Hypnosis and Neurosis.

[Stoic]

I was rereading one of Horney’s books on Neurosis. I’ve always viewed neurosis as a one way trap (at its best developed stage and condition) but with my new insight on the potentials of hypnosis when dealing with repressed memories I see it as the greatest example on how a hypnotherapist is so much more well equipped in dealing with some conditions. With just therapy you rely only on the errors and imperfection of the neurosis, and if it is fully developed and the rationalizations fully functional your outa luck. Anyone care to share some of their insight on this matter? I find it quite fascinating.

Also, what are your thoughts on Karen Horney concept of psychoanalysis?

[Poodle]

Why would be want to "psychoanalyze""? We go directly to the source.

[Stoic]

Not as a tool, but as a knowledge base, to understand and take note of patterns better. I think we both agree that hypnosis is the best tool for creating change in more cases than not, it can also be a great tool for gathering information. However, don't you think if we had a database of patterns at our disposal it would empower us to be more accurate?
The question is, does her database suffice? is it accurate for the general public to a degree that it would be worth the investment of time?

I hope that I am not miscommunicating my intent here, I am merely asking for YOUR personal interaction with that database of information. An answer like "It's crap, I've yet to notice any increase in my accuracy. Also, it has slowed me down a bit because her patterns interfere with my/clients reality and perception" will be enough.

I think just like how we can co-exist with different beliefs and functionalities in a society. Hypnosis and Psychoanalysis can also co-exist if used situationally accurate.
We don't consider a construction worker who can't design the greatest computer programs, and a computer programmer who can't construct a house inadequate in general. It's all about time and place.

[Don]

Stoic, it's not a question of time and place. It's a question of totally different paradigms.

Neurosis? That's a term used by psychologists. It fits into their paradigm of the way the mind works. It's supposed to work X. If it doesn't, it's broken. There are lots of different ways it can be broken, and we call on such way "neurosis."

In hypnotherapy there is no such term, or at least, there is no reason to use it. "Neurosis" is thrown around by lots of amateurs, such as yourself, who are not trained or legally or ethically qualified to diagnose someone as having such a thing. I know I'm not qualified, so I don't use it.

Nor do I think that people's minds are ever broken. Their minds work exactly the way they're supposed to work. But sometimes, the conscious doesn't want the unconscious to continue working in an appropriate manner. So we need to tell the unconscious, "Thank you for all you've done for me, but now it's time to do something else."

Unfortunately, most people are not trained in how to do this. That's what hypnotherapy does. No, I don't treat "neurosis," whatever that is. Homey don't play that. Instead, I find out how a person wants to change and help them achieve that change. If a person has some sort of fear that is irrational, I can quickly help them overcome it. It only takes a short time, maybe a few hours. A psychologist can get rid of neurosis in several months. A psychiatrist (who does more than push drugs) can help a person change ("get rid of a neurosis") in a few years.

Take your pick.

[Steffan_Effenburg]

Well put Don, the term neurosis is banded about so freeley and with such varying, conflicting and obscure connotations that I actually find the term quite deleterious. From my persepctive, neurosis = chasing shadows that aren't really there.

Steffan

[Don]

Hi, Steffan.

Thank you, but it's not just me taking that position. Although I don't always agree with all of their positions, the National Guild of Hypnotists has a list of approved terminology. They advise not to use medical terminology at all simply for legal reasons.

I choose not to use them (except in discussions such as this) not merely for legal reasons, but also for ethical ones (I'm not trained in making medical diagnoses), for paradigmatic ones (I don't believe the mind is broken or has neuroses or psychoses or whatever. It's working the way it's supposed to but the client's conscious is not in rapport with the unconscious), and to get clients out of their I-think-I'm-a-doctor-and-can-diagnose-without-training-so-you-can-fix-me trance and move to a how-can-you-guide-me-so-I-can-learn-to-achieve-my-ecological-and-realistic-goals? trance.

Some of my disagreements with the NGH:
They prefer hypnotist to hypnotherapist. While in some states not using "hypnotherapist" is a requirement (and a stupid one in my estimation), Krasner once said to a governmental committee that he could train a roomful of monkeys to hypnotize. While I think that's an incredible exaggeration, people can learn to hypnotize very quickly. In short, it's easy and quick to become a hypnotist. It's what you do after you hypnotize that takes so much training, reading, work, practice, and study. It's much more difficult to become a hypnotherapist than to simply be a hypnotist by my definition.

The NGH has come out against postgraduate degrees in hypnosis from organizations not accredited by an organization recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education. While I can understand that diploma mills are all around (I've seen some on the internet), and what I would call semi-diploma mills are out there, too (take a few courses from us and we'll give you a degree), there are also organizations that have requirements as intense as any accredited school in the thoroughness of their training. If a person gets a degree from such an organization--and does not make any false claims concerning the degree--I only see it as a benefit. It increases the student's knowledge, proves to the student and clients that the person with the degree is capable of following a path of study to completion, and it also helps with the ease of accepting suggestions on the part of clients.

[Poodle]

says they use the word "hypnotist" as that is what Erickson used and if it were good enough for him it is good enough for us. I definitely don't agree with that thinking and I don't agree that a weekend course in hypnosis by a MD, psychologist or psychiatrist makes them a Hypnotherapist by any streatch of the imagination. As you say, it's easy to induce trance - no words, one word, two words or lots of words but what comes into the subconscious mind during TRANCE IS OF THE UP MOST IMPORTANCE.

I actually got a real laugh out of "you know who" at the Training about relax-o-therapy. Obviously has not spent much time with our wonderful Merlin! :)

[Stoic]

I see your point Don, and I looked at some other sources for the definition of neurosis to realize, my context-oriented definition was not the commonly shared understanding, an error on my part. As I mentioned my interest and fascination was heightened when reading “Our Inner Conflicts” by Horney “A constructive theory of Neurosis” and her detailed definition and categorization gave me the impression that it was more widespread.

Although her definition very direct and not as vague as other definitions I noted, it encompassed a very broad category of items. If approaching the concept of neurosis in her context, the basic components I picked up were, repressed methods of living, it is nurture not nature unlike what Freud claimed, its not a matter of balancing extremes like Jung claimed but rather uncovering causes, and the three categories of coping with it, “moving towards people, moving against people, moving away from people”.
It seamed like in that book, her main obstacle was the repressed nature of a clients bad habits. Which brought me here, sharing my new appreciation for hypnosis!

[skip]

Stoic,

What would happen if we were to throw away for just a moment all this theory, all these models, Jung, Freud, Horney, etc, and adopted a simple concept or two that may or may not be true but are very useful?

1. Every behavior, in origion, had a positive intention, for the individual. All 'unwanted' behavior, thus, is behavior that is simply no longer useful, in the contexts, in which it is being used.

2. People learn. That may be what they do best. And what they did yesterday, behaviorally speaking, doesnt dictate what they will do tomorrow, because new learning is possible. That no one deliberately selects for a bad outcome, that people will always choose that which they percieve is best for them in any given situation. Thus increasing peoples range of choice or increasing their behavioral flexability enhances their ability to 'choose' behavior that is 'appropriate' for the context, and enhances their ability to achieve their desired outcomes.

Now Im not prepared to debate the truth of the above 'postulates', as opposed to any other theory.

I would put them up favorably against any other theory, using usefulness, as the measure, in enhancing human performance.

JAT,

skip

[Don]

Stoic, as you know we've had our differences of opinion. However I think your analysis of Horney is brilliant (I studied her a bit in college texts, but am by no means an expert).

The key statement, with I think is accurate, is that she saw the repressed nature of a patient's bad habits. To me, this is the old patient-broke; doctor/god-fix paradigm. I prefer to assume that the client is doing the best they can with what they have.

BTW, you might enjoy looking at that bete noir of psychology, Wilhelm Reich. He was still of the you-broke/me-fix paradigm, but he had a radically different approach. Instead of seeking the cause, having a revelation/catharsis, leading to the natural ending of the unwanted behavior, he would physically change the behavior. The result of the patient being forced out of the behavior was an unconscious confrontation with the cause, yielding a revelation/catharsis and the lack of a need for the unwanted behavior. See his book, Character Analysis. Freud at one time thought that Reich was either a total fraud or the future of psychoanalysis. He later so disagreed with Freud (as he disagreed with Jung) that he wrote a book to counter Reich's ideas, Civilization and its Discontents.

[Stoic]

Stoic,
1. Every behavior, in origion, had a positive intention, for the individual. All 'unwanted' behavior, thus, is behavior that is simply no longer useful, in the contexts, in which it is being used.

2. People learn. That may be what they do best. And what they did yesterday, behaviorally speaking, doesnt dictate what they will do tomorrow, because new learning is possible. That no one deliberately selects for a bad outcome, that people will always choose that which they percieve is best for them in any given situation. Thus increasing peoples range of choice or increasing their behavioral flexability enhances their ability to 'choose' behavior that is 'appropriate' for the context, and enhances their ability to achieve their desired outcomes.

JAT,

skip

I read the two points and then realized I need to reread them, after the 4th time reading I did an unconscious soaking-in read and then looked at the statements, and I thought "Hmmm, either I agreed with his statement prior or I learned to do so, either way we agree"
Thanks


Don, thank you.
I will again gladly take your suggestion, and I hope you realize that it is due to my respect for your knowledge that we have our diffreneces, otherwise I would just not care and wouldn't pursue. It's all part of my plot to soak in the world one bit of information at a time.

[Don]

Stoic, I really appreciate people who will take a position and defend it vigorously. In the end, all these posts are nothing but pixels on a screen interpreting microscopic electronic switches. Nobody defends a position unless they care about it in some way.

Keep caring!

[Poodle]

every presenting problem has a whole subgroup of problems and then under that another subroup. If all of the subroups is not addressed we cannot get back to the presenting problem. We view people as having all the resources they need to fix their own problem. They are NOT broken! As Erickson said: "A patient is only a patient because they are out of rapport with their subconscious mind". Our job is to put it back.

[Merlin]

Hypnosis and Psychoanalysis can also co-exist if used situationally accurate.
I would agree.
Just as a horse-drawn-cart can coexist with a automobile.
We do not always need to travel faster.
One can change slowly, over years. and even enjoy making the therapist's BMW payments :)