learning with(under) hypnosis

[student :)]

Hi!
Im a student and as most people i dont like learning all that stuff from the books. So i got an idea and here is my question: If someone was to hypnotize me and to read a book to me ... would i be able to remember everything he read at the exam? :) I must say Im a newb at hypnosis and stuff, but thats why im asking this here. :D Does it work that way? Or at least if they could force me to learn with hypnosis? I really hate learning but i know i must graduate thats why im seeking an easy way out. :D Thx 4 ur answers.
Regards
Lazy Student ;)

[Merlin]

Better yet, you could be taught self-hypnotism and read the book yourself.
In fact, there is a method where you could look at the pages, one page per second and retain the information!

[j0hnny#]

Hi Merlin, that method would be massively useful for me.... any chance you could tell me where to find out more about it?

I promise I won't use it to read The Art of Shoplifting... ;)

Seriously... would be a great benefit to me to learn this method... so please inform me of its source.

Cheers
j:)

[Tomo]

Hi Merlin, that method would be massively useful for me.... any chance you could tell me where to find out more about it?

I promise I won't use it to read The Art of Shoplifting... ;)

Seriously... would be a great benefit to me to learn this method... so please inform me of its source.

Cheers
j:) A citeseer link will do.

[Merlin]

Hi J0nny#,

Annie (remember her) and her partner steve teach a course called hypereading http://www.hypereading.com
It works well.
Paul teaches photoreading http://www.photoreading.com

Hypereading is different in that it uses hypnosis. Photoreading uses a trance state.

Both are good.

[Simple Guy]

Hi Student,

In addition to accelerated learning under hypnosis (that Merlin has
addressed), hypnosis can be used to remedy some attitudes that are
negatively affecting your studies. You say that "I really hate learning."
-- Using hypnosis to create a more positive orientation to learning, would,
in and of itself, be helpful in terms of graduating and beyond. You said
"force me to learn." Respectfully, if you were to transform the process of learning
from an aversion into a desire, it would be more enjoyable and productive for you,
with or without other accelerated learning methods.

[j0hnny#]

Hi J0nny#,


Annie (remember her) and her partner steve teach a course called hypereading http://www.hypereading.com (http://www.hypereading.com/)
It works well.
Paul teaches photoreading http://www.photoreading.com (http://www.photoreading.com/)

Hypereading is different in that it uses hypnosis. Photoreading uses a trance state.

Both are good.
Cheers Merlin.... will look into them both

J:)

[Tomo]

About a decade ago I saw a demonstration on TV about a new way of reading books that I could follow up to when the speed hit 1500 words a minute. Instead of moving the eyes across a page, the idea was to bring each word to the stationary eye so it has to do far less processing to read the word. It was quite astonishing. A decade on, I still remember that the sample text was about aquatic mammals.

[Merlin]

I saw preobably the same thing. Worked really well too.
1500 wpm is about the limit of the telly. (1500 in Briton, 1800 wpm in the US because of the rastering differences.

Usine that technique with Hypereading/photoreading one can read nearly 1 million words/minute. Typical is closer to 30-40 thousand wpm.

[Tomo]

I saw preobably the same thing. Worked really well too.
1500 wpm is about the limit of the telly. (1500 in Briton, 1800 wpm in the US because of the rastering differences.

Usine that technique with Hypereading/photoreading one can read nearly 1 million words/minute. Typical is closer to 30-40 thousand wpm. I'm tempted to write a program to display the next word in a plain text file at a regular interval and see just how fast I can go on a plasma screen where scan rate isn't a problem...

And, what would happen if you concentrated on one set of words flashing by while another did the same next to it with another message?

[Unregistered]

Better yet, you could be taught self-hypnotism and read the book yourself.
In fact, there is a method where you could look at the pages, one page per second and retain the information!


is that really true? I never heard of such a thing, just on tv and stuff, but if it is true, can you lead me to a book that tells about this? Most books i have to read at school i cant stand, and if i did this that would be awesome!

[parsa]

Question:

I wanted to know if the methods of photoreading or reading under hypnosis is applicapable to all kinds of learning.
I mean if it's History or Geography I would think that 90% of learning is to be able to memorize things. But in Physics and Math it's not so. You need to understand, by understanding I really don't how to explain what I mean, maybe the ability to connect the dots? Or something in education they call cognitive thinking I suppose. People that have a good memory are better off in Phys. and Math than those who don't, and don't 'understand' but they still lag way behind those that don't have a good memory but do 'understand'.
So any suggestion on how to learn Math and Phys.?

[Terry]

Those who are posting with questions, are all making simple errors. First of all, not all or even most students HATE to learn, in fact nobody hates to learn everything.......
One of the most fun books I ever read, and this was after graduation, was a book on maths, a paperback I bought for a few cents back then. It taught me so much in just a short read, because it went into the reasons why trig: is important. By the time I had finished piloting a plane from point a to point b. and by the time I had worked out how they managed to drill a tunnel through a mountain from both sides, and meet in the middle, I understood trig and valued it....It was the most fun learning experience I had ever had up till then. since that time, I have learned to value all learning, and make it fun at all times....
Your problems arise for two likely reasons. First your own attitude to learning, which stinks, and secondly the attitude of your instructors who fail to make it fun to learn....Now I don't suppose you can change your teachers attitudes, but you are in control of your own, so find out about how to use any subject, and you will likely find it fun to learn..Terry

[Merlin]

It's true.
Not easily learned from books though.
I sited 2 sources.

[Merlin]

>But in Physics and Math it's not so. You need to understand, by understanding I really don't how to explain what I mean, maybe the ability to connect the dots?

Ultimately, the dot connecting is done at the deep subconscious level.

[Unregistered]

It's true.
Not easily learned from books though.
I sited 2 sources.

do you know of any books that could teach me this? it may not be that easy, but i wouldnt be able to attend seminars for the hypereading or photoreading.

[Tomo]

>But in Physics and Math it's not so. You need to understand, by understanding I really don't how to explain what I mean, maybe the ability to connect the dots?

Ultimately, the dot connecting is done at the deep subconscious level. It's the difference between remembering the words in the book and understanding what they mean? I suspect that accelerated learning through hypnosis would aid an actor who only has to remember the lines, but not a student who has to understand them too.

Remember the episode of The Prisoner featuring Speedlearn ("The General")? A 3-year degree in 3 minutes delivered through the TV. The only problem was, the knowledge was shoe-horned in but no one understood it, so "What was the treaty of Adrianoble" was heard as "When was the..."

[j0hnny#]

If this is the case then it would be shameful to call it accelerated learning....

<good question btw>

[Scilly]

An old Woody Allen joke:

"I took a speed reading course and read 'War and Peace' in twenty minutes. It's about Russia."

[parsa]

So how can I start to learn Phys. and Math?
Go to a hypnotist to learn how to hypnotise myself and then start studying? But I think there has to be another way, or is there? Like a method that most other people that are good at these subjects use.Or maybe everyone has to find there own method?
It's strange, I've been in school almost all my life but really no one that is good, can explain how they do it. They just say you need to study harder and practice more. Not true, well of course you need to study and practice but it's something else. Something else that gives you the ablility to 'see' the whole picture.

I really would like to find out how. Specially since I've got some kind of stubborness going on on some level of my conscious, since I've actually seen that just study and practice won't get me where I want, it's like my mind shuts off and won't even remember things in my studies up to its normal capacity.

Any suggestions:confused:

[skip]

Parsa,

Einestein created a universe where he and someone else were each riding on separate photons of light passing a ball back and forth between them.

Tesler created a universe that already had the technology he was interested in inventing, and went to engineering school there to learn how they did it.

Both of these fantasies worked like a charm.

You want to learn physics and math, as if there is much difference. Math is just the language spoken by physicists. :)

What would your life be like if your Mother was a nobel prize winner in math, and your father a nobel prize winner in physics. What if the conversation around the dinner table, while growing up, had been all math and theoretical physics. What if your grand parents on both sides were superlative scholars in both math and physics.

Growing up steeped in math and physics, like that how do you suppose you would percieve taking any math ot physics class? How do you suppose your cognitive sense would 'feel' about understanding the concepts?

You can build an imaginary world, any type world you care to, and use it to learn anything.

Use your imagination, construct the world you need for this particular task. And then realize what other opportunities this opens up for you.

skip

[Calvin Iwema]

IMO, to learn math and physics, get a tutor or someone who can explain it to you from step one. Those subjects, if you miss a step, make it hard to do more advanced steps. If you hate the subjects, then it becomes something else.

You could do hypnosis and then begin to enjoy learning, because you have a big powerful mind.

From my experience, learning the speed reading is pretty easy. The part you could use a hypnotist for is to believe that it really does work for you.

Old Edgar Caycee method, is to put the book under your pillow every night.

[parsa]

Will take up on your suggestion. Can't use family though, too many issues. Triggered a lot seeing father and physics in the same senctence:rolleyes: , not so very positive feelings, anyways...

Hmm.. fantisies and imaging stuff, that I like very much, maybe too much,or at least that's what I've always felt, I mean guilty of fantisizing too much.

Funny, after what you said it feels like an obsese person going to the doctor and being told to eat more sweets and yummy things to solve her problem. Imagine how happy she would feel.:D

Though I do have to admit I have never fantisized about learning. To be honest, fantisizing has been like my secret sin, like reading a book you're not allowed to in the middle of the night under your blanket with a flash light;) ,and science in general has been the sarcred book that I have not dared to take there.

Sounds exciting, lets see what happens.

[Merlin]

learning/understanding is an unconscious process, not a conscious one.

[Merlin]

Parsa,
The bottom line for learning is called 'play'
Young children play. They pretend alot.
They learn because it's fun.

When you have to learn, it isn't fun.
Your mind produces special learning chemicals when it's having fun.

While Einstein, Tesla and others had great thoughts, it stemmed from their childhood curiosity and having fun playing with ideas in their mind.

[Merlin]

The easiest way I know of to learn is to go into a somnambulistic trance just before class, or reading, or...

it makes learning easiest.
The second best way I know of is to induce the release of the learning chemicals.
That's done by having fun.

[Tomo]

An old Woody Allen joke:

"I took a speed reading course and read 'War and Peace' in twenty minutes. It's about Russia." Woody Allen as a hypnotist: Three hours of pleading and a full refund.

[parsa]

What is somnambulistic trance?
Could you learn it through a book? If so, what book or books would you suggest?

[Merlin]

Somnambulism is a fairly light level of hypnosis and the lightest (IMO) level for hypnotic work, but it's not readily leared from books :-(

[parsa]

I guess then I'll just try to have fun:p .
But besides that, is it at all possible for you to explain a how to so it? I kind of think the answer is no, since writing about these things and not seeing doesn't seem to be a good way to learn but... just giving it a shot.

[Merlin]

The mind has a built-in filter which blocks learning.
Somnambulism is a bypassing of that filter.

Have you actually looked at both websires?

[parsa]

I looked at the websites. I can't go to washington at the time being.

The photoreading website does offer audio tapes and other things. How good do you think they could work?

I have always been kind of skeptical about just reading books and listening to tapes in these matters, and after listening to what the experts here think about them my suspicion has gotten worse. I'd much rather work with someone up close.

What would your personal opinion be?

Thank you very much for all your help:) .

[parsa]

I know a lot of smart people around me that are capable of learning faster than others, some of them really really fast.

Now as for having fun while studying, well I don't think so, I can't be sure of course but since I know many of them personally they just don't look or feel or... in their having fun mode when they at all of times they are learning. They seem to be capable of learning things they don't even like if they think they need it, or just decide to.

Seeing this, I would guess that they can just tune into that Somnambulism trance if they choose to(is this correct?). But on the other hand they have never even heard the slightest thing about hypnosis.

I guess you have come across small children that seem to be a lot smarter than others. I've even seen identical twins not showing the same level of capability to learn.

Now I'm confused, if hypnosis is something that you need to "actively" go after in order to learn it, then how do these people do it?

The only thing that I can 'sense' from them is that they seem to be free on some level.

Any comments?

[Unregistered]

If you are learning the right way you are in a hypnotic trans anyway.
Sleep early and learn from 1 or 2 in the morning.
I'm an electronic engineer the last 19 years, 5 years at Varsity or Collage as the Americans would say.
Passed every year with an average of 75% plus.
If you are reading books or notes or what ever and it looks like you are seeing it through a clear glass, then you are doing it perfect.

[Unregistered]

Roots are planted and you can try to change it but you will not.
Had a girl, 13 years old, real know it all, tried to help her in every way, she responded that it's working, dropped out of school when she was 16 and she is a whore now. You can take the monkey out of the bush but you can never take the bush out of the monkey.

[Tomo]

Somnambulism is a fairly light level of hypnosis and the lightest (IMO) level for hypnotic work, but it's not readily leared from books :-( Eh?

How do you explain somnambulism being a 23/24 on the Davis-Husband scale of trance depth, 1 being relaxed, 30 being hyperesthesia, where somnambulism is rated as deep trance, deeper than complete amnesia by suggestion.

It's also a 5 on the Arons scale of 1-6 where 1 is a lethatgic state and 6 is profound somnambulism.

Even McGill lists just light hypnosis and somnambulism as useful states.

I should get out more and make people give me free things...I really should.

[Terry]

"How" you ask? Then proceed to a negative reply, "I don't suppose so" (G)
the how part is actually very simple if you start from the right place, ie, "I want to learn, and I want to have fun doing it"........
I did this one for a younger cousin of mine who was having problems leaning anything, and wanted to learn photography, but expected to find it too hard.
I invited him to start by reading all about not just photography, but the history of it, the processing of film etc, and before he was halfway through it, he was hooked. If you understand the uses of a particullar course of learning, it makes it so much easier to see the end, and want to get there. In his case, he expected to find photography hard, because it spelled leaning, but reading about the peripherals was just an aproach to learning in his mind, so he saw no problem until he was hooked and interested.......
Now stop being negative and have fun, it really is fun to learn, honest, I am seventy five, and would be lost if I thought there was nothing left to learn about. Hell, I even learned to use this computer when I was sixty five, and get better at it each and every day, and I have no doubt that I will never stop leaning until my heart stops beating (G) Terry

[Don]

If that's what you believe, that's what you will manifest.

I have no doubt that you tried to help the girl in every way. Perhaps you just weren't able to help her in the way she needed?

[Merlin]

I think with either method you get your moneys worth.

[Merlin]

I just laugh at those would-be hypnotists and their scale.
*anyone* can be hypnotised and achieve somnambulism in ine minute or less. 10-15 seconds if you know what you're doing.

I reiterate, somnambulism is the *lightest* state for hypnotic work (i'd never settle for such a lite state).

[Merlin]

Playfulness significantly improves learning.
Somnambulism is about 100 times better tho.
The others are not doing somnambulism unless they've been taught to.

[Tomo]

I just laugh at those would-be hypnotists and their scale.
*anyone* can be hypnotised and achieve somnambulism in ine minute or less. 10-15 seconds if you know what you're doing.

I reiterate, somnambulism is the *lightest* state for hypnotic work (i'd never settle for such a lite state).
Ormand McGill a "would-be" hypnotist, eh?

Are you absolutely sure you've got this right?

[Merlin]

A famous name or even writing a bok does not make one skilled at everything.

Dave Elman (maybe you've heard of him?) had a standard for *all* of his students to achieve somnambulism in their patients in one minute or less.

[Tomo]

A famous name or even writing a bok does not make one skilled at everything.

Dave Elman (maybe you've heard of him?) had a standard for *all* of his students to achieve somnambulism in their patients in one minute or less. :confused:
How the hell do you think these people got to write the damned things in the first place, eh? A lack of expertise and recognition as experts in the fields of hypnotism and experimental psychology? Ormand McGill? A mere dabbler, eh? I gave you an internationally recognised scale of trance depth and you tell me that just becasue it is an internationally recognised scale doesn't mean it's right? Well brilliant, Einstein. Well done.

Frankly, I don't think you even know what somnambulism is; I think you're mistaking it for something else, and yes I do know Elman's work. Just because Elman's technique is fast doesn't mean somnambulism is a light trance. It just means his technique is fast. Get your head out and think if you may have made a mistake.

But, of course, you're always right and I'm a newbie to your board so I get a double kicking for daring to challenge your wisdom. :mad:

[Merlin]

>But, of course, you're always right and I'm a newbie to your board so I get a double kicking for daring to challenge your wisdom.

No, but Just because you are wrong is no reason for me to put up with this kind of abusive language.
Good day

[Tomo]

>But, of course, you're always right and I'm a newbie to your board so I get a double kicking for daring to challenge your wisdom.

No, but Just because you are wrong is no reason for me to put up with this kind of abusive language.
Good day What abusive language? Do you not think that by brushing aside decades of research in single dismissive, arrogant sentences you're offending me? Or is that the point?

"I just laugh at those would-be hypnotists and their scale." That's pretty offensive.

"A famous name or even writing a bok does not make one skilled at everything." No, just the thing they're writing about. In this case hypnotism.

So, let's try again, shall we: You alone think that somnambulism is a very light state of trance. The rest of the world, all the researchers and internationally renowned performers and therapists, including paragraph 3 of section 4.1 (http://www.hypnosis.com/faq/faq4-1.html)of the FAQ for hypnosis.com itself, says otherwise. Surely somewhere in your mind there must be a nagging doubt that you've got something terribly wrong somewhere. Though Dave Elman's somnambulism induction technique is fast, that doesn't mean somnambulism is a light trance. It isn't. It is characterised by total amnesia. Why might that be? Could it be because somnambulism is so deep a trance that the conscious mind, and therefore the conscious recording of events, is rendered dormant for the duration? This state is the one you're telling the world is a very light state of trance. Do you see now why I think you might be mistaken?

Now, might I suggest checking the assumptions to which you're working before replying, as to so inevitably will, to prevent you from simply coming back with vague accusations of offense.

[j0hnny#]

Just something to throw into the debate here (cos I'm wondering if there is a map/territory misunderstanding going on here - should that be possible - though I admit I'm becoming increasingly sceptical about the territory aspect and what it might be) - what would determine the depth of a trance? In fact what does 'depth of trance' mean? How is a person deeper in a trance than lighter? And why would someone be characterised as such? What is the relative criteria for judging depth of trance? I think there would need to be identifiable characteristics across a wide range of physical and psychological behaviours (perhaps) - in other words what observable traits (first and/or third person) are 'there' that give rise to the scale (for example) - though needless to say these scales will depend upon certain methodological and philosophical considerations about the nature of hypnosis and working with people under this term. (In other words, what people see themselves doing - and their understanding of it)

peace
j#

[Tomo]

Just something to throw into the debate here (cos I'm wondering if there is a map/territory misunderstanding going on here - should that be possible - though I admit I'm becoming increasingly sceptical about the territory aspect and what it might be) - what would determine the depth of a trance? In fact what does 'depth of trance' mean? How is a person deeper in a trance than lighter? And why would someone be characterised as such? What is the relative criteria for judging depth of trance? I think there would need to be identifiable characteristics across a wide range of physical and psychological behaviours (perhaps) - in other words what observable traits (first and/or third person) are 'there' that give rise to the scale (for example) - though needless to say these scales will depend upon certain methodological and philosophical considerations about the nature of hypnosis and working with people under this term. (In other words, what people see themselves doing - and their understanding of it)

peace
j# Well, an indicator of the depth of trance is that phenomena are available ot the operator at any given point.

The Davis-Husband scale, for instance, is as follows:

0 - insusceptible
1 - Relaxation (hypnoidal response starts here)
2 - Fluttering eyelids
3 - Closing of eyes
4 - Complete physical relaxation
5 - Eye catalepsy
6 - Limb catalepsies (light trance starts here)
7 - Rigid catalepsies
8,9, 10 - "Glove" anasthesia
11, 12 - Partial posthypnotic amnesia
13, 14 - Posthypnotic amnesia (Medium strance starts here)
15, 16 - Personality changes
17, 18, 19 - Kinesthetic delusions
20 - Complete amnesia by suggestion
21, 22 - Ability to open eyes and remain in trance (Deep trance starts here)
23, 24 - Complete somnambulism
25 - Positive visual hallucination
26, 27 - Positive auditory hallucination, systematised posthypnotic amnesia
28 - Negative auditory hallucination
29 - Negative viaual hallucination
30 - Hyperesthesia


The Arons scale goes like this:

1 - Hypnoidal or lethargic state
2 - Light sleep
3 - Sleep
4 - Deep sleep
5 - Somnambulism
6 - Profound somnambulism

There are other scales, too if you'd care to google (http://www.google.com)for them.

So, I'm asking Merlin politely if it is possible that saying somnambulism is a light trance state might not be correct. Sounds simple, doesn't it, but rather than think, all I've had back are arrogant dismissals of decades of research after prefacing this unique view of somnambulism with "IMO" ("in my opinion").

Crazy, eh?

[j0hnny#]

So, I'm asking Merlin politely if it is possible that saying somnambulism is a light trance state might not be correctit will be interesting to hear where Merlin is coming from on her understanding.... in light of your reply. though dude, asking politely by calling someone arrogant ain't polite.... my friend..... this is a very good place for feedback and opinions about a lot of cool stuff, I'm not sure you have very good reason to be so upset <maybe you do> still, seems she didn't attack you personally only the understanding you feel to be most credible and right... So, lets see what she has to say about her understanding.... should she be inclined to now give it....

:)

seems Merlin may be working with an alternative understanding of somnambulism....???? to those suggested on the scale..... so I am inclined to ask for some kind of genealogy of this word - where it came from - who coined it and why - if that can be understood and we can think our way into the originary use then it could be settled as to who is most entitled to their understanding.... Although the same word can be used for different purposes, it seems with specialised words this may be inappropriate....

Cheers
j

[Tomo]

seems Merlin may be working with an alternative understanding of somnambulism....???? to those suggested on the scale..... so I am inclined to ask for some kind of genealogy of this word - where it came from - who coined it and why - if that can be understood and we can think our way into the originary use then it could be settled as to who is most entitled to their understanding.... Although the same word can be used for different purposes, it seems with specialised words this may be inappropriate....

Cheers
j Entitled to their understanding? Interesting word, "understanding"... Completely different in meaning from the word "opinion".

Somnambulism, from the latin "sonus" (sleep) and "ambulare" (to walk) is understood and demonstrated the world over as belonging to deep trance phenomena. Merlin, on the other hand, proffers the personal opinion that it is the lightest of trances. Who do you think is likely to be right, and who wrong.

I mean, is the rest of the world, including this very site's FAQ, wrong and Merlin right? There's no grey area here. One is right and one is wrong. Which?

[skip]

Tomo,

Could I comment here?

First of all, lets not get too tied up in 'who is right', when admittedly, no one really knows how this works.

We exhibit all the deep trance phenomena in waking states, and so called 'deep trance work' can be accomplished in 'light trance' too.

Scales are useful to the extent that we are able to describe similar phenomena. we dont really know 'where' someone is, only that they are exhibiting certain phenomena. And not all clients exhibit all the phenomena associated with the various 'levels' on any scale.

Merlin, as I understand it, as a matter of course, works routinely in states that are 'deeper' than those described by your scales. There are states 'deeper' than 'deep somnambulism' unless 'deep somnambulism' really means "everything below here".

If there are states 'deeper' than profound somnambulism, then most certainly, by your definition, somnambulism is a relatively shallow with respect to those.

Perhaps it would be useful to learn where esdaile and coma falls on your scale, and then hear what Merlin said from that perspective.

or not.

skip

[Merlin]

Hi J0hnny#,

I have on my bicycle a speedometer. It is calibrated 0-100 KPH. It is very useful for when I ride around. If I took that speedometer to a concorde pi;ot and told her 100KPH was profoundly fast, i'd be laughed at. 100KPH won't even get the plane off the ground.

For *some* somnambulism might indeed be considered 'deep'. For me and how I work, at somnambulism we aren't off the ground yet.

I start with my clients in the Esdaile state and back off *just a bit*. I work at a *kitten's breath* lighter than the Esdaile state **Minimum**

Most of those scales don't go past Esdaile though.
Ultradepth (tm)
Superdepth (tm)
and so on...
aren't even mentioned.
I know, the names are trademarked, but the states aren't.
These 'deeper' states are much better for healing than 'lighter' states such as somnambulism.
The mind/body is more easily able to focus on healing when less distracted.

I did not name those states, so others (besides me) obviously work there too. The 'Esdaile' state was being taught by Mr. Elman over 50 years ago.

Granted, there are varying definitions of what somnambulism is. It's much too 'light' of a depth for my uses anyway.
I tet for what I call somnambulism like this:
I say to the person "On the count of three I will snap my fingers. When you here them snap, the lights will be turned off. Now, open your eyes and look at me, please. One... Two... Three <snap>.

If the pupils widen because it is dark, then they are in the somnambulism state of suggestibility.
There pupils will not widen by conscious choice.
You may plug in that definition wherever you think it fits for you on those scales.
Test for suggestible anesthesia is seldom practical unless you're about to do surgery.
I don't cut open patients just to test.

I hope this helps you better understand where I come from J0nny#.

Please feel free to ask further if you wish.

[Don]

If nobody had ever created the word "somnambulism," what would you all be arguing about?

:-)

It seems to me that the discussion should not be over words, in this instance, as that is a waste of time. I remember arguing with a friend over "communism" for hours until we finally realized that we meant different things by the term itself. As soon as we clarified our meanings, it turned out that we had nothing to argue about (praise be to the study of general semantics!).

It seems to me that this argument (and I use that term in the classic sense of people presenting premises of facts that lead to a logical conclusion rather than people ranting) not really over the term "somnambulism," but over the depth or trance needed for successful hypnotherapy.

There are two basic schools on this: First, there is there Erickson school which says effective hypnotherapy can occur at any level of trance, even a very light level. Then there is the Elman school which says that a deeper trance is needed.

So which one is right?????

<Scrrreeeech....Sudden change, but follow along...>
Although I don't have the source any more (sorry), many years ago I read a study about psychologists who decided to change their protocols. For years they had successful results following a particular methodology of treatment which I'll call X. But as a result of further training and study, they decided to change to another methodology I'll call Y. Please note that I am not pointing to any particular systems as this survey interviewed psychologists who were working with different systems and who changed to various systems.

The results were that even if Y had conflicting concepts with the previously successful X, the psycologists successfuly treated people using Y. Curiously, when they tried to use X to treat people, they failed and had to switch to Y.

Now why is it that a system that formerly worked suddenly ceased to work? The patients didn't know of the system, so it was probably not that the psychologist started attracting patients who would only succeed with Y and not X. Nor did the previously successful X system or the psychologists' understanding of X change.

My assumption is that there was only one difference: the psychologists' mind set. If they believed Y was better than X, or that Y superceded X, and that X was no longer useful, then they built their own success with Y AND their own failure with X.

Now, after this long side story, it is my contention that hypnotherapy goes Waaaaayyyy beyond "hypnotherapist talk, client listen and do." Specifically, if the hypnotherapist really believes that he or she can treat a client, and that the client can achieve goals, the client will succeed. If the hypnotherapist doesn't believe, the therapy will not be successful.

If a hypnotherapist really believes he or she can get good results with a client in a light state of hypnosis, it will work at that level. If a hypnotherapist really believes he or she will get good results only at a deeper state of hypnosis, success will only occur if the client achieves that state.

This many not be limited to the beliefs of the hypnotherapist. If the client believes that they must be in a deep state (even if a pre-talk has said otherwise), they may not achieve goals without reaching that deep state.

IMNSHO, what you believe is what you get. If you think you can get results at a light state, you will. If you believe you get results at a deep state, you will.


So what were you arguing about????
:-)

[Merlin]

Don,
My understanding of the discussion is that of trance 'depth' scales.

>There are two basic schools on this: First, there is there Erickson school which says effective
hypnotherapy can occur at any level of trance, even a very light level. Then there is the Elman
school which says that a deeper trance is needed.

I'd like to see you get surgical level anesthesia without a depth of at least somnambulism.
Is somnambulism needed of all changework? NO
Is somnambulism needed for some hypnosis work? YES

>If they believed
Y was better than X, or that Y superceded X, and that X was no longer useful, then they built
their own success with Y AND their own failure with X.

That might be true *in there case*
Let me offer a different example though.
You wish to cook a hamberger and to expriment with cooking methods.
You pop one patty on a grill, the other in a freezer.
You'll have to go a long way to convince me that the difference in cooking will be based on your belief alone.

Belief is nice, but sometimes reality rears its head and interferes.

>Specifically, if the hypnotherapist really believes that
he or she can treat a client, and that the client can achieve goals, the client will succeed.

It doesn't work for anesthesia and *many* other issues.

>If a hypnotherapist really believes he or she can get good results with a client in a light state of
hypnosis, it will work at that level.

Don, that simply is not so.
Sorry if that pops your belief balloon.

> If you think you can get results at a light state, you
will.

Nope, not true.

Sorry Don. Belief in this case isn't enough.

[Don]

It that's what you believe, I'm sure you're right...for you.

However, two weekends ago I saw a hypnotherapist get anesthesia in one person, requiring a deep level of trance, and another, requiring only a light level of trance.

Personally, my belief is that anesthesia requires a deep level of trance. Change in behavior--probably the most common use for hypnotherapy today--does not.

[j0hnny#]

Who do you think is likely to be right, and who wrong. Man, please - do not get me started on issues of right and wrong. :)

Does the phrase 'two million people can't be wrong' say those two thousand people are right? (I sometimes see that sort of phrase on church notice boards, for example) 'Right' is a very absolutising word. Suggests correctness and truth - or at least it is true about something... but what is really right about the thing the two million people cannot be wrong about.... seems to me it is their agreement in understanding.... this is what they agree.... in the case of the hypno scale there is mass agreement in understanding with good reason in accordance with widely held beliefs derived from a variety of common practices... Who do I agree with? personally in some (or many) cases (in particular where there is suggestion at a possible alternative from someone who appears to have lot of respect and credibility - and on a matter that uses terms invented for a particular purpose) to consider the alternative understanding before giving my consent.. consent is not just agreement - it is identity.... if you want to choose who you are.. you will understand that what I'm saying makes sense...

peace :cool: _\/m

[Merlin]

Don, it's not 'what I believe', it's reality.

Water freezes at 0C and 1 atmosphere pressure. period.
If you have ice, you have met the conditions of freezing (yes temp and pressure can change, but the two must combine for water to freeze. If you have ice, you have met the conditions of freezing).


>However, two weekends ago I saw a hypnotherapist get anesthesia in one person, requiring a deep level of trance, and another, requiring only a light level of trance.


No, (respectfully) they were both in somnambulism if they achieved the suggestible anesthesia, just like ice is always frozen water and if you have met the conditions for water to freeze, you *always* have *ice*. Ice is the name for frozen water.
Somnambulism is the name given to that state of suggestible anesthesia.
If you have met the conditions of somnambulism (anesthesia) you have somnambulism.

You just did not recognise that somnambulism was achieved in both.
Evidently you (and/or presenter) just don't know somnambulism when you see it.
You seem to expect some symptom which isn't necessary.

Acheiving anesthesia requires somnambulism *by definition*, not by symptom or some outward appearance which you did not see or notice.

>Change in behavior--probably the most common use for hypnotherapy today--does not.

I haven't noticed where anyone has said change in behaviour requires 'deeper' trances.
I have said that people more readily accept hypnotic suggestions for change at 'states-of-mind' between somnambulism and Esdaile. I have also stated that beyond Esdaile suggestibility for change reduces for some suggestion types.

And since I am an NLP trainer, I obviously work (at times) with no formal hypnosis at all. I use submodality shifts, anchors, etc all the time. But since Skip presents the NLP perspective well, I most often keep my discussions to formal hypnosis.

I also utilise *many* other arts beyond NLP or hypnosis. But since they would most often be non-topical here, I generally don't mention them.

Take care :)

[Don]

> Don, it's not 'what I believe', it's reality.

If you believe that, I'm sure it's true for you.:D


>Water freezes at 0C and 1 atmosphere pressure. period.
>If you have ice, you have met the conditions of freezing (yes temp and >pressure can change, but the two must combine for water to freeze. If >you have ice, you have met the conditions of freezing).


So you think minds are nothing more than water and ice? I would respectfully disagree.


>> However, two weekends ago I saw a hypnotherapist get anesthesia in >>one person, requiring a deep level of trance, and another, requiring only >>a light level of trance.


> No, (respectfully) they were both in somnambulism if they achieved the >suggestible anesthesia, just like ice is always frozen water and if you >have met the conditions for water to freeze, you *always* have *ice*. Ice >is the name for frozen water.
> Somnambulism is the name given to that state of suggestible anesthesia.
> If you have met the conditions of somnambulism (anesthesia) you have >somnambulism.

> You just did not recognise that somnambulism was achieved in both.
> Evidently you (and/or presenter) just don't know somnambulism when >you see it.
> You seem to expect some symptom which isn't necessary.

>Acheiving anesthesia requires somnambulism *by definition*, not by >symptom or some outward appearance which you did not see or notice.

By your definition, yes. You're absolutely correct. :D
And that's what it comes down to—definitions.
Respectfully, I think you might suggest to water that it is ice without much luck. I would suggest that comparing the mind to freezing water is not a viable analogy.


>>Change in behavior--probably the most common use for hypnotherapy >>today--does not.

> I haven't noticed where anyone has said change in behaviour requires >'deeper' trances.
> I have said that people more readily accept hypnotic suggestions for >change at 'states-of-mind' between somnambulism and Esdaile. I have >also stated that beyond Esdaile suggestibility for change reduces for some >suggestion types.

So we're in agreement that for most instances of hypnotherapy, light states of hypnosis work just fine (depending upon such things as preconceptions of the client, rapport, etc.)?


> And since I am an NLP trainer, I obviously work (at times) with no formal >hypnosis at all. I use submodality shifts, anchors, etc all the time. But
> since Skip presents the NLP perspective well, I most often keep my >discussions to formal hypnosis.

>I also utilise *many* other arts beyond NLP or hypnosis. But since they >would most often be non-topical here, I generally don't mention them.

> Take care :)

And my best wishes to you!
I think people here can disagree without being disagreeable.
It is through such arguments (in the classical sense of presenting premises followed by a conclusion when disagreeing rather than insulting other people) that clarity and understanding can occur, even if that is limited to an agreement to disagree.

[Merlin]

>So we're in agreement that for most instances of hypnotherapy, light states of hypnosis work just fine (depending upon such things as preconceptions of the client, rapport, etc.)?

when you obtain hypnosis, preconceptions, rapport, etc. are irrelevant.
They're only needed for that lighter stuff you prefer.

Sorry you misunderstood about the water.
My communication failure. :(

[Simple Guy]

Merlin's above post marks her 1000th post to this forum. Thank you,
Merlin, for your presence, knowledge and insights.

[skip]

Quality posts at that, not rants!