious. Compare that with replaying a great night out you had whilst driving. You ever drove a few miles and have no recollection of getting there?

that's natural everyday trance. Eyes wide open appearing to fully "conscious" but you were in an altered state or trance.

Now the thing is our senses overlap continuously. Depending how things are organised in our hard drives we will project some of our past experiences in to the present. So if you had a bad traumatising experience you might project it onto the current situation for example so every thing looks bleek. that's an an example of a negative everyday trance. You might not see solutions staring you in the face because what you are "seeing, hearing and feeling" partly is projected distotred from inside.

And that's how it goes on we are constantly overlapping senses moving from one trance to another. Projecting on to reality dependant upon how our hard drives are currently set.

All hypnosis is the process of focusing and giuding these senses or trances in a specific direction for a specifif out come.

Whether that be sticking someones hand to a table or creating new sales records for a large company to persuading the country to vote a certain way to mass marketing products.

The thing is because we are constantly overlapping external and internal senses hypnosis or trance is never a stable state.

Another example of awakened trance or altered sate would be when a marathon runner runs through the pain barrier and feels no pain.
Message: Posted by: bobser (Apr 23, 2011 03:48AM)
Happy to agree with much of MP's excellent post. However, Helen Keller would probably giggle at the quote: "You have five senses. Without these senses you would cease to exist".
She was deaf, blind and dumb possessing a very poor sense of smell. But I still take his point in that experiences which we take on and add to our hard drives are relayed to us through those senses. BUT it has been argued for some time now that we have other senses.
Just as a throw-away,[ some of you might wish to know that in sociology it is considered that 'common sense' does not exist.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 23, 2011 06:55AM)
Helen Keller still had senses - how do you know your blind deaf or dumb?

And its common sense that common sense doesn't exist.
Message: Posted by: bobser (Apr 24, 2011 09:41AM)
[quote]
On 2011-04-23 07:55, mindpunisher wrote:
Helen Keller still had senses - how do you know your blind deaf or dumb?

And its common sense that common sense doesn't exist.
[/quote]

The answer to the first question is: "You don't".
And if common sense did not exist then it could not be used to recognise it's non-existence. You 'bampot'!.... (please take that the way it's intended)
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 24, 2011 12:22PM)
[quote]
On 2011-04-24 10:41, bobser wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-04-23 07:55, mindpunisher wrote:
Helen Keller still had senses - how do you know your blind deaf or dumb?

And its common sense that common sense doesn't exist.
[/quote]

The answer to the first question is: "You don't".
And if common sense did not exist then it could not be used to recognise it's non-existence. You 'bampot'!.... (please take that the way it's intended)
[/quote]

If you have NO senses you don't exist was my original statement...She had some senses or she would be nothing. Whatever life she had it was very limited because of her lack of the main ones.

And of course your so clever to point out the "common sense" statement Duh!!!!

Proves one thing if it did exist you would have been short changed at birth..
Message: Posted by: bobser (Apr 24, 2011 12:46PM)
Nasty man!!!
Anyway, another day and you're wrong again.
It absolutely possible to live without any sense. Indeed some would argue that YOU are the very man to prove that (ROTFFLMAO)

Seriously you would live but undoubtedly you would be in a comatose form. Unless of course you were a sponge (Wow! Is this YOU again?) which of course has no senses that we know of. It just sits and waits for bacteria to come and attach itself to it (wow, everything happens in threes huh? Spooky!).

Look, seriously, I'm not getting any pleasure from any of this.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 24, 2011 01:39PM)
No you wouldn't exist if you had no senses how could you? A sponge must sense bacteria or how could it attach it to itself? Duh!!!

Its the opposite with me I'm trying to detach myself from bacteria...

Theres a lot of it on here.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 24, 2011 01:43PM)
There is no commonsense is common sense among sociologists which doesn't mean its common elsewhere where its commonsense that it does exist...however its commonsense to assume its not commonsense eveywhere else..
Message: Posted by: bobser (Apr 24, 2011 04:16PM)
Right, **** it!
Message: Posted by: hypnokid (Apr 25, 2011 01:49AM)
So, back to the plot.

MP's post was interesting. However, I have two questions. First, is this the accepted use of the word trance? When you place someone in a hypnotic trance, is that the same use of the word? Second, is that use of the word trance useful? It appears to just describe normal life; I have heard the 'we are always in some kind of trance', but doesn't that undermine the hypnotic trance as causing hypnotic things to happen?

What I mean is, when hypnotised, people can do some crazy things that they wouldn't do when not hypnotised. If they are always in a trance and hynosisi is no different, then trance can not be a characteristic of hypnosis and hypnosis can not rely on trance in order to work.

So, how does it work?

HK
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 25, 2011 10:40AM)
"Hypnosis" (for the lack of a better term) works for the same reason that money is valuable. Money is valuable because the government says it is and we believe it is. Same with hypnosis. You say it will work and the person believes you.

This is as good an explination as you will find that will not cause a HUGE debate. I am not being flippant.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 25, 2011 11:24AM)
[quote]
On 2011-04-25 02:49, hypnokid wrote:
So, back to the plot.

MP's post was interesting. However, I have two questions. First, is this the accepted use of the word trance? When you place someone in a hypnotic trance, is that the same use of the word? Second, is that use of the word trance useful? It appears to just describe normal life; I have heard the 'we are always in some kind of trance', but doesn't that undermine the hypnotic trance as causing hypnotic things to happen?

What I mean is, when hypnotised, people can do some crazy things that they wouldn't do when not hypnotised. If they are always in a trance and hynosisi is no different, then trance can not be a characteristic of hypnosis and hypnosis can not rely on trance in order to work.

So, how does it work?

HK
[/quote]

Look at what soldiers do in battle? Ordinary guys taken off the streets and "conditioned" do crazy things. What are crazy things? What you really mean is they do things not regarded as normal behaviour. Look at religeon some pretty crazy stuff goes on because of religeon a trance that is conditioned over a period of time.

Hypnosis is the process of guiding, hijacking trance and leading it where you want it to go. A trance is really what you believe to be reality and what you are unconsciously anchored into seeing feeling and behaving at any moment in time.

that's the definition that allows you to do the most with hypnosis. Which can and does gets some amazing results.

Hypnosis has NO value its what can be done with it that has the value. If all you ever want to do is stick a hand to a table then you don't even have to consider the definition above.
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Apr 25, 2011 01:12PM)
Just in this thread alone MP has made the following statements about trance.

"Isn't social compliance just a fancy term for trance?
Trance itself is something a litle more subtle.

We live in a trance.
Trance is never a stable state
Trance that is conditioned over a period of time

He is in a problem "trance"...This all a trance is.
I deal in designer trances. That's what trance really is.

These are all trances we go in and out of trance by the very activity of being on here.

Its all about trance.

Hypnosis is the process of guiding natural trance.
Trance is natural constant and always present.
You switch one for another.

What many hypnotists think of as hypnosis or a trance is really just a doorway a bridge from one trance to another..
You can tell when you have switched trance everything "looks" different.

All a trance is - is when all those senses cross over from external to inside.
You were in an altered state or trance.

Trance that is conditioned over a period of time

Now looking at all the above I think I should write a single unifying book of what is in my head".

If the above is helping you form a coherant view of how hypnosis works good for you. I find them incoherant and incompatible with each other. Liberate yourself. Do not to be a trance junkie. Just say no to this flim flam and jibba jabba. Trance is a romantic idea but it is not necessary to get an understanding of how hypnosis works.

Anthony
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 25, 2011 02:36PM)
What is it you find incoherant Ant? It seems perfectly clear to me. Then again perhaps you just spend most of your time sticking hands to a table. maybe you should look up and around you once in a while...


My first Golf programme started last week. After the FIRST session one of the delegates went out and played his lowest scores in 30 years playing golf. His best game by far in 30 years.

What is a coherant "view" of hypnosis? One that takes old concepts renames them and then tries to make simple hypnotic stunts like sticking a hand to a table complicated or revolutionary? In order to sell them to magicians.

Is that a coherant view? Or is it just a simple model that you can and your target market can grasp?


Trance may be a romantic Idea in your model of the world. It is certainly not in mine. Trance is the current configration of "reality" experienced in a moment in time.

That's what enables me to get those kind of results consistently...

I think having intellectual ideas and over valuing crude and primitive hypnotic stunts while selling them to magicians and believing your own hype is more of a romantic notion don't you?...

If sticking hands to tables and stealing cuecumbers is what you are in to then I guess you are right. Its your reality. Its not mine.

Im not surprised you find my view incoherant...

And yes one day I might write a book to unify whats in my head. My view complete view which you won't get in a few posts. Seriously what is it you are having difficulty in grasping? I don't see any incompatibility. It makes perfect sense.

It makes even more sense to my clients that get the results..
Message: Posted by: dmkraig (Apr 25, 2011 03:04PM)
I've always thought that if you put ten hypnotists in a room and ask them how or why hypnosis works, you'll get at least 15 answers.

I don't know how the distributor or oxygen sensor work in my car. I know it costs way too much to fix them.

However, even though I don't know how they work, I know how to use my car. It can help get ill people to a hospital faster than a horse cart. It can save me time by getting me from one place to another faster than if I were walking. I'm glad that my car works.

So we can read any of dozens of books, each giving different responses to your question, or saying that hypnosis doesn't exist at all. We can stay here and debate it.

Or we can learn to use it to entertain or to help people change their behaviors and improve their health.

I prefer the latter.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 25, 2011 04:10PM)
There is no point debating it. I only say that the the model I subscribe to gives a lot of possibilities which I have "proved" to myself over the years. For "me" it is the main model I use. It allows you to see the hypnotic process as an ongoing everyday occurance that allows you to tap into and makes changes. I have found over the years that there is a general idea what hypnosis is amongst hypnotists. But its in the subtle shifts big results come. Its that model that enables me to get those results.

However I use a different model for stage work and shift between them.

It depends on what you are aiming to achieve.

A model is just a model.

Reason why I said "social compliance is just a fancy name for a trance". It really is just a model that tries to explain the same thing using different terminology and a different point of view.
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Apr 25, 2011 05:00PM)
[quote]

Reason why I said "social compliance is just a fancy name for a trance". It really is just a model that tries to explain the same thing using different terminology and a different point of view.
[/quote]

No it isn't. One is a state based model the other a social model.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Apr 25, 2011 05:56PM)
How many hypnotists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 25, 2011 06:52PM)
[quote]
On 2011-04-25 18:00, Anthony Jacquin wrote:
[quote]

Reason why I said "social compliance is just a fancy name for a trance". It really is just a model that tries to explain the same thing using different terminology and a different point of view.
[/quote]

No it isn't. One is a state based model the other a social model.
[/quote]

That's what I said two different viewpoints....

Hypnosis is fundamentally the process of learning not understanding. Which deals with the unconscious and states. We learn through states, we understand through "logic". Social compliance tries to explain "understand" as far as I can see.

To have a model that doesn't include states is silly because we constantly move from one state to another and millions of shades in between. States determine behaviour and performance. It was changing someone state that enabled them to play the best golf they ever have in 30 years of playing. Which created another state.

But hey its your choice choose what models floats your boat. I know which ones I find most useful.

Even social compliance can be explained to a certain degree by the avoidance of negative states or feelings.

Social compliance is one model that has its place and uses. It just doesn't have its uses in the work that I do. And it doesn't explain fully the stage phenomena.

Social compliance is just another label that groups a few theories together and like any other.

Like I said depends what your outcomes are. If it fits yours then fine.
Message: Posted by: hypnokid (Apr 26, 2011 05:11AM)
The results don't prove your theory. Trance could just be a metaphor for how hypnosis works. If you are happy with a metaphor then fine, but I don't think any amount of golf proves it.

As for the car, most drive okay but few end up as racing drivers. I want to be the fastest driver (best hypnotist) so I think understanding how it works might be important.

HK
Message: Posted by: Owen Mc Ginty (Apr 26, 2011 05:28AM)
It would appear that you can use whatever model(s) make sense to you, but there is no one, single, universal truth regarding how hypnosis works.

Allow me to refer to the old story of three blind men who each describe an elephant by touching it.

One touches the tail
One touches the trunk
One touches the tusk

Maybe I haven´t got the parts of the elephant right, but you get the idea.
Three very different impressions of the same "animal". I suspect that ultimately, your own "impressions" of hypnosis based on your own experiences (hey, study models, apply them, and reach your own conclusions) will be what serves you best.
If you´re looking for a "how it works" in exact terms comparable to something like a description of say, how an internal combustion engine works based on scientific principles which cannot be disproven, then I´d say you´re wasting your time.
Although I´d also love to be proven wrong :D

It looks to me like we´re all correct (in our own heads, and until we change our minds :P)
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Apr 26, 2011 12:52PM)
Owen,

the question was how does it work. Not what model do you use. You suggested searching for how might be a waste of time but said you would love to be proven wrong. I assume that means you too are interested in how it works, regardless of whether you are interested in the search. If that is the case then understanding that social compliance and trance are distinctly different theories rather than 'a fancy name for the same thing' would be useful. They represent the extreme ends of two fundamentally opposite camps of thinking. There are of course others somewhere between the two.

If you do not believe it is a trance you can bin the induction and deepening for a start. For some of us this is liberating. That does not mean we believe it is just playing along.

Anthony
Message: Posted by: bobser (Apr 26, 2011 07:04PM)
Anthony said: [quote]
"If you do not believe it is a trance you can bin the induction and deepening for a start. For some of us this is liberating. That does not mean we believe it is just playing along.
[/quote]

The above paragraph is fundamental to understanding what all of this is about. If anyone doesn't get that then they're racing toward a cul-de-sac.

However, strangely enough, there IS an argument against it. And that argument is just too intellectual I feel, at this present time. However I shall hold it in abeyance until we meet again Mr. Jacquin (assuming that is your REAL name?)
Message: Posted by: hypnokid (Apr 27, 2011 04:30AM)
You holding out on us bobser? Come on, if you've got an argument against that then let's here it; we're not going to get to any conclusions without the arguments being aired.

HK
Message: Posted by: bobser (Apr 27, 2011 06:20AM)
I need to tweak 'my find' just a bit. Then I need to construct a wording on how to explain it in a fashion that will be at least partially understood by the proletariate.
Obviously the more clever ones may PM me (you know who you are).
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 27, 2011 01:50PM)
Social compliance is another name another label another theory to explain an external event. You can't "bin" trance if you are always in one. In fact social compliance theory is a trance in itself as all theories are.

Explanations are explanations not reality. To have a model that doesn't include states limits you incredibly when you want to move beyond sticking a hand to a table.

I don't know but if that's all you want to do then I guess its liberating.

And Bob if that's what you believe hypnosis is why don't you just tell your clients to get better? Although a few will the vast vast majority won't. Try tell golfers to golf better. They won't.

If social compliance was the only explanation then that would be the case. It isn't...

On stage you don't tell anyone to have amnesia but they do. Social compliance does not explain the full phenomena of hypnosis.

But theres no point arguing and Im not getting paid to teach you so believe what you prefer to believe.

The real truth is nobody knows for sure how hypnosis works. NOBODY
Message: Posted by: Owen Mc Ginty (Apr 27, 2011 02:07PM)
[quote]
And that argument is just too intellectual I feel, at this present time.
[/quote]

limiting belief? ;)

or are you calling us stupid !/? :P
Message: Posted by: bobser (Apr 27, 2011 02:35PM)
Not all of you, just you know who
Message: Posted by: quicknotist (Apr 27, 2011 04:41PM)
HK. You started it! Confused much?

In my opinion, this thread demonstrates that what we as hypnotists believe about hypnosis isn't really all that important. The model that matters most is the one held by the person being hypnotised. (Remember them? They're kind of important in all this!)

In my experience very rarely do you meet someone whose model does NOT include some kind of trance/state, so most of us who deal with people (outside of the field of education) will simply utilise and work with this. That way we can get on with the job of entertaining or "fixing" issues without having to re-educate them or the audience.

(If this wasn't the case, then hypnotists who are educated in state theory or those who believe everyone is simply playing along just wouldn't ever be successful.)

Now, as soon as you begin to demonstrate the "easiest" of phenomena WITHOUT trance, or indeed talk about trance not being necessary, what you're actually doing is influencing and manipulating that model a wee bit, effectively re-educating them, just a little.

I say "influencing and manipulating that model a wee bit ... just a little" as opposed to "changing" it, because even after demonstrating that trance isn't necessary, delivering the suggestion "Sleep" MOSTLY results in them reverting to their own deeply rooted model: They instantly close their eyes and go all floppy AND they go "deeper" when you suggest that too. (And I for one am grateful for that, because it makes multiple volunteers on stage a whole lot easier to manage!)

I'm prepared to accept those who didn't hold that model in the first place won't, but the truth is, I hardly ever meet them. (Tony, maybe?)

Most of the time I see no point in re-educating, influencing or manipulating the model of the volunteers/subjects or audience, but I do dabble in it occasionally.

That's why I teach "Never tell them hypnosis isn't what they think. On some level, it's EXACTLY what they think." After all, it's just easier that way.

As MP says "The real truth is nobody knows for sure how hypnosis works. NOBODY"
So everybody is wrong and at the same time everybody is right.
Message: Posted by: Shikina (Apr 27, 2011 04:47PM)
Getting back to Mindpunisher's trance-based view of (for lack of a better term) reality, I'd like to understand better how that answers the question of "why does hypnosis work?"

An example might clarify my source of confusion. Say that in the course of my day I'm navigating between trance states, each one invoking some different cognitive frame. So say I'm driving on my way to work and thinking about the wonderful weekend I just had. I'm in a peaceful trance, and the car driving slow in front of me is just another object on the road. But suddenly a song on the radio which I associate with aggressiveness or anger comes on the radio. I'm jostled into road-rage trance (forgive my very un-NLP use of nomenclature) and now the car in front is vested with a different set of meanings and urgency, and I find that rather than being a mild distraction, his presence on the road is infuriating to me.

Now assume a hypnotist can guide me through those states, without me actually having to be in a car and on the road. One moment he/she says the things that put me into peaceful trance (with it's associated symbols and meanings) and the next second I'm put into the rage trance (with it's particular meanings). That's simple enough to wrap my head around. But that still seems to be a far way's away from the kind of heavier phenomenon we often associate with hypnosis. Meaning, at no point in my car trance do I experience the sensation that I can't apply my foot to the brakes for some odd reason; or suddenly discover a regressed memory; of perceive that my car's horn sounds like a chicken; or whatever.

My point is that for some of us (myself included) there is still a 'black box' surrounding the process of heavy hypnosis and how the words; suggestibility tests; deepeners, etc. that we may use, work to produce that particular state. And my sense is that nobody really knows, or else we'd have scientific journals describing the neurological workings with 100% accuracy.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 27, 2011 05:21PM)
We have five senses obviously. But in reality we have more or less 10. What I mean is that we have visual internal and external. We can picture in our minds and we can see picutures in "reality" Its the same with other senses Auditory Internal and External Feelings internal and external ( you can stroke a dog you can also "imagine" what it feels like to stroke a dog). Smells and taste we can do also but not as important in this "explanation".

We can also create constructs. For example I can look across the room and imagine my friend standing there. I can also paint him blue or shrink him in size or give him a strange voice.

In order to do that my internal senses overlap with my external and are projected into reality.

So if we can think of a line. The bottom half is the unconscious the top half is conscious. Our senses are continuously overlapping going up and down crossing over to make "configurations".

When all the senses are under the line and internalised you are in what would be thought of as a hypnotic trance in the usual sense especially when they are way way below the line. If giuded by a hypnotist and compounded with suggestion its possible to create some of the stage phenomena and why we see hallucinations feel certain sensations etc. Because they are constructs created way below the line and are projected into the "real world. In other words in those states we have more awareness of the internal constructs than the external.

If you put someone in a relaxed state or yourself with your eyes closed you "go inside". If there is a loud noise outside your auditory is once again risen towards conscious or even over the line before going back down again. That happenes with all the senses which is why hypnosis isn't a stable state.

Its a bit like a graphic equalizer

That is the theory I find most useful. But no one will know for sure exactly what it is. I doubt any scientific explanation will ever be 100%.
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Apr 27, 2011 11:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-04-27 14:50, mindpunisher wrote:
On stage you don't tell anyone to have amnesia but they do. Social compliance does not explain the full phenomena of hypnosis.

[/quote]

Yes it does. Read the literature. Spontaneous amnesia, and all the other aspects of the phenomenon can be explained by SC theory perfectly adequately.

Anthony
Message: Posted by: Owen Mc Ginty (Apr 28, 2011 01:53AM)
Reg, I couldn´t agree more. ;)
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 28, 2011 06:53AM)
I guess Ant we just don't agree on this point. I don't think it does. I still have an old episode of Equinox which I haven't watched in a while about hypnosis. Can't remember the guys name on it but he is social compliance theory expert. And he hypnotised someone then asked them if they had been hypnotised. Of course they said no because they knew what this guys beliefs were and had been told about his theories ( they had been educated). Not only that he couldn't remember much. His explanation was that he had seen Paul Mckenna and knew what was expected so forgot everything because he was told.

Yes its an "explanation" but I couldn't believe he was serious.


Reg says >>>As MP says "The real truth is nobody knows for sure how hypnosis works. NOBODY"
So everybody is wrong and at the same time everybody is right.<<<

that's my whole point Reg talks about "educating" and "manipulating" people's models. For me that's what hypnosis IS really about that is hypnosis.

A model is nothing but a trance and we are all in our own trances our own models of our worlds.

I just don't see how doing basic phenomena using suggestion all of a sudden negates trance. I really don't see it. But then Im probably hypnotised..
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Apr 28, 2011 02:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-04-28 07:53, mindpunisher wrote:
I guess Ant we just don't agree on this point. I don't think it does.

I just don't see how doing basic phenomena using suggestion all of a sudden negates trance. I really don't see it. But then Im probably hypnotised..
[/quote]

I guess we don't. But let's try and understand. What hypnotic phenomena do you think the Social Compliance model cannot explain?

Anthony
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 28, 2011 04:09PM)
I think social compliance is part of hypnosis but not all. The need to comply is surely is a conditioned state as is the need to please others etc.

I don't think it explains the state on stage even where someone is conditioned to be highly suggestable. I think social compliance is part of the process to get them there. that's for stage.

Social compliance in an everyday situation is nothing more than conditioning by society. he need to fit in comply be loved wanted to please others is programmed into us at a very early age. The need to avoid the consequences eg: pain or negative states is what drives the compliance. Of course its unconscious and we aren't aware of it.

Its why I say or see the label social compliance as another way of looking at the same thing.

On stage we get the chance to see an exaggerated form out of an everyday context. But in reality that's how we are conditioned throughout life. its the same process just exaggerated.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Apr 28, 2011 07:13PM)
But here is where I and Ant most likely agree. I don't see anything abnormal with hypnosis its a normal everyday occurance. Not out of the ordinary. But on stage the context is out of the ordinary and we see how the human mind can be conditioned and put into a highly receptive or suggestible state or trance or condition of compliance whatever you want to call it.. But we are always in some kind of trance its nothining abnormal.


From Wickipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis#Definitions

Neuropsychology

Neurological imaging techniques provide no evidence of a neurological pattern that can be equated with a "hypnotic trance". Changes in brain activity have been found in some studies of highly responsive hypnotic subjects. These changes vary depending upon the type of suggestions being given.[90][91] However, what these results indicate is unclear. They may indicate that suggestions genuinely produce changes in perception or experience that are not simply a result of imagination. However, in normal circumstances without hypnosis, the brain regions associated with motion detection are activated both when motion is seen and when motion is imagined, without any changes in the subjects' perception or experience.[92] This may therefore indicate that highly suggestible hypnotic subjects are simply activating to a greater extent the areas of the brain used in imagination, without real perceptual changes<<<

If we conclude or agree that or even temprorarily take on the "model" that senses are constantly crossing over the threshold of consciousness and unconsciousness IE internal and external then its clear that a hallucination is noting more than internal senses or imagination projected outwards.

That happens to varying degrees throughout the day in everyday wakened state. Varying degrees being due to the amount of external and internal mix of senses and constructs engaged.

Therefore I would say that imagination is part of everyday perception you can't separate the two. And I can't see how measuring the brain activity in this way proves anything. Since I agree nothing abnormal is happening.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_state_of_consciousness

>>>>An altered state of consciousness (ASC),[1] also named altered state of mind, is any condition which is significantly different from a normal waking beta wave state. The expression was used as early as 1966 by Arnold M. Ludwig[2] and brought into common usage from 1969 by Charles Tart:[3][4] it describes induced changes in one's mental state, almost always temporary. A synonymous phrase is "altered state of awareness".

Altered states of consciousness can be associated with artistic creativity.[5] They also can be shared interpersonally and studied as a subject of sociological research.[6] <<<<<

Again if you close your eyes and relax almost immediately you go into Alpha state which is by definition an "alterd state". Again its nothing abnormal but an everyday occurance.

There is nothing mystical or supernatural or abnormal about hypnosis or trance or an altered state.