Some Magicians use Hypnosis but call it something else... Bizarrist Magis call it "posession" for instance (in good fun I hope).. Some call it "CHI" (as in Tai Chi-like internal energy)... Etc...

What are your thoughts on this?

Do any of you Hypnotists do it sometimes?

Or do you feel that it's not good for Hypnotism?

Any thoughts appreciated...

I call it the "Holy Spirit"

Wow... Brave of you...

I often like to take hypnosis concepts and explain it to people whom I have just performed for when they ask "how did you do that?" Of course this is mostly when I've performed some mentalism along with a few induction tests prior to the effects. Sometimes I would use induction tests along with explaining the hypnosis concepts to give them a PARTIAL explanation of how I've done what I've done. I say partial explanation because I do actually use some techniques from hypnosis and NLP to perform some of the effects I do. It adds a lot of flavour to your performances and if you wanted to, you can go straight into a hypnosis session, especially when it's a person whom just asked you how you did what you did with genuine interest and intrigue. At that point you can already pretty much reliabaly deduce if they would make a good subject or not.

To further go into this subject, I don't think magicians use hypnosis techniques calling them magic or mentalism do so on purpose. I think they use the techniques to create a more meaty presentation. For example, when I went back to reread Jermay's Building Blocks, it dawned on me (this being years later) that what was explained in the book was basically a very rough crashcourse on hypnosis. The point here is that for some reason magicians are a bit more black and white about mentalism, hypnosis, and magic. Many can not grasp the fact that you can create quite a powerhouse by combining concepts. If you take a look at other well known mentalists today such as Derren Brown (hate to use him as an example since it feels quite cliche but he's such a easy one to use as an example), Derren essentially does what we are discussing on this thread BACKWARDS. Derren uses NLP and hypnosis as FALSE explanations which shows a LOT about how much more interesting one can make his/her presentation by usisng hypnosis/NLP concepts. It's quite good actually.

Some magicians are so bad its a crime to call what they do hypnosis.

Bad as in bad performers or bad as in they deceive beyond ethical acceptance?

Bad performance and use but then that isn't isolated to magicians...

Ha ha. Gotcha.

Interesting thoughts, kissdadookie... Thanks.

Dittos. Combining NLP, Hypnosis and Mentalism can be very entertaining and mind boggling.

PS: Derren's demos are incredible.

I know wht you're saying Candin but no-one quite knows how Derren Brown does what he does. He seems to have (I'm looking for a big word but can't find it! Trans.... something or other) somehow made himself and his art bigger than mere method. IF he managed to pull any of his miracles off mereley by using a stooge off the street called Jimmy who tells a lie to camera for £2-50 pence in order to buy himself a pork pie and a can of beer then I simply love it!
Can you imagine a world where wise mentalists bang their heads agains brick walls as Derren and his pal Jimmy share a pork pie and a can of lager? It's simply and utterly sublime.

I think Derren is a tight wad. I think poor jimmy should be paid better.

Shame on Derren.

There can often be very valid reasons for not calling hypnosis hypnosis. If you perform in the UK you have the 1956 Hypnotism Act to deal with. This means you must get a licence from the local authority for each performance. But if you call your show a demonstration of suggestibility, then you can get around that.
Sometimes people are a bit scared of hypnosis. I find that small groups in rural areas, or business groups with their boss present, have inhibitions that need to be overcome. So I can, and occasionally do, perform an entire show without mentioning hypnosis. I tell my volunteers not to go into a trance, but to pretend, and we will see who does the best job. Of course they then slip into the state I want, and the show runs very smoothly.
I think we should not be too precious about what we call our art. The important thing is the audience reaction.

And then the lawyers tell you to pretend to not be worried when you find yourself in court. And they can go a whole court case without mentioning the word twat.

Good advice here. Pros and cons with each approach and I am still trying to sort out what to say if and when my confidence improves. I have done the suggestibility tests and convincers on and off for years and never gave a second thought about it.

Hey, Im over the pond so whatever Derren is doing is pretty darn convincing. I don't agree with everything he does but if its a combination of stooge work and real time, perhaps I should pay more attention. I never discounted stooge work but it cannot be all. Reminds me of the movie The Prestige.

On the legal side, I would find it would be hard for someone to prove they were "under." Unless, a suggestion is given that made them injure or suffer "emontional loss" etc. A mere trance feeling relaxed and good I would discount as silly. Sure anyone can get sued by anyone but to win is another story. Maybe having credintials would be a hinderance in this case.

C

In terms of legal cases following hypnosis shows, I cannot speak for the American situation. But in the UK Paul McKenna was sued, and in Ireland Edward White was sued. In both cases the hypnotists were found to be completely in the right, and both were cleared of any impropriety. Hypnosis is not a form of brainwashing, and will not give you the powers to make people do things they will sue you about afterwards. There is a lot of talk about legal issues around hypnosis. But if you look at the infrequency of the cases brought, and the unsuccessful outcomes of those cases, you will realise that it is just talk.
The reality is that you are about as likely to be sued as a magician because of a prop falling on a volunteer as you are as a hypnotist over someone suffering an adverse reaction. Its fairly much a non-issue.

Without a license (for hypnosis)its illegal. Without insurance you won't get a license.

There have been successful cases against hypnotists. At the moment in the UK I don't think there is a problem for hypnotists. Simply because there isn't enough to get much media attention.

But personally I would still remain on the side of the law. Who wants to take that risk?

In most countries in the world hypnosis is perfectly legal without a licence. And it is not difficult to get insurance. I am not aware of the successful cases against hypnotists, so cannot comment on them. But I am aware of successful cases against Pantos, circuses, etc. I repeat what I said previously; hypnosis is no more legally problematic than any other form of entertainment.

No license required on this side of the pond but if the government knows money is involved, it certainly will license it sooner or later. I know already the stage here is listing only accredited schools for hypnosis coursework.