Definitions, Characteristics, etc.
The Mechanics of HypnotismThis chapter, as the previous chapter, was reproduced from Primary Hypnotism 100 and th early editions of Structures of Hypnotism (from 1968 to 1978). I reproduced it without its original outline format but the basic information remains pretty much as it was.
What, then, is hypnotism? Let's start with a dictionary definition. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary has hypnoisis as a state resembling normal sleep, differing in being induced by suggestions and operations of the hypnotizer, with whom the hypnotized subject remains in rapport, responsive to his suggestions."
Here's a definition from the Dictionary of Psychology, Houghton & Mifflin, Boston: "An artificially induced state, usually (though not always) resembling sleep, but physiologically distinct from it, which is characterized by heightened suggestibility, as a result of which certain sensory, motor, and memory abnormalities my be induced more readily than in the normal state."
Here is my 1960s definition of hypnosis: "A specific state of being in which the subject is capable of accepting suggestion subconsciously without analysis from the conscious mind."
Let's start with this. Hypnosis is different from the usual waking state in the following manner.
There is psychological depression, as in overuse of alcohol, narcotics, or physical fatigue. The level of relaxation is an anomaly, as is the slower and heavier breathing. Blood pressure may be decreased and skin temperature increases with an accompanied flushing. Lacrimation is usually observed (moist redness of the eyes).
There are a number of phenomena that can be produced by hypnosis. The most obvious is a sudden loss of memory called amnesia. This can be done by suggestion or post-hypnotic suggestion, but is a usual symptom particularly in the sleepwalking state referred to as somnambulism. Somnambulism in hypnosis is reached from the waking state where traditional sleepwalking somnambulism is reached through normal sleep--a polarity difference. The lightest state of hypnosis produces an almost imperceptible amnesia in which the passage of time appears compressed, while in the deepest levels it's nearly total.
One of the most interesting states in hypnosis is in the control of senses. Examples of this are visual hallucinations both positive and negative (Positive is seeing something that is not there and negative refers to not seeing something that is there.) There are also auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile hallucinations, both negative and positive. Of course, as pointed out in the previous chapter, one of the most profound phenomena produced with hypnosis is alleviation of pain (or, of course, the reverse).
As every stage hypnotist knows, inhibitions are released in hypnosis. This makes possible the hilarious antics of a hypnotized volunteers. A stage hypnotist also knows there are strongly conditioned inhibitions that remain despite contrary suggestions, called censors.
Another interesting phenomenon arising at the medium levels of hypnosis is the lost ability to initiate actions of his or her own will. Charcot observed this and referred to it as catalepsy.
One of the most intriguing phenomena is the temporary but powerful rapport (or transference) produced between hypnotist and subject. This at least partially accounts for that fact that a hypnotized subject will relinquish control to the hypnotist, as long of the sanctity of that trust is not violated. The experienced hypnotist is intuitive to the limits.
The remaining phenomenon is a polarity of amnesia, called hypnermnesia. This is a condition of a marked increase of recall, making possible such things as age-regression. In a medium state of hypnosis, the hypnermnesia is referred to as partial. This means the recalled information is simply heightened. In the deeper levels of hypnosis the hypnermnesia can become what is called true, in which the subject is actually hallucinating events as if they were happening at the moment. It's important to note, as Freud discovered, the information uncovered may be symbolic as in a dream and not necessarily accurate to the actual event or events.
Attempts at the forensic use of hypnosis rediscovered Freud's insight in the early 1980s--in that revivified recall was unreliable and is currently (and appropriately) not acceptable as evidence in a court of law.
If you hang out with me for any length of time you will learn I have a fixation of dividing everything up into threes. Here are the three aspects of hypnotism. I like to think in terms of Subjective, Objective, and Abstract.
The Subjective of hypnosis is the connotation of sleep, loss of control, relaxation, self-improvement method, black magic, evil, and so forth.
The Objective of hypnosis is a specific state of being in which some standardized symptoms occur and specific results can be obtained.
The Abstract might be theories such as role-theoretical analysis, stimulus-response, and conscious-subconscious separation (for the latter, refer to Chapter Seven's Psychic Separation graph).
I can still recall thirty-plus years ago sitting in my little Bellingham, Washington office thinking about the various uses of hypnotism. This snapshot was actually taken about 1982 in Honolulu. Here's the list I came up with these many years ago:
- Medical: surgical, obstetrics, analgesia, dentistry, etc.
- Psychotherapy: (Hypnotherapy): hypnoanalysis, abreaction, symptom removal, hypertension (ed note: In those days, hypertension was synonymous with stress).
- Capability Development: (technical field): Habit conversion, self-image improvement, tension elimination, self-hypnosis, motivation, etc.
-Personal Uses: confidence builder, personal gratification, as a technical profession
- Other uses: sales, personnel management, entertainment, occult research
Okay, let's talk about Waking Hypnosis. You don't hear it mentioned so much today, but during my early years it was a very popular concept. Here is a definition: acceptance of suggestions of a bizarre or abnormal nature without a conscious objective reason. Here's another one: suggestions given in such a way that they will only be reasoned in a deductive manner because of the way in which they were stated.
The commonplace evidence of Waking Hypnosis is in some forms of advertising. Another one is the emotional reaction of a group to a charismatic speaker.
The obvious use of Waking Hypnosis is to initiate the trance levels of hypnosis. It's also an integral part of most pre-induction susceptibility tests. In my approach to hypnosis, all inductions start with Waking Hypnosis. Suggested eye heaviness is a common example of Waking Hypnosis.
How are you, the reader, doing? Are you still with me? I know this might seem a little boring. I promise, I will get into the more fun stuff pretty soon.
But I want to give you the benefit of my concepts of the Nature of Suggestion. I have always chuckle when a smart aleck attempts to play one-upmanship by saying, "Hell, hypnosis is nothing more than suggestion." I'm usually ready for that and say, "Well, that may be true, but define suggestion for me." ...and watch the guy's eyeballs go into orbit as he struggles to come up with something.
Suggestion is one of those simple-appearing words that is very difficult to define. Here's one definition: "To arouse a thought from which will evolve an action or a desire for an action." Here's a really simple one: "A thought which will lead to another thought." Or even more basic "The stimulation of thought." Here is a definition that relates to hypnotism: "The process of communication in which an idea is accepted by the second party as a fact, with or without logical grounds."
Okay, here we go one step further with Types of Verbal Suggestions.
There's direct and indirect; positive and negative, auto-suggestion and hetero-suggestion. Direct suggestion is, as one would guess, specific to what is wanted, e.g. "please sit in that chair." Indirect might be "wouldn't it be nice to relax in that chair?" Positive: "you will set in that chair." Negative: "you can't stand up any longer." Negative suggestions are generally more difficult to implement. Try to not think of a purple polar bear!
Suggestion, as I've discussed, is a trigger for hypnosis. When the hypnotic state exists, hyper-suggestibility always exists (on a sliding scale). Hyper-suggestibility is the mental state in which suggestions are accepted with much less rationalizing and analyzing. (Hyper usually concludes excessive, or at least much greater than the usual.)
Hyper-suggestibility makes possible a deepening process, but depends on the subject's ability to comply with suggestions. Suggestibility exists in theory because an idea always leads toward its realization--moving toward the impulse of the strongest emotional nature.
Here are some effective methods of offering suggestions:
- Combine suggestions and reality
- Combine suggestions and expectation
- Combine suggestions and belief
- Combine suggestions and emotion
- Remove the normal basis for analysis and subsequent rejection.
Positive suggestions are often more powerful than their negative counterpart because a strong negative emotion will cause partial rejection of the suggestion.
Indirect suggestions are implied, e.g. "visualize a beach scene to relax."
Direct suggestions: best used in the induction for deepening, in-trance suggestions, and waking.
Frame suggestions in a manner that indicates to the subject that he/she is experiencing normal reactions, no matter how bizarre the request.
Nature of Semantics & Syntax
The Nature of SemanticsDefinition: the science of the psychological effect of the meaning and sounds of words in language. Here are some basics of semantics in relationship to hypnosis. Words with effect: asleep, sleep, sleepy, drowsy, dreamy, relax, heavy tired, down, letting go, sinking, floating, deep, deeply, sinking down, comfortable, breath deeply, etc.
The Nature of Syntax
Use simple sentence structure (unless you are attempting to cause some confusion to block analytical thoughts). Use a sentence framed to affect a logical acceptance, with the pronoun "you" should be used frequently. e.g. "you will find&&"
The Non Sequitur
NonSequitur: A statement or a conclusion that does not logically follow from previous statements. (Merriam -Webster). This is one of my favorite techniques. I see the non sequitur as a single sentence in two parts in which the parts don't actually relate to one another. The hyper-suggestible subject they may accept both parts as logically related, e.g., "As your hand feels lighter your eyes will become heavy." You will find many examples of the non sequitur in Exercise Eleven.
Use of counting syntax: count forward for an induction and backwards for deepening. For awaking, again count forward.
Mechanics of Hypnosis
The mechanics of hypnosis is somewhat unique in that the structured knowledge of the hypnotist is ninety percent of the mechanics.
The mechanics involves the understanding of the nature suggestion; how to develop belief leading to expectation; how to enhance the acceptance of suggestion. How to do tests that fit into an induction of hypnosis. Hypnotists have a special understanding of reality. They understand the "card-stacking' aspect of presentation of ideas. They also know how to create and take advantage of delusions, and how to present a "hypnotic" manner.
A well-trained hypnotist will be able to use misdirected attention in a way similar to the stage magician. They will know how to use fascination objects beyond the ubiquitous (and silly) swinging pocket watch. They will know of audio distraction techniques, and how to take advantage of the emotion of rapport.
Formulas for Hypnosis
I became interested in formulas for human behavior decades ago. Here is one formula that was popular in the 1950s. It's called Gindes' Formula: Misdirected Attention + Belief + Expectation = The Hypnotic State.
And here's mine (from the 1960s): Suggestion + Reality + Card-Stacking = Belief + Expectation = hyper-Suggestibility + Directed Attention = Hypnosis.
Catalog of Methods
- Oral: using only verbal suggestion for the hypnotic induction
- Relaxation: oral method concentrating on physical relaxation
- Permissive: an oral method which places the burden of trance development on the subject, e.g., "you'll go into a hypnotic sleep only if you desire...it's up to you"
- Confusion: a fast oral technique which intends to confuse the subject
- Fascination: a method that uses a point of reference of some kind to hold the subject's visual attention while hypnosis is induced.
- Mechanical: use of a mechanical devise (strobe, HypnoDisk, etc.) with or without oral suggestions.
- Lightning: the subject is frightened or shocked, allowing the hypnotists to gain momentary control for a rapid induction and deepening.
- Posthypnotic Key: using a posthypnotic suggested word or action to induce subsequent hypnosis
- The Weisbrod Method: waking-hypnotism tests are developed into a fascination hypnotic induction.
The Pre-Induction talk
If ever the phrase "Less is Better" was true, it's with the pre-induction talk. I have seen hypnotists destroy the possibility of the best response by talking too much prior to a first induction. They tell the subject that hypnosis is safe and easy--they stress that one won't do anything against one's will. They talk about how it's not magic, that how the client still has to do the work. And some hypnotists go so far as saying something like "all hypnosis is really self-hypnosis."
"Less is Better" frequently comes to mind, but sometimes "shooting oneself in the foot" applies even better. Many times the mind-set of a subject entering the therapist's office is far more conducive for hypnosis than the mind-set that replaces it during an over-done pre-induction talk. I'll cover this in detail later.
The Making of a Hypnotist
|
It has
been said that the uneducated know a little about a lot,
while technicians know a lot about a little. Professionals are supposed
to know a lot
about a lot. CW |
Much to my embarrassment, it was pointed out to me that when I talked to (especially) a potential smoking client, about half of these people went on to make an appointment. When I was in session and the receptionist handled the call, about 80% of the callers went on to make an appointment. I took a lot of good-natured abuse from my associates who joked that the phone should be removed from my office.
It wasn't funny to me since I believed I had superior communication skills--apparently that wasn't the case. So I hooked up a tape recorder to the two phones with instructions to the receptionist to record the appropriate calls, and I recorded mine.
I listened to both conversations hoping to discover my problem. Sure enough, there it was! At the conclusion of every one of my calls, with a punitive edge to my voice, I would tell the caller that "there was a clinical study of 5000 autopsies showing, at 40 pack-years, 100% had some evidence of cancer growing in the lung." And usually there was an audible gasp at the other end of the line. "I made my point," I would think smugly.
Wow! If there was ever a "leave-em-feeling-bad" statement, that was it! To me, it was just a powerful statement that said, "You're making a good decision to quit smoking."
The receptionist, on the other hand, would assure the caller that if they made an appointment, they would leave the clinic as a non-smoker. The call was friendly and helpful. My approach was paternal and unnerving.
I painted in big letters on a card "LEAVE 'EM LAUGHING!" and stuck it to the telephone. It was a reminder for me to conclude a conversation of one minute (or one hour) with the patient feeling better than at the beginning.
The same is true for a letter or an email. I believe that any communication, written or verbal, that leaves me feeling uneasy, or a bit angry, comes from someone who is somewhat challenged as a communicator, and even now, I have that same old tattered and yellowed card on my computer: "Leave 'em Laughing." After all these years, I still need to be remined.
Here's a great example. It's an experience I had just as I was doing the re-write on my Charisma & Power Program a few months ago. Here's the story:
I needed to telephone a computer store to find out about a computer I had ordered. The salesman, who was without a doubt a computer-whiz, immediately took on a kind of a parental role. As a result, by the end of the conversation, I was feeling mildly irritated even though (superficially) he appeared polite and helpful.
His tone had him as superior and therefore relegated me to an inferior role. How did he did he do that? He did it by refusing to anticipate my questions, and forcing me ask each one. He then provided good information, but in a flippant manner--a patronizing tone in his voice. There are several common errors of the non-charismatic person. And, as you will see, it happened within seconds in a very short conversation.
Here's the setting: I needed some information and started the conversation by asking a question. It should have been ego-to-ego, adult-to-adult, but he came back, much to my annoyance, from his parent aimed at my child. If I would have flipped into my superego state and took a verbal jab at his child, some unpleasantness could have ensued, and I must admit I was on the edge of doing just that.
Here's the dialogue: I was on the telephone with an office supply company with a person who I'll call "Dave"
& and Dave said very politely: "How may I assist you?"
I explained I had already purchased a computer and the monitor was back-ordered. I was calling to find out if it had arrived in stock. Dave informed me that it hadn't, but it was expected in later that day. No problems so far.
But then I said: "Dave, while I have you on the phone, can you tell me about a cable type transfer verses the ZIP Drive... to transfer of my MS Word and EudoraPro information from my old computer to the new one? I have purchased the new software from you for MS Word and EudoraPro and I need to figure out how best to transfer the files from my old computer."
And Dave said, "What files?"
And I struggled to find the words to explain what I needed to transfer to the new computer, Dave interrupted by impatiently saying: "Data files." To which I said&"ah, what?"
"You're talking about Data files." Dave chuckled indulgently. This left me feeling a bit foolish at not being able to come up with the term. And I said: "Yes, that's right. I need to transfer my data files to the new computer. How do I do that?"
To which Dave answered with a condescending tone, "You can transfer data files any way you wish." Side-stepping this non-answer, I tried another approach: "Well, someone said that using a cable was the best way to transfer files, so I was wondering if I should purchase the cable you have in your store." To which Dave asked, "Do you have LapLink?" I said, "No I don't have that." And I asked, "What is LapLink and how much does it cost?" To which Dave said simply "$300," completely ignoring my "what is it" part of the question. I then said, "well, I would rather pay you or the other sales person to come over and help me with the transfer." (I was only a couple of blocks frrom the store.)
At this point, Dave really nailed me! Here's what he said, "The store considers it unethical for a sales person to do consulting work with customers, and if I did that I could be fired." He went on at some length about how he did do consulting work, but never with customers. And then added "Anyway, I would charge at least $300 for doing such a job."
I knew $300 was way out of line for such a simple job, and I was tempted to gravitate into my critical superego to say something like "Brain surgeons don't charge that much!" or "If you're that damn valuable what the hell are you doing working as a store clerk?" But, I resisted the impulse.
Anyway, I did manage to drag some useful information from Dave, who was very knowledgeable. Then as the final insult, Dave started carrying on an annoying conversation with someone on his end of the phone, so I said " well, I see you're busy so I'll let you go." and thanked him for his help, to which he replied with a bit of sarcasm. "Yes, we do have customers here." I hung up wondering what he considered me, having spent several thousand dollars at his store.
So let's debrief a bit: I stayed in my adult ego state (with some difficulty) while Dave constantly changed ego states unnecessarily. But instead of transmitting the information I was looking for, he bounced around in ego states other than his adult, which resulted in his being enshrined in a course as an example of how to destroy one's chances of being charismatic.
A year or so later, I was in the store to purchase a new scanner, and Dave ended up as my sales person. I focused an extra effort to treat Dave in the most friendly manner possible. I asked some personal questions and even told him a joke. He responded by providing me with excellent and friendly service. From then on, when he would see me in the store, he would rush to my aid. Sadly, a few months later he was fired due to too many customer complaints.
My point is if you want to be charismatic, a first rule is to not annoy the people you are speaking with. There are two critical points when communication imprints: at the very beginning and the very end of a conversation. Hypnotists should be particularly sensitive to this. I'm living proof, however, that this sensitivity doesn't always exist.
Let your mind drift back through time and space: Go to an actual moment that a casual acquaintance with whom you were speaking said something--a simple statement you liked so much that it remains a vivid memory. It's surprising that a comment that faded from the speaker's mind with the echo of the very words would be something you would carry with you to the grave.
Perhaps we can compare charisma with musical talent. There are plenty of great musicians that were not child prodigies. Which impies even when one isn't gifted with a natural charismatic personality, with a little practice, charisma can be developed.
In general, charisma is a term applied to someone who is noticeably more attractive to a greater cross-section of people than would be considered typical. In the extreme, charismatic people can seem almost irresistible. Charismatic people might be referred to as charming, alluring, appealing fascinating, glamorous, and magnetic."
One of the basics of charisma is that it's most often either won or lost is the first few seconds of an individual interaction with another; and in groups, within minutes during, for example, a speech.
Lets get some personal questions out of the way first. Maybe you're wondering if I'm charismatic? No, I don't consider myself charismatic. In fact, I'm a bit reclusive. I tend to be obsessed with work, and I don't like a lot of people getting too close.
I, however, love people as individuals when they meet the following criteria: They must be non-cruel, honest where it counts, and usefully productive.
The I see the non-cruel trait is inflexible, and applies equally to cruelty against humans and animals. I believe cruelty is cruelty--an absolute term. I don't believe cruelty is something that can be easily forgiven, even though I acknowledge we all have a bit of cruelty that is part of our very nature. I insist, however, it's a part of our mental processes that must be controlled. I believe that those who don't control latent cruelty should lose the right to live among the rest of us; not to punish, but as protection for the innocent who would be the victims of cruel behavior. This protection was supposed to be provided by law enforcement, legal, and judicial systems. Globally at least, it's pretty obvious that these systems are not providing the protection we should expect--even a year after a wake-up call as dramantic as 9/11, the social systems are not yet up-to-speed with such protection.
Rapport
One of the things every hypnotist gets to experience is
rapport. This is an observable state especially with subjects who
experience the profound hypnotic state referred to as somnambulism.
It's characterized by a wide-eyed, warm, unblinking stare fastened on
the hypnotist.The difference between hypnotist rapport and that from one's child or a lover: is it's not sexual, it's very temporary, and it's conditional. Let me expand a bit on these three things:
It happens between a hypnotist and subject without regard to whether it's child to adult, man to women, women to man, man to man, or women to women. The gender of the hypnotist or the subject is not necessarily relevant.
This rapport state (aka, transference) It usually lasts only a few minutes from the time an induction is terminated and is related only to the process that went on during the induction and nothing more. The exception to this would be if a subject tended to easily form obsessions thought patterns.
As a hypnotherapist, you may know of hapless and poorly trained hypnotists that attempted to unethically capitalize on this rapport state (for example, a seduction), and have that warmth instantly change to hostility or fear. You many know a case or two in which a neophyte hypnotist found out about this the hard way.
The major feature of rapport is its state of profound trust based on the hypnosis process right after it happens. But again, if that trust is violated in any way, rapport turns to hostility or fear. With experienced hypnotists, it's seldom violated. Even the stage hypnotist, who appears to make fools out of his or her subjects, learns how to function within the tacit approval of the volunteers. To make the show entertaining, stage hypnotists have techniques to accomplish this in a way that is hidden from the audience.
So without a doubt, a hypnotist possesses profound charisma. But this is only during the time the hypnotizing process is happening. Many hypnotists don't want to extend this trait into their day-to-day personality, and in fact, feel uncomfortable with it. For that reason, narcissism is not a trait that many hypnotists possess. Perhaps you have already noticed at gatherings of hypnotists, such as a convention, you will find yourself among a remarkably low-key bunch of folks.
[Side Note] The above statement was suggested as untrue by some of my Beta Testers for the 2000 edition. If this has changed, and hypnotist population has become a loud and obnoxious group, as was suggested, this is indeed unfortunate.
Background Information (e)
 |
This is a cartoon taken from the
Charisma & Power workbook,
(c) 2000. It follows a Transactional Analysis model, and came in handy
as a blackboard illustration of a complex topic. It's very powerful to have the ability to recognize the possible transactions between two people, and learn to recognize the related meanings. Sigmund Freud coined the term ego. He used it to refer to the part of us that is a bit like a computer, the most mechanical, adult-like cognitive process. It's a Latin root word referring to the noun, "I," the self. When someone is functioning from the ego they are simply receiving and transmitting information in a logical and unemotional manner. It has become a popular term with such derivations as egomaniac or egotistical. But Freud intended it as a simple term meaning the self. Freud was aware, though, that after adulthood we would still frequently function from a child-like state, and he called this child-like ego state the id. |
Then there is the superego. The superego is the ego state where feelings such as guilt reside--the conscience is a superego's function. It's the parent part of us. The superego develops as we start playing house with dolls, teddy bears, and even with toy guns. It's has both nurturing and critical tendencies.
It can become a bit confusing during a transaction between two people for this reason; there are nine different ego-state possibilities with every statement made, and nine more coming back from the other side. Don't panic, though. In most cases, it's only one ego state that is shooting at another ego state, with a somewhat predicable response coming back.
I think it's important to spend time thinking about background information. Many times folks play down the value of information not specific to the task at hand, but professional musicians learn music theory, pilots learn aerodynamics, and physicians learn biochemistry. The need for background information is subtle but necessary.
First of all, you need to know that all cognitive processes function in groups of threes; the Id, Ego, and Superego, or in plain language, the parent, adult and child. (Look again at the cartoon above.) The reason for the threes is that's how the thinking part of the brain functions.
If you don't understand the basics of this neurological principle, allow me to go over it with you.
Brain Hemispheres
Well over a century ago, battlefield surgeons observed that if a soldier survived a rifle ball that entered the center of the forehead and exited above the right ear, there would most likely be some left side paralysis If the exit hole was above the left ear, paralysis would be on the right side. From that basic observation, they knew that there was a control factor in the cortex of the brain that crossed over to the opposite side of the body. Anatomists noticed the same thing on autopsy of stroke and injury victims.
They also noticed (both surgeons and anatomists) that left and right side injuries often caused specific behavior changes. In typical cases, if the injury was on the left side, the victim lost the ability to speak and most of their reasoning ability. If on the right, in most cases, the victim could speak and reason but their personality seemed to become flat and their emotions and insight seemed to be lost. From that, it was known a century ago that the two hemispheres of the human brain had distinct cognitive functions--and these functions of thought and personality could be passed back and forth from hemisphere to hemisphere. Since those times, we have expanded and fine-tuned that understanding of the brain, but these early observations, and the conclusions, have remained intact.
We have three brain functions:
- One dominated by the *left cerebral cortex...
- another dominated by the *right cerebral cortex...
- a third from the interaction of both hemispheres.
* Ed Note: notibly in left-handed people, this order is sometimes reversed.
Freud knew of this from his training as a physician and neurologist, and categorized the patterns of advanced human behavior into threes. The Id, The Ego, and the Superego, or the Child, Adult, and the Parent. But these three structure basics didn't begin and end with Freud. Most advance behavior functions follow this pattern. Music is structured in threes; religious doctrine is usually structured in threes (the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit for example). Comedians use the three-structure for their monologues, and sales people use it to close a sale. So you see, this three-structure thing is ubiquitous.
Unfortunately, many folks are locked into a habit of splitting their reasoning process right down the middle.
Two-Value Thinking
In this program, you've heard me talk about the right-brain and the left-brain, ad nauseam. This could be especially true if you've jumped ahead and read Section Eleven. In that word-for-word induction, I break down every subject comment and thought into (L) or (R). You may think from this that I'm breaking my own rule with this repetitious duality--I'm not. For accuracy, I should have broken it down into (L), (R), & (I). I didn't use the "I" (Integrated) simply because it would have over-complicated already difficult-to-follow writing.
In order to be a really good hypnotist you must be a good diagnostician. Of course, if you're not a physician or a psychologist you wouldn't be expected to have the skills of these practioners, but you nevertheless need some insight. If you haven't a clue of the difference between a medical and psychological condition, whether chronic or acute, infectious or degenerative, etc. you will make mistakes in your treatment. There is a lot to know, and your patients have a right to expect you've availed yourself to this knowledge. But there's a major thing you need to avoid--for this I've coined the term Two-Value Thinking.
I really dislike US politics (and politics in general) with its ubiquitous two-value thinking. It has fostered a population of bureaucrats becoming so skilled at lying that they condition themselves out of the ability to think creatively, beyond using the language to cleverly fit within the two-value thinking of their constituency. The idea is to get a majority of the population to love them while, at the same time, hating the opposition...and the voting population has swallowed it hook-line-&-sinker. The US political system is the most complicated social entity on the planet, and yet political agendas are regarded (by too many voters) with the cognitive thinking more appropriate for high-school football games. To add insult to injury, many politicians sprinkle their speeches with sports vernacular, such as "hit it out of the park" and "make an end run." They are, sports fans, talking down to us!
If we weren't already convenienced, 9/11 should have taught us that politics needs to rise above the mentality of high-school football. Have you even wondered why the bureaucracy seems to screw-up all that it tries to accomplish? Think of the terrible job a physician would do if he or she broke everything down in this manner. Their patients would either be sick or well, with a virus or a bacterium that could be cured or not cured.
Beyond arriving at frequent misdiagnosis, two-valued types couldn't relate to clients not sharing their perspective. They tend to see things black-and-white and right-or-wrong. Because they are often unable to develop empathy for the views of others, they must fake it, and the client usually senses this. Two-value thinkers tend to be rigid and lack intuition.
Social Skills
Okay, let's shift to charisma and social skills. There are many potentially charismatic folks that lose the rights (so to speak) to a wonderful trait by destroying the trust of the folks they meet in the first minutes of the first conversation. Think back to my experience with the young man at the computer store. Using a conversational pattern he had probably modeled from one or both parents, undoubtedly he lost many opportunities for his intelligent and nurturing side to shine through.
There are three states you can assume while communicating with others. You can be aggressive (from the superego) you can be passive (which is usually from the Id). Or you can be assertive which is from a pure ego state--the adult. To be aggressive is usually an argumentative and sometimes angry state of mind. The passive state of mind is manipulative and child-like. But the assertive state is a pure and powerful adult ego state.
As children, we learn social skills, as taught by our parents and at school. But I'm often surprised at the number of folks that lack social skills--and I always think, "Wow! What a handicap!"
Many times these people are nice friendly folks--they just have never developed the automatic social responses, even such simple things as knowing when to say "thank you." Some are the more complex issues such as writing thank-you notes and knowing how to manage introductions in small groups, and when it's appropriate to give credit when credit is due.
The need for recognition is grossly underestimated, so a major social-skill deficiency is simply missing an opportunity to acknowledge someone's efforts.
Okay, I have given you a taste of some of the things I believe are essential for the hypnotist to have at his or her command. These three are ego-state identification, assertive training, and social skills. These are the basic-three I taught in Primary Hypnotism 100. I've eliminated that section from this updated program since it's well covered in the Charisma & Power Program, a recommended adjunct to this program.
An area I have extensively expanded in this program is The Allegory Approach--probably the best thing I have to offer a hypnotherapist. I have written over 30 allegories on a variety of topics. In most of my taped program, I offer at least one allegory, so that will be the topic of Chapter Nine.
Before we go there, and to conclude this chapter, I would like you to think of the power of the story. If you aren't particularly charismatic, you can tell a story that is funny enough or with a surprise ending and make up for a lack of charisma.
But being a good storyteller and having charisma too is a dynamite combination. Think of people like Will Rogers.
Here's an Allegory I wrote fairly recently for a section in of my E-Zines called The WDS BedTime Story. It offers one illustration of what charisma is all about. It's an allegory I first told in October 1999.
|
~
The Mystery of Love & Respect ~
Once upon a time there was
a very good person who wanted to be
loved and respected. He spent years in school learning to be a great
healer, believing this would certainly bring love and respect.Even though many would seek him out for his healing skills, he didn't feel he had achieved his wish to become loved and respected. He felt the problem might be that he wasn't an interesting enough person. So he continued to become more and more educated on every interesting topic he could imagine. He became a person who could speak on almost any subject, and do so in several languages. Still, he didn't receive the love and respect he craved. One day he heard of a person who was loved and respected by everyone who knew him in the manner he had longed for his entire life. He eagerly contacted this Loved & Respected person and asked to meet with him hoping to learn the secret of becoming loved and respected. When they met, the Loved & Respected one asked how he could help, and listened attentively to a interesting story of the years of dedicated study, and of the accumulating of huge amounts of interesting knowledge, and how it was all to no avail. The Loved & Respected one was fascinated with his story and hung on every word. As he continued to tell of his accumulation of interesting knowledge, he had these thoughts: "How wonderful it is that this Loved & Respected one is so interested in me--now we're getting somewhere! Certainly wining over this lovely person, shows that I am also on the pathway of becoming loved and respected!" Finally the Loved & Respected one said, "I can't understand why you aren't intensively loved and respected. You're the most interesting person I have ever met. Why, I could listen to you endlessly! I can't imagine what more a person could do." Later, a friend asked him what he had learned from the Loved & Respected one. Sadly, he shook his head saying he had learned nothing. "It was I that was the interesting one...why, the Loved & Respected one learned from me rather I from him!" But even though he was disappointed at not learning the secret of gaining love and respect, he certainly found this man to be a lovely person and gratefully respected the unselfish efforts of his attempt to help, saying... "I will always love and respect him for being interested enough to find me interesting." ~
The End ~
|
I'd guess you've heard the stories of the person who swears he/she can't be hypnotized only to have the powerful hypnotist accomplish the task with comparative ease. Often this is an Urban Myth, hypnotism style. It does occasionally happen that way, but it's a rarity.
Here is one source of this type of story. On of the favorite tricks of the stage hypnotist is to key some of the better subjects with the post-hypnotic suggestion that he or she will loudly proclaim, "I was not hypnotized!" ...but with a sweep of the hypnotist's hand, the hapless vlounteer is reduced instantly to a heap on the floor. If during a stage show, one of these pre-conditioned subjects returns to the stage and is recognized by the hypnotist but not the audience, you can see the wonderful opportunity to demonstrate to the new arrivals "what is in store for them." There is real hypnosis involved, but it is still a set-up.
Hypnotizing conditioned subjects in front of candidates for hypnosis is a technique much discussed by H. Bernheim, M.D. in his 1880s book, Suggestive Therapeutics.
A Hypnotist's Skill Requires Special Thinking...
...and therein lies a problem. It's a topic I find difficult to express on paper, but I'll do my best.
Here's the problem: when we attempt to discuss such things as diagnostics, biochemistry, and even head into the realm of physics (matter and motion), it's important to keep our information grounded in science. On the other hand, sciences of the mind (as opposed to the brain), such as hypnotism, sometimes require that we throw off the bounds of pure science. Within the mind sciences, there's cognition, placebo-like effects, spiritual healing, and even love.
I talk a lot about my Triad Principle. What I'm referring to is an awareness that there is three categories of logic, rather than the usual two--this has to do with the construction of the physical brain. I'm now going to talk about two types of thinking: Inductive and Deductive. So what's number three? It's the knowledge which of the two is appropriate for the moment.
In Allegorical Hypnotism--WDS E-Zine, Vol. 1, No. 7 (August 7, 2001), I talked about this in an editorial called You Missed The Point.
How many times in a debate have you said in frustration, "But you've missed my point!" When a perspective is offered that conflicts with someone's cherished beliefs, they will hear only what appears to be in opposition to this entrenched belief system. Do you see where I'm heading with this?
Example: If you said "red is a nicer color than green," a lover of the color blue might think you said that red is the best color--hence better than blue. Actually you only said red was nicer than green, and nothing about your like or dislike of the color blue.
| I'm not sure you realize that what I think you thought you heard me say is not what I meant. |
If you think this kind of misunderstanding happens sometimes, I would disagree. I think not "sometimes" but constantly. I could write a thick (& boring) book about the misconceptions as a result of belief-system contamination.
Hypnotists are able to tip-toe through this cognitive minefield without stepping on too many cherished beliefs.
Just the other day, a fellow very politely canceled his subscription to one of my e-zines with the comment that started this line of thinking. He said he wanted to learn from his own experience. He went on to say that he felt my views would somehow dilute his personal learning experience. I'm sure he found ideas in some of my writing that conflicted with his own. That wouldn't be surprising since I write as much as possible with a goal of offering alternative views.
The Scientific Method
My reasoning ability was enhanced by exposure to: The Scientific Method. If you haven't investigated this paradigm, or if it has slipped away with time, here's a review.
In brief: The Scientific Method sets up a hypotheses for a theory, with a protocol designed to prove the theory to be incorrect. The Nonscientific Method establishes a hypotheses with a protocol designed to prove the theory to be correct. Actually this is not completely accurate, but a scientist does not want to make a fool out of him or herself by coming up with a hypotheses that every grad student is able to blow out of the water. If a theory is going to be disproved, the originating scientist wants to be the one to do it. It can be as much about professional survival as finding the truth.
But even If the goal is only finding truth, rather than fortifying an entrenched belief system, it's easy to imagine why the emphasis would be on first finding incorrectness.
The Scientific Method, is known formally as the Hypothetico-Deductive Method.
Credit for the Scientific Method is often given to Sir Isaac Newton, a 17th century scientist. Rene Descartes was given some of the credit a century earlier.
Specifically, The Scientific Method is the development of a theory from a hypothesis. The pattern of the investigation happens deductively; from the general (hypothesis) to a specific (theory). It's done by direct unbiased observation and testing that eventually will enable outcomes to be accurately predicted.
To understand the Scientific Method one must understand Deductive Reasoning. A good definition is the outline of the Scientific Method itself (which is handy):
(1) Hypotheses
(2) Protocol design to test the hypothesis that will...
(3) ...develop a theory...
By contrast, Inductive Reasoning starts with the conclusion and works backwards; that is, from a specific to the general. A good example is anecdotal evidence. I was sick =>took this pill =>got better =>the pill cured me.
The joke about Inductive Reasoning is the guy who told a neighbor that he sprinkles a magic powder in his back yard to keep snakes away...to which the neighbor protests, "There are no snakes around here!" "That's Right!" (came the response) "See how good it works?"
When an inductive process is used in a laboratory, it's sometimes called Dry-Lab ...working backwards from a known result using mathematics--hence the word, "Dry."
The Scientific Method requires a hypothesis (educated guess) as the starting point for a protocol (detailed plan).
From the hypothesis, along with observations, a testable theory will hopefully emerge, and if verified by further testing, a consensus could develop as the scientific community accepts the likelihood of the theory.
The word consensus is as near as most scientists will get to admitting a theory has been proven. Proof is a word seldom used in the scientific literature. You've heard it said many times: "More research is needed." When scientific thinkers have a consensus they are saying: "We think this is probably correct." A consensus frequently arrives long after the death of the lead researcher.
Of course the over-simplification of the Scientific Method modality brings out detractors within the very system in which it resides. They say that scientific research just doesn't happen in the rigid manner that the Scientific Method suggests.
They don't say this, but I'm sure it's part of the problem. Scientists are usually employed by universities, teaching hospitals, and government institutions. All have large grants, often from special interests (that claim to have no influence on the scientists--do you believe that?). Then there is the "publish or perish" pressure, not to mention the fond desire of every scientist to win a Nobel Prize.
As you might imagine, scientists are under great pressure to justify their hypothesis ASAP, so they can then publish their findings. This is essential to solidify the ownership of their discoveries that resulted from years of dedicated work.
| Scientific Research can be a mad dash toward a finish line in slow motion. |
In conclusion: The Deductive Scientific Method is geared to explain a hypothesis (an educated guess) into a verifiable theory--general to specific. Inductive approaches are used more often to verify a result.
The paradox of the rigid inductive mind-set.
Traditionally, an inductive thought process draws from an internal belief system rather than external facts--no problem as far as it goes, but what if the inductive person believes his/her thought process is actually deductive? A person with this paradox will feel uncomfortable with conflicting ideas. Have you had the experience of having a political view different from a friend and have that person becoming angry as a result? As an alternative, this friend may ridicule your views or simply refuse to discuss the issue. These folks will organize their life so there is as little conflict as possible.
The flip side is someone who allows only deductive evidence to the point rejecting anything that won't stand up to scientific scrutiny. The conflict would be believing this rigidity is a substitute for inductive thought--it may even reach the point that they believe emotions or spiritual issues are a waste of time.