Here's the text for the first part of the FAQ on hypnosis - dealing with common myths about hypnosis:

HYPNOSIS FAQ Part 1 Common Myths

Hollywood hype shows that a hypnotist can control and direct our actions, and that we can be made to do all sorts of odd and paranormal things under hypnosis. Here is a list of some common myths which must be clarified before we proceed further.

1) The hypnotist can make you do things against your will.

Absolutely False. The hypnotist has no powers over you at all, and cannot make you do things against your hard-held beliefs, ethics or morals. All Hypnosis is really self-directed and self-controlled. The hypnotist merely guides you into a hypnotic state, and feeds your mind with care­fully worded suggestions. If you feel uncomfortable with these suggestions, you may reject them at will. Hypnosis is essentially a matter of cooperation between the hypnotist and his subject, not some form of power the hypnotist possesses which will compel the subject to submit to his or her will. In a stage show, remember, people are up there to show off, so the appearance of them doing something "against their will" may seem to be the case, but, in reality, it is NOT the case at all.

2) Once under Hypnosis, the subject can't come out of it on their own.

False again! If you are under hypnosis and the hypnotist suddenly left the room, two things may happen: you will either realize that the hypnotist is no longer talking to you, and will open your eyes, feeling fresh and alert; or, you may drift into natural sleep, in which case you will wake up after a few minutes (or hours). So, the subject CAN, and will, come out of the trance on his, or her, own.

3) Only weak-minded people can be hypnotized.

Completely False. Hypnosis has nothing to do with will power. People often confuse hypnotizability with gullibility. There is NO connection between the two. On the contrary, the more intelligent a person is, the easier it is for him to be hypnotized. To be hypnotized, one needs the abilities of concentration, imagination and vivid visualization, not to mention cooperation.

4) Under hypnosis, the subject is totally unconscious.

Wrong again, Waston! At all times during the course of a hypnotic session, you will be able to hear, to think and respond as appropriate. You are aware of what is going on around you, but you may not pay much attention to any of the distractions around you. Although your body is very relaxed, your mind is actually more alert than usual. Many people are worried by stage hypnosis and the fact that the subjects, many of whom do ridicu­lous things during the session, seem to have no knowledge of anything around them or recollection of what they did after the show. The unfortunate part of such an activity is that it often frightens away those people who could really bene­fit from hypnotherapy, but are afraid of losing control. This is actually called post-hypnotic amnesia, forgetting what happened in the trance state and it rarely lasts for more than a few hours, or at most, a few days and is used as a method of impressing an audience for future shows, nothing more. The volunteers are completely aware of what transpires while it is happening and no loss of volition happens during the show, whatsoever.

5) Under hypnosis, one can be made to reveal his secrets.

Nope! Sorry to disappoint those of you who want to pry into your friends and foe's minds, but it does not work this way. As mentioned above, under hypnosis, the subject is fully alert, in fact more alert than usual. The hypnotist can only guide the subject to remember forgotten memories. Whether the subject will reveal them to the hypnotist is entirely at his own discretion. In other words, the volunteer can refuse to answer ANY question put to them or even LIE about what they have been asked to answer. It is a myth that "they hypnotized never lies."

6) Hypnosis is dangerous.

COMPLETELY Untrue. It is quite the opposite. Hypnosis is a safe and natural process. One fact that most people are unaware of is that we undergo Hypnosis several times in our daily lives. For example, while driving along a highway, very often, people suddenly dis­cover that they have lost awareness for several minutes. This is actually an example of momentary hypnotism. Many people call this "driving on automatic pilot," or "zoning out behind the wheel." Milton H. Erickson, MD, one of the greatest hypnotherapists of the 20th century once said that he would not ride in a cab where the cab driver was NOT in such a trance state as such drivers were actually safer to drive with!

7) One needs special powers to hypnotize.

Total BULL! Hypnosis is not an occult power, but a skill, like learning to do a good card manipulation, though much more complex on many different levels as it is a communications skill set. Any average person with the willingness and patience to learn, can master the skills of hypnosis. Like other skills such as playing the piano, or learning a foreign language, some people become accomplished with greater ease than others while others can increase their abilities through regular prac­tice. The ability to hypnotize someone is not a talent - it is a LEARNED skill set.

8) The user might become addicted to hypnosis.

Incorrect. While one might enjoy hypnosis enough to use it regularly because it feels good because it can be incredibly relaxing, you cannot become addicted to hypnosis because it has no physical effects on the body in the way a chemical substance does.

Respectfully submitted,

Lee Darrow
Certified Hypnotist

----------------------------------

Comments, corrections and whatever are openly solicited. Flames, attacks and brickbats will be cheerfully ignored (and deleted).

:)

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Lee:

I like it and think it looks good.
(Although, I'm partial to the line, "All hypnosis is self-hypnosis." But, you can't have everything. <G>

Tony

No argument on that line and it is pretty well covered in the text, just not that succinctly. Thanks for the input. I'll consider adding it to the section on "making" someone do something... which is probably the best place for it, in my opinion.

Lee Darrow, C.H.

It's coming along well Mr. Darrow. Your hard work is going to save everybody else a lot of time.

I would actually change #7 to "one needs special power TO HYPNOTISE" from to be hypnotised

I would also add one small thing. People are the same under hypnosis as they are out of hypnosis. They do not change. Or was this covered. Sorry tired.

Something to add to 6 (maybe)

These are not the right words, but just the thought.

The only time hypnosis can be dangerous is when it practiced by untrained or irresponsible hypnotist.

Many of us have witness (and hopeful not perpetrated) bits and stunts that have caused injury to volunteers.

Yes a good idea also.

Possibly dumb question from a newbie just peeking around the site, but wouldn't things like "confusion inductions" (handshake, etc...) and so on potentially invalidate part of #1, specifically "All Hypnosis is really self-directed and self-controlled"

I mean, in those and some other inductions, the hyptnotee potentially isn't even aware that they're being hypnotised, right from the start, right?

Actually, in the surprise inductions, as well as all "pattern interruption" inductions, there is still an agreement that something is going to happen before it happens. This is the consent factor. You also have the protection of the Hidden Observer, a part of the mind that still protects the person being hypnotized - a part of the survival mechanism, in my opinion, that will not allow anything untoward to befall the hypnotee.

It's still consensual and the trance cn still be terminated at any time by the hypnotee. If trance is inappropriate or really unwanted, the hypnotee will simply not react by going into trance, but will find another behavior to use as a reaction to the instantaneous induction, such as jumping back, jerking their hand away or even making a martial arts counter move (I've seen all three happen).

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Sorry, I'm unclear what you mean. When you say it's consentual, you mean the Hidden Observer is consenting, or you mean that generally even in those types of inductions, the person already knows that you're going to at some point do something to try to hypnotise them?

Thanks, incidentally, for taking the time to explain.(Though, from what little I understand, hypnosis can make it easier to cause false memories, so even if direct stuff may be blocked by a mental firewall of sorts (that's my understanding of what you meant by "Hidden Observer") subtler bits of unpleasantness would be possible?)

(Incidentally, once went to a hypnotherapist for something (had to do with trouble getting papers done for school), net effect is he instead ended up preparing for me a cd (or a tape, I forget which) that near as I could make out were meant to "program" me to believe that everyone on the planet is purely selfish. Didn't need a "hidden" observer to tell me that somehow I could live without that. bleh)

You seem to have some agenda here aginst hypnosis in general. If so stop posting.

If not then the hidden observer Lee speaks of is what people call "survival instinct". Plain and simple that part of you which will not allow you to let someone do something bad to you. A simplification to be sure, but close enough.

The hidden observer is NOT concenting to anything. He is watching over you and protecting you. Making sure YOU are ok. It is your own personal moral and ethical code. It is your conscious, your sense of right and wrong.

The reason your point of patturn ineruption inductions does NOT invalidate #1 is because at ANY POINT IN TIME the volunteer, note the noun used, can say "I have had enough and am done". THIS brings them instantly out of trance no matter what depth or technique, short of drugs used.

"You seem to have some agenda here aginst hypnosis in general. If so stop posting....stop posting stop posting...when you stop posting you will feel refreshed and have a wonderful day...at the sound of the Super Chief Horn you will awaken and....

Sorry...couldn't help it...I heckeled Danny...I feel shame now...

But Lee...great stuff so far...no quibbles...

I appologise if I seemed to have some agenda against it, that personal anecdote at the end was more me going off on a tangent. (Which is something I have a tendancy to do. (Much to the consternation of my professors))

I honestly was curious though about it, what little I understand (and I do emphasize the "little" there) made me go "huh?" in response to #1.

I'm sorry for any offense I've given, I honestly did not mean any offense or to push a "anti-hypnosis" agenda. Just trying to understand.

Actually, a little of both. While a person may enter trance for a fleeting second in such a sutiation, they will emerge almost as quickly, if not more quickly because they are NOT consenting to trance. OR, as a pattern interrupt induction relies in the person initiating intense internal searching for an appropriate response, the person will either keep searching and ignore any suggestions OR will come up with a defensive response, like walking away, becoming angry or even punching the would-be hypnotist in the kisser!



Not really, unless trickery that would work in "normal consciousness" were being used and, if that were the case, why use hypnosis? The Hidden Observer is a part of the innate survival instinct that we all have. It kicks in when we feel threatened, endangered or even seriously concerned. In point of fact, it has been demonstrated that it is actually more difficult to get someone to fall victim to harmful suggestions in hypnosis than it is to fool them into doing the same thing in the waking state.



If that really happened, I would strongly advise taking that CD to your nearest prosecutor, handing it to them and initiating an investigation into that hypnotherapist for fraud and for whatever else the prosecutor can come up with. I would also report this conduct to whatever professional organization(s) this person might belong to as well, in the form of a formal complaint for violation of professional standards and ethics.

However, this part of the discussion should be moved to a separate thread.

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Aaaah, okiedokie. *Chuckles* Actually, I think I saw you mention the last more than once, so now I'm curious if you've seen that (or had that) happen.



*blinks* Wow, didn't know that. (But then, there's much I don't know, so no supprise there. ) Cool, and thanks again for taking the time to explain stuff to me.

Excellent start Lee. However I do feel it's a little like revealing magic secrets. We are performers and we do trade on some misdirection for our work.

I have run some experiments, not controlled, which show that once a person is told that they can exit hypnosis whenever they choose, It is very difficult for them to reenter that state in later sessions.

Sometimes more information can be a hinderance.

Dave Everett

Dave I am not sure what experiments you speak of as I start each and every show by telling people that all hypnosis is self hypnosis. All it does is weed out the challenges that come up every so often.

I have seen zero negative effects of re induction of subjects with the knowlege that they are free. It actually lets them relax some more knowing they are in control.

So, gentlebeings, as it now stands in its edited form at the top of this thread - any serious objections?

If not, I will request that Management make it a permenant part of the forum.

More on the FAQ at a later date. Things have been a bit busy around here lately...

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Give it to em Lee.

And thanks.

Lee:

First, let thank you so much for picking up the gauntlet. I knew this thing needed to be written and even went ahead and volunteered you. Thanks for getting to work instead of just being ****ed at me.

I have been 'in comunicato', stuck on a cruise ship (is that really possible?), so please excuse my tardiness in responding to your initial post.

I think the whole thing reads great, but I would suggest retitling it "Hypnosis isn't Brain-Washing: The Limitations and Neccesary Conditions of hypnotic suggestion"

Remember the reason for the FAQ is to stop newbies from asking the 'usual' questions. Many of these are about 'making people do stuff' so it seems that the title should better suggest the content of your article. I just don't think "The Myths" title will draw the attention of the readers who need it the most. In general, my suggestion would be to organize the content of the FAQ at addressing the kinds of questions posed by Café members, rather than a comprehensive guide to the topic .

I may be in the minority but I find the coloquial expressions a bit out of place. I understand they are there to liven up material, but in the context of a FAQ, I think they belittle the reader. Consider taking them out and just leaving the clear, to the point, content.

Lee, thanks again. I do hope the management sees the value of this project.

Sincerely

Peter Gross