I just read how many people go into hypnosis many times a day. To be honest during pre-talks I am guilty of saying precisely that. However in reality, I don't be;lieve that that's the case. I do believe that people enter trance many times in a day but in none of these cases has hypnosis, in reality, taken place. I think for one to enter hypnosis one has to be hypnotised, which includes the removal of the critical factor.
THIS is where newbies get mixed up completely. You hear them talk of trying set pieces out where the hypnotee followed instructions in every single step.... until the first actual test was given. Then it simply fell apart.
I believe what actually happened here is that they may have succesfully induced trance but in that last final part, where they are meant to establish 'super suggestion' and confirmation that the hypnotee will:
a) accepte every single suggestion put to them, and
b) immediately go back into trance when instructed.
.... it fell apart for whatever reason: hypnotee couldn't go or the hypnotist couldn't put them there.

So, what I'm claiming, is that AFTER the final set piece is done the removal of the critical factor now needs to take place to move the hypnotee from a trance state to a hypnotic state. Albeit yes, there will be some who will simply slip into the hypnotic state beforte being instructed to do so.

discuss......

bobser

That's not exactly true though bobser. Someone can appearto have all their faculties including critical factor and be totally conscious. Yet a key re-induction will re-induce the trance "state".

This is one of the puzzles of hypnosis in that you need to condition someone to deepen the state yet it can be terminated with one word.

It behaves like a conditioned response and a state simultaniously. One of the puzzles of trying to pin it down.

We experience many states during the day many of them are trances. Our external awareness is turned inwards and we operate externally on auto pilot.

A trance induced by a hypnotist is just another mental/emotional state. One of many.

So I see what you mean. Its a bit like snow eskimo's have lots of words for different kinds of snow because its important for their survival.

At end of day words are just labels.

Explaining the trance is hypnosis myth with the Eskimo have a gazillion words for snow myth is not helping. Have a look into it, well known urban myth that has nothing to do with their survival.

Reminds me of NLPers spouting the Mehrabian myth that when someone speaks to us, only 7 percent of what they mean communicates itself through the words they use. Even Mehrabian himself has done his best to kill that one. To no avail of course.

Anthony

You could be right. But then its just an analogy that for me goes a long way to explain something that's just a theory anyway. The construct or idea of hypnosis can change depending on what or where you are drawing from.

If Im doing stage hypnosis then the most useful way to think of it as authoritarian and switching of the critical faculty. That obviously works best. When I do therapy its not the best way of looking at it.

When I work with business people or sales people I have a different set of constructs that allow me to work more effectively within that context.

So for me personally it does more than help. It allows me the flexibility to develop skills and processes that get great results which otherwise I wouldn't be able to do.

No one knows exactly what hypnosis is or isn't. Some argue it doesn't exist.

I must sound like an NLPer then I believe words by themselves have limited meaning. Its the subtle changes of the meaning of the same words that can make huge differences in sales results.

It always reminds me of a comic book tutorial created by Will Eisner. ( I used to be a graphic illustrator and cartoonist) Where he drew a numer of pages with same speeh balloons but the character had different body language in each one.

The meanings were totally different. Their voices which you create inside your head sounded totally different to.

You can argue with specifics and nit pick anything pull anything apart. That doesn't mean it isn't useful in certain contexts. And others critical.

Why does it matter either way?

I'm a hypnotist and an NLPer, I'm not worried about the distinction between "Trance" & "Hypnois".

People go in and out of states everyday ( daydreaming, remembering a nice pleasnt holiday) that will make them feel good. In an influence setting I might change a persons state with a good question,and/ or an embedded command.

As for the hypnotic state for a stage show, for example you want them to
a) accepte every single suggestion put to them, and
b) immediately go back into trance when instructed

That seems to me to be about getting a person to accept your control. The suggestibiliy tests help lead that person into a state and shows them thta the hypnotist has the power to influence their actions. Psychologists call it prestige suggestability. If a newbie hasn't adequately dermonstrate this then the person probbly wont go into a deeper (hypnotic) trance state

Marc

I actually don't get that Mark. For me it absolutely matters. It matters because there is a difference, and it's better to be able to recognise the difference & indeed demonstrate it. It's kinda like when hypnotists claim we all go into hypnosis several times a day, when we actually DON'T. But we do enter trance, which involves the retainment of out critical faculties.
I'm ok with CBT but I'm not sure if I agree with your argument that if a newbie hasn't demonstrated prestige suggestabilty (theory)the hypnotee won't go into a deeper trance state. Whilst in a pub last month I had this psychologist telling me all about it. Fifteen minutes later his face was a picture when his mate turned on the camera and the psychologist sat there watching himself singing and dancing as I whispwred sweet nothiongs in his ear.
Now Mindpunisher claims he self hypnotises. I'm sure he has a very powerful mind and he SELF-TRANCES rather well, as ALL self-hypnotisers do (because it's all they can do.
In closing I'd have to say I find it interesting how many 'stage-hypnotists' (not all of course) are not that interested in differences within certain modes of thought. I used to find it strange until I realised: 'why would they? They only want to get the result. To zap and have fun'.

The reason bobser that stage hypnotists aren't interested in different modes of thought is because they only need to use trance/hypnosis whatever you want to call it is because you have not much use outwith getting people to make an idiot of themselves. Which is ok by me I was a stage hypnotist for a long time. Still am in another way.

To me hypnosis and trance is the same or very similar thing. Using hypnosis in an everyday persuasion context is about communication that directs controls or amplifies everyday natural trance in order to get a target group or individual to respond in a certain way. Much like a stage hypnotist but much more subtle. And usually a lot more involved which is why I love doing this. It takes a lot more skill and knowledge.

When anybody asks me about hypnosis I tell them anyone can be hypnotised but not everyone is suitable for stage hypnosis which is a particular style or type of hypnosis.

the critical factor is rarely if ever switched off anyway... its more than likely subdued.

As for hypnotising myself Bobser well I guess you just can't do it. Would you like me to teach you how? After a trip to your cash dispenser?

I agree with you though bobser most psychologists talk a load of ****e

For sake of simplicity lets agree that a hypnotist is someone that directs what is a natural occurence "trance" for specific aims.

As for self hypnosis being all I can do. When performing I used to perform regularly to 1000 audience and did for years.

I have moved a 250,000 donation to £1million for a charity

I have broke records for merc benz

I have been involved with the policein creating campaigns to get the public to come forward and give info on drug dealers

Just last week I bumped into one of my clients who closed a deal worth £340k using a technique I developed called the hypnotic bullet.

I don't understand why any hypnotist wouldn't be interested beyond the stage the subject fascinates me.

To stay at stage level is like never growing beyond being a sperm.

Actually now I come to think about it the reason I have been able to do all these things is because I can hypnotise myself.

Hi Bobser


I suppose the difference is not whether we call one trance and one hypnosis, but think of it as a continuum from light trance to somnambulant trance

I tend to agree with Mind Punisher on this but that's not to say that trance and hypnosis are not separate.

I prefer using language, and psychological principals to persuade and influence rather than stage hypnosis routines. But that's because I work in the sales and influence area and not stage hypnotism which is how I started off.

Whether we call it Trance Hypnosis or suggestion I suppose is a matter of personal choice.

As for whether prestige suggestibility is a theory I’ve read lots of studies that show it’s definitely provable. Robert Cialdini's "Influence" talks about Authority which in my mind is very similar to prestige suggestibility.

Also having worked in the sales and influence arena for 15 years I know how important authority is.

Obviously you understand that suggestibility tests e.g. "glued hands" before we induce a subject into somnambulant trance are important in a stage show. Are these tests trance, suggestibility or hypnosis?

I'm a big fan of self hypnosis, some people would call that trance, others would call it visualisation, others would call it mental rehearsal, and some would call it meditation. Others would call it alpha / theta state.

So many definitions so little time!

All the best
Marc

I believe all of the above definitions comes from the same envelop of hypnosis.

Definitions are just like the analogy(true or not)of eskimos have many words for snow.

It depends where you are and the application and needs. I think the best place to be is where you can jump from definition to definition depending upon what you are trying to achieve.

Definitions or theories are just that tools to get you where you want.

As for provable, you can prove most thing don't work or don't exist if that's your focus.

If something works for me then it works who cares what others think.

Wise words.

My fear is that quoting 'analogy' such as Eskimos and words for snow or the 7% rule as truth in a business environment or any other expert/prestige based situation can destroy the credibility of the rest of your 'bone shaking'. Earlier you stated this snow myth as if you believed it was a fact. I got the impression you presented it as if you believed it to be true. Not an analogy. I apologise if I was mistaken. Either way there is no shame in believing an urban myth. Until you look into them or someone tells you how would you know otherwise - they often make sense. Of course I see their value. However, some of your audience will be better read on a topic and realise you are talking cr*p and might as well believe in fairies. It can be hard to take people seriously after that even if they warrented taking seriously in the first place.

For me it is on a par with NLP trainers using Derren routines as evidence for embedded commands. If someone is in the know it might just sound a bit silly.

Ant

Nice try Ant.

There is only one credibility results.

Actually its not on a par with derren brown since the above analogies ARE standard NLP analogies. And if you really understood the underlying principles of NLP you would understand that NLP never claims to be the truth. It claims to have useful ideas and tools that work sometimes. And when they don't use something else. Its a pity other fields don't subscribe to this since they would be more effective.

I find some NLP to be really useful other things not to be. I did my NLP training in the mid 90s. Since then I've developed my own processes drawn from various other sources. Im not claiming I am right. I am saying they work for me. And many of my clients.

There is only one real measure of whats useful or not and that's results that's all that matters. Most psychologists or academics I have met can prove this or prove that but can't actually do anything useful or result orientated with what they know.

They can prove hypnosis exist or they can prove it doesn't.

There is no shame believing anything. Inact haing the ability to take on beliefs that serve you while disregarding those that don't is a basic fundemantal component of success in any field. Reality is slippery at best.

I said you may be right I never said you were right. Personally I've never looked into whether its right or not. So I can't say one way or another. that's not the point. The point is its useful so I will continue to use it. Infact I can't remember last time I did. It just seems the perfect analogy or metaphor to get over a point Im making on this thread. You can choose to pull it apart or see the meaning it is supporting. The point has nothing to do with fairy tales.

7% of meaning in words? Well I don't know how anyone comes to the figure of 7%

My experience tells me that to some extent it is accurate to say that voice inflections, speed of delivery, facial expressions and general body language as well as context have a huge influence over the actual meaning of words. I don't know how anyone can dispute this. No matter where you "read" it.

You miss the point totally. Its not about what I say. Its about what I achieve for my clients. My growing list of testimonials give me credibility. I only care about those that want results. And they always listen. And if they don't then I really don't care either I don't want to work with everyone.


I never did respect or agree with Derren or mentalist that use embedded commands etc in their routines. Simply because in my experience they are useful and do work.
If they are applied properly with other elements in place.

For me I hope I am never on par with NLP trainers.

I encourage you to read the research it is based on then.

Ant

Do you know I find a lot of research pointless. Since performance and results tend to be affected by changes in behaviour and beliefs.

Having been in sales for example. You can go through periods where you sell nothing but you use the exact same words as to when you were breaking records.

Same with stage work. If you walk on stage taking your problems with you on your mind...you get a different audience than when you are on the ball although you use the same words.

The exact percentage if it is possible to quantify isn't really important. I am sure researchers could study what I do and prove it doesn't work if that's what they wanted to do. But clients are buying results. And by and large most of them usually get them.

that's where my focus is and because of that that's why my words seem to work.

Back to the 7%. If it were useful for me to research the research it would be worth researching. I always take these things to be rough guide. It is accurate enough to be useful. So Im not really that bothered. My experience tells me that words can be intepretated quite differently depending on the other elements in communication. that's all I need to know.

However if someone ever challenged me in a situation I would just tell them to take what ever was useful from the programme and fitted into their own experience.

I talk about words and nonverbals as being an expression of energy. And that the most basic level persuasion is sending and recieving energy. Which can only be done unconsciously. Your target pick up what you are feeling and that is thrown into the mix when intepretating what you say.

So therefore a big part of what I do is changing mindset and unconscious behaviour which is missing in 90% or more on sales courses. Which is why most of them don't work as well as they could.


Now can it be proved or disproved scientifically? I don't know. But for me it seems to be true. I get results not only for myself but others. that's all I am bothered about. I am not a scientific researcher. Hypnosis isn't science its closer to being an art.

Ok Ant I had a quick read of the clinical research you mentioned. here is my problem with such research. First of all its research. That has a meaning in itself it sends a message to those that participate. Secondly it asks for conscious judgments from those taking part. Its kind of well known that asking a group what they think about something may actually turn out differently to how they would act.

What people say and actually do tends to be different.

One of the good things about sales is the evidence is in the sales. Which is why I like working with business people.

Whenever ever I use any theories based on research I always say "research suggests". I never say it is the "truth". Because personally I don't believe it to be the case. Its useful at best. But people who seem to be really successful don't fit into whats normally expected they think differently outside the majority.

If something works for someone it works that's all that matters. I sometimes use pieces of mentalism to illustrate points. To change thinking in useful ways. I frame it as a bit of fun. Then lead on to a serious point.

Changing a groups behaviour and performance is nearer to being an art not a science.

Hello guys

This seems to have moved from a discussion on Trance but it’s a really interesting debate. Can I throw in a few thoughts?

For me research is useful as it can provide ideas, for example the research on priming has helped me develop a number of influence techniques that work incredibly well for me and my sales clients.

The problem with a lot of psych research is it can be small numbers (and I’m not even mentioning if the design of the trial is robust). So we to look at it, take some ideas, develop them and then test. I work primarily in SALES, and I have lost of testimonials of people who’ve used my system and got results.

But to bring it back to the original discussion, how many newbie hypnotists follow a system (word for word) and don't get the results they want or expect? Or more than likely it works 50% of time and not the other.

The problem is unless we are in the room with them we have to take on their version of events. Now I’ve done this with clients, actually sat in the room, and I spot loads of things they are doing / not doing / doing, but not very well.

Sometimes its technique, sometimes its even attitude (belief) I think that’s what we have here peoples belief /views of the world are different.

None of them are right or wrong just different. I know people who love certain sales techniques that I dislike or believe they don’t work. Who is wrong? Neither of us we, just tend to believe different things...

And then as Hypnotists we all have had the paradoxical situation, where a subject calims he dosent believe in Hypnosis, yet is the first one to go under!

Is that becaue the techniques are so powerful? Or is it that we convinced him to believe? Or is it that our attitude was such that there was no way we could fail as we believed we would hypnotise them!

This has been a really interesting thread, I always love it when posts get my brain whiring!

"...for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
William Shakespeare (Hamlet)

All the best

Marc

You know I have had clients spend money and time with me to develop marketing. When I test it they don't have anyone to answer the phone or its switched off.

They then wonder why its not working. Im serious.

I don't see eye to eye with mindpunisher so I wont be accused of being favorably biased toward him but when he speak about hypnosis and related matters I shut up and listen

I find his posts the most original and informative and for that I thank him

I can't argue with anything you said in your last post Marc. In fact I enjoyed your wording. However, the main thing for me is NOT a question of language but rather recognising that trance and hypnosis ARE seperate things. They are, they are, they simply are! Or we are all complete and absolute eccentric constructors of rubbish. Nonsense. Piffle.
When one thing has one word whilst another thing is called by another word it's always for a reason. Synonyms are lovely but they never were meant to mean exactly the same.
I totally accept that technique, skill, attitude etc can turn trance INTO hypnosis.
I even enjoy greatly the argument that hypnosis is 'possibly' a deeper form of trance BUT my main argument is:
Trance is trance
Hypnosis is trance, but with the critical factor removed/lain aside.
I'm alo tired and weary of hypnotist saying: "Ah but the critical factor never realy/truly leaves the room". Yeah yeah yeah we've all heard that, BUT with trance it never even looks away! And THAT'S the difference! And for me to ignore that is to be, well, rather thick. I mean, surely no one has an argument to show how Trance and Hypnosis are the same thing huh?
bobser

Bobser, I agree that trance and hypnosis are not the same.

And for the sake of argument, let's just assume it's a fact.

What you haven't shown is that it will make a difference in anyone's life. Nor will it make a difference in anyone's practice of hypnosis.

So what's your point, here? What are you trying to accomplish.

I mean, imagine you're a teacher and we're all hanging on your every word because our grade depends upon it. You've just proved to us that trance and hypnosis are different.

Now what will you say? What will you teach next?

We're waiting with baited breath.

Fair enough Craig. I take your point. But lets take baby steps together and see what we can accomplish. Lets look at 1) relaxation 2) trance and 3) hypnosis. and for a moment believe they all exist but are all different.
I am suggesting that:
1) If I ask Tom to relax he will relax..... Tom is now in RELAXATION.
2) If I ask Dick to relax (and I take Marc's point in so much that I say it with commitment, skill, technique, attitude) ..... then Dick 'may' slip into actual TRANCE. Thus Dick is now in TRANCE.
3) If I ask Harry to relax (AND I really use those above skills with complete intent AND Harry is a natural somnambulist)..... then Harry will very probably step into HYPNOSIS.

So:
1)Tom is relaxed but not in actual trance.
2)Dick is relaxed AND in trance but his critical factor is still intact thus he is NOT in hypnosis.
3)Harry is relaxed, entranced and, with his critical factor now absent, completely in hypnosis.

I'm actually smiling right now as I realise that some none westerners might be thinking: "Who the hell is Tom Dick & Harry?".
Anyway, my micro treatise is only an idea. BUT it might be absolutely correct.
Who can say? It's simply the way I've grown to look at it.
And to take your point Craig, if it's correct it should make a difference in the mind of both the experienced and newbie hypnotist. Especially the newbie who is broken hearted that his subject carries out all the set pieces but falls down at the first test of hypnotic suggestion. That's happened to me and many others before they acquired experience and everything that goes with it.

bobser