View Full Version : Who can be hypnotized
Can an emotionally disturbed person be hypnotized?
Why or why not?
Zack
Yes.
For the same reasons an undisturbed person can.
cheers,
skip
Depends what you mean by emotionally disturbed.
Do you mean someone who feels a little sad because their dog died?
Or do you mean a paranoid schizophrenic?
If the first, then yes.
If the second, then perhaps no. To qualify that last statement I would say that people who are seriously emotionally disturbed are already in an altered state of awareness which appears to be similar to that which we call hypnosis.
Jack
It also depends upon the knowledge and skill of the hypnotist.
Poodle
04-10-2007, 11:31 AM
Thank you! Pood
Merlin
04-10-2007, 02:05 PM
Yes, anyone.
Provided the hypnotist is skilled in that area.
Well if an emotionally disturbed person can be hypnotized
it would be beneficial to hypnotize them? Would it help them?
zack
pmdigi
04-15-2007, 05:19 PM
isn't that what a good hypnotherapist would do? - hypnotize the troubled one to help them?
Merlin
04-16-2007, 12:43 PM
Typically, hypnosis won't help.
But appropriate suggestions to such a hypnotised person certainly can help.
Merlin is right; hypnosis will not help, but the nature of mental illness is such that occasionally suggestions made on the fly will have an effect, since the person is already in an altered state of awareness.
Problem is that there is no way of knowing what the effect will be or what processes are occurring in the brain to produce whatever effect occurs. It is a little like throwing bread into the local pond and expecting to catch a whale.
As ethical hypnotherapists we have to have a little more certainty than that before rummaging about in the subconscious.
Jack
I don't quite understand.
You are telling me that hypnosis will not help an emotionally disturbed person but yet it is beneficial to hypnotize them.
zack
pmdigi
04-17-2007, 05:34 PM
:cool: Which unique individual "emotionally disturbed" person? And what specifically is meant by the words "emotionally disturbed"?
Poodle
04-17-2007, 08:45 PM
That's not what they are saying. There is a very large difference between an induction and then what one says to a client. The induction is the easy part. What comes after it is the really important part. Of course they can be hypnotized. Can they be helped by hypnosis is what they are trying to get you to understand.
I don't quite understand.
You are telling me that hypnosis will not help an emotionally disturbed person but yet it is beneficial to hypnotize them.
zack
That is not what I said.
What I did say is that many of those those who are mentally ill are already in a trance state and therefore attempts to hypnotise them would be pointless.
But..
Occasionally it may be beneficial to make suggestions that the subconscious may pick up on (since they are already in a trance state).
But...
The subconscious is not a place to meddle unless the therapist has some idea of what the outcome will be. Personally, I do not go anywhere when I do not have a map or any idea of what I will do when I get there.
Clear?
Jack
pmdigi
04-18-2007, 07:41 AM
I think Erickson worked with so-called "emotionally disturbed" people and helped them with hypnosis.
Merlin
04-18-2007, 10:00 AM
Zack,
Think of hypnosis as a school text book.
Someone handing you a book (hypnosis) isn't going to help you...
unless you read the book (suggestions that go with the hypnosis).
Poodle
04-18-2007, 01:51 PM
Of course he did and he was a PSYCHIATRIST. I don't work with them without a written referral from their psychiatrist and lots of the time it is at the psychiatrist's office as I want him/her to see and hear what's going on.
I think Erickson worked with so-called "emotionally disturbed" people and helped them with hypnosis.
It could be that an exceptionally talented therapist like Erickson had found a way to harness the trance state his patient was in, rather than imposing another one.
For lesser mortals it is wise not to meddle bearing in mind the client's welfare and the legal ramifications in the USA.
Incidentally, do you prefer 'mentally ill' to 'emotionally disturbed'?
Jack
pmdigi
04-19-2007, 10:56 AM
"mentally ill" "emotionally disturbed" .... I think to call anyone either one is to stunt their growth (or evolution) - since everybody is a unique individual I guess I would prefer to use the person's name.
Jack, in my training and experience I would say you are exactly correct. Erickson would begin working with such a client by his moving into their trance state. Then, he would lead them to his trance state where communications and change could be encouraged.
I understand what everyone is saying however is there any place i can
get some information.
zack
Sure. You can get information about this through books. Try going to amazon.com and enter Milton Erickson. You may be able to get them at a discount on eBay, through used book stores, etc.
If you want to see it in action, try YouTube and look for videos of Erickson.
If you want to learn how to do it take trainings.
I know that a person has to be able to focus on what you are saying and
be able to understanfd what you are saying and trust you for you to be
able to help them. It's just that I didn't know if hypnosis would be
benefit for an emotionally disturbed person.
I know about Eric Erickson
I now understand what everyone has been saying. It would take someone really trained in psychoanalysis to be help to some one emotionally disturbed.
zack
pmdigi
04-19-2007, 06:51 PM
We Were talking about Milton Erickson - the hypnotherapist.:)
Poodle
04-19-2007, 07:23 PM
what is YOUR definition of emotionally disturbed? Does it include depression, all types, or are you holding out for the really biggies? Would it include a "cutter"? Just where are you drawing the fine line? Gosh darn it. I always thought it was a psychiatrist that made the diagnosis - ohh, silly me!
As for anything on Milton Erickson I just can't think of anything that would be of value to someone without a good training in hypnosis. You might try a book called "Training Trances" by Julie Silverthorne as she and her husband lead you through an Ericksonian hypnosis course. After reading the book you should have a better grasp on hypnosis in general and on Ericksonian hypnosis.
"mentally ill" "emotionally disturbed" .... I think to call anyone either one is to stunt their growth (or evolution) - since everybody is a unique individual I guess I would prefer to use the person's name.
Well, my name is Jack, but I am also a human being, an hypnotherapist, a husband, father, car mechanic, lawn cutter, friend, dog mentor and a thousand other major and minor functions of me as an individual.
Occasionally I am emotionally disturbed - when England lose at cricket for instance (which means quite a lot of the time) - but I am not mentally ill, or unwell if you prefer.
The term 'mentally ill' is not a pejorative term. Rather it describes the difference between a broken leg and a 'broken mind'. Neither the leg nor the 'mind' are usually the fault of the individual, although there could be a case for self-harm in either instance.
I appeciate and sympathise with your dislike of the term, but it serves a purpose to help the rest of us differentiate and understand. Without a term to describe any form of illness there could be no cohesive attempts at removing pain, whether physical or emotional.
Simply using a Christian name does not further that end, and that end is what the professionals amongst us signed up for.
Jack
Jack, in my training and experience I would say you are exactly correct. Erickson would begin working with such a client by his moving into their trance state. Then, he would lead them to his trance state where communications and change could be encouraged.
Even Bandler (see 'Frogs into Princes') entered the patient's world of temporal dissociation in direct contradiction of the principle in psychology which says that a patient should be encouraged into enter the 'real' world and the physician should never on any account become embroiled in the world of the patient.
Erickson didn't give a fig about that. All he was concerned about was getting a result.
But I am not sure that he could or did change their trance state. I fancy that he used what was there, but had a greater intuitive insight into how to use it than the rest of us. It is all conjecture of course since he is dead.
Jack
Jack, I understand both your position and pmdigi's position, and I think I understand where you are coming from.
I do not like the use of the expression for an altogether different reason--not because it can be self-fulfilling, not because it implies lack of fault. Rather, I dislike it because I believe it to be meaningless.
Tell ten different people to define "mentally ill" and you'll get ten different answers. It could be any of many disorders identified by the psychological/psychiatric community, or it could be a pejorative used to identify a belief or behavior that is not in agreement with another's set of beliefs or behaviors.
It is so broad it could mean anything. And when something can mean anything, when it has no specific meaning, then to me it has no real value.
I have posted elsewhere that it is good to start in a client's trance and bring them into yours, so if someone says to me, "I am mentally ill. Can you help me?" I would first assure them that help, indeed, is possible, and then immediately get to the details and move them to the understanding that they are not ill, but rather they are doing the best they can with the knowledge, skills, and abilities they have.
"I'm mentally ill."
"Glad to meet you Mr. Ill. My name is Don!"
:)
Don, I agree with some of what you say, but much as I dislike labels or pigeonholes we are stuck with them in order to understand the nature of humanity.
The fault is not in the term 'mentally ill' which defines the difference between it and mentally well, but in the construction that is placed on the term. Education is the answer, but there will always be those who understand 'mentally ill' in a pejorative sense. So we ask ourselves, who are these people who cannot understand? They are ill-educated morons for the most part. Then we might ask does their opinion matter? The answer is no. So if the educated understand the term in its correct sense the argument ceases to exist about its usage.
Broad terms are useful for understanding. They enable us to categorise and then select elements of that categorisation to further understand the nature of the element and if it is an element that is not useful to the individual or the rest of us to help that individual find another strategy which is more useful to both.
Without the initial categorisation we can only understand on an ad hoc basis, this in turn leads to an inconsistent approach, which the leads on to confused methodology and less benefit to the individual and the rest of us.
It is very rare that someone who is mentally ill would say 'I am mentally ill, can you help me?' Those who are profoundly mentally ill are unaware of their illness since their particular trance state proscribes their ability to see outside the state to other possibilities. Their own reality is the only reality.
Jack
Jack, I would say that it is specifically because the expression "mentally ill" is so broad that it is useless for understanding.
If you say someone is "mentally ill," what does that mean? To some, it could mean "your logic is different than mine." For others it could mean a mild neurosis that has little effect on a person's life. For others it could mean a person with thinking patterns that make him a danger to himself and others and who needs hospitalization/incarceration to protect lives.
When something can mean anything, it has no meaning at all unless that meaning is defined by the person using it. In such a case, why not simply use the definition rather than confuse the issue with an expression that can easily be misunderstood.
I have heard TV and radio hosts (with no psychological training) refer to others as "mentally sick," "mentally ill," or "insane" simply because the thinking of another person is different from their own.
Are people who don't understand the meaning of "mentally ill" "ill-educated morons for the most part. Then we might ask does their opinion matter?" Unfortunately, the expression has been used so much that people who are not morons use it all the time. And, unfortunately, many of them opinion leaders, so their opinions do matter whether we like it or not.
Jack, do you know what a "quantum leap" is? To most people it is a gigantic leap forward. In actuality, it is the abrupt change of a molecule, atom, or electron from one state to another. That's hardly a gigantic change, but most people use the expression that way. Does that make them morons? No.
Now, take a term that can mean just about anything. The fact that people use it to mean anything they like, including pejoratively, doesn't make them morons--it just makes them users of a term with no specific meaning.
pmdigi
04-20-2007, 10:03 AM
Thomas Szasz, a professional psychiatrist makes a case in The Myth of Mental Illness that there is no such thing as mental illness - that people sometimes suffer from what he calls "problems in living". Since I'm not a professional in the field (not that it matters) I threw the "medical model" out for the "educational". It sometimes seems the medical model can create victims whereas in the educational model one can learn to "do things differently".
Don, this reminds me of the fleas on the fleas on an elephant's back and so on ad infinitum.
For there to be fleas in this instance there has to be an elephant. What that means is that we have to have a starting point in the analysis of meaning. I think you are saying that we do not need one and can plunge right in. The fleas might disagree.
'Mentally ill' is a broad term, but so is the term 'animal' or any number of other reference points. From these broad descriptions we specify and create any number of animals, or fleas. Without such a broad description we are merely guessing what the fleas are like as specifics.
'Mentally ill' does not mean and can never mean 'anything'. The description of fleas without an elephant can mean absolutely anything. 'Mentally ill' specifically refers to 'mentality' and 'illness'. This is not the same as for instance physicality and illness, so immediately informs us that the illness is not physical but rather cerebral. From the term 'mentally ill' we can then decide the extent of the illness and how to treat it, or if it needs treating at all.
I would argue that no matter how intelligent or academically qualified a person is, to use the term 'mentally ill' in a pejorative sense for any reason is the behaviour of an ill-educated moron. People who are of this ilk are more culpable than those who are neither intelligent nor academic; both exhibit moronic behaviour, but for different reasons.
If you know that someone is using terms pejoratively or incorrectly then whether they are 'opinion leaders' or not, you are an intelligent adult and can decide whether or not anything else they might say is similarly prejudiced, uninformed and ill-educated and stop listening. If we all stop listening to these people then they cease to be 'opinion formers' To do
otherwise is at best sheeplike and at worst moronic and I am sure that you would never do that, although you do seem to be saying that we should listen to the opinions of people who do not understand what they are saying since you assert that they are not morons.
Since the remainder of your argument rests on the premise that 'mentally ill' can mean anything when it obviously cannot there is little point in continuing the discussion, unless you are looking for a pedantic fight for some reason or other.:D
Jack
Jack, the definition of "flea" does not require there to be an elephant or any other creature. It is specific. Look it up in a dictionary. If I say, "look, a flea," I am not talking about a worm or a fly. So I disagree with your claim that "The description of fleas without an elephant can mean absolutely anything."
Mental illness, on the other hand, has no specific meaning. It's not even in my dictionary (Oxford American Dictionary)!
Okay, so let's look at the infamous Wikipedia. Here's what it has to say:
Mental illness refers to one of many mental health conditions characterized by distress, impaired cognitive functioning, atypical behavior and/or maladaptive behavior. Definitions, assessments and classifications of mental disorders may vary, however guideline criterion listed in the ICD, DSM, or CCMD are widely accepted by many mental health professionals. Categories of diagnoses in these schemes may include mood or affective disorders, anxiety disorders, psychotic disorders, eating disorders, and personality disorders.
Symptoms of mental illness greatly vary dependent upon the specific disorder, but may include mild to chronic forms of depression, loss of cognitive abilities, or the presence of hallucinations or delusions. Causes of mental illness also vary, but may result from genetics, trauma, biological factors such as infections or toxins, or neuroplasticity resulting from psychological or anthropological factors. Mental health professionals will diagnose individuals using different methodologies which may or may not include obtaining a medical or psychopathological history of a patient, performing a mental status examination, conducting psychological testing such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or intelligence quotient tests, obtaining neuroimages through functional magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography scanning, or other neurophysiologic measurements such as electroencephalography. Mental health professionals will treat mental disorders differently using one or a combination of psychotherapy, psychiatric medication, case management, or other practices.
So if someone says they have a "mental illness," what do they have? I don't know. You don't know. According to Wikipedia it could indicate:
1) Distress
2) Impaired cognitive functioning
3) Atypical behavior (hmmm...by that definition we're all mentally ill!)
4) Maladaptive behavior
5) Mood disorders
6) Affective disorders
7) Anxiety disorders
8) Psychotic disorders
9) Eating disorders
10) Personality disorders
Each one of these ten items has multiple possibilities.
So, if I say, "There is a flea," everyone knows what I mean However, if I say, "He has a mental illness," it could mean any of hundreds of different things. And to non-professionals, it could mean anyone who thinks differently than I do.
How do you treat someone with a "mental illness?" Do you treat someone with a psychotic disorder the same way you'd treat someone with mild anxiety? My guess is you wouldn't. I sure wouldn't! But by saying someone has a "mental illness" you have no way of knowing what they actually have. Get a copy of the DSM IV. Every disorder in there tells you about symptoms and the different types of treatments. Any disorder in there could be called a "mental illness."
"Mental illness" might be a good phrase for a psychologist to tell the family of a patient instead of saying "acute dissociative disorder" which they might not understand. But do you think a psychologist would tell another psychologist "I'm treating a patient for a mental illness?" I don't think so.
It's a meaningless term and, IMO, should be abandoned by people who want to be accepted as professionals by their peers.
Similarly, a doctor might say, "the patient has an inflammation of the
genitals," not "His woo-woo down 'there' is feeling naughty." :)
A hypnotherapist makes no diagnosis.
I was talking about a person who have severe emotional problems.
I don't know where you get off saying things like that poodle. You should think before you speak. No one in their right mind would say the things you say. How do you know what kind of background I have. I haven't said anything about my background.
zack
Id say you are correct Jack, and further, that it isnt conjecture, because he stated and demonstrated, over and over, his principal of utilization.
And Milton worked with some profoundly disturbed people.
Mostly schizophrenics because this was before psychotropic meds and schiz was institutionalized frequently.
BUT it must be remembered Erickson was willing to spend hours, days, weeks, months, years.
Remember the word salad story?
Word salad was the way schizophrenics hypnotized the psychiatrists back then.
Erickson had his secretary follow the guy around for days taking down every word.
Then Erickson spent over a month learning the word salad pattern.
The Erickson confronted the man, the man spoke word salad for four hours straight, Erickson spoke word salad back for four hours straight. Then Erickson said, "Name's Erickson would like to talk further sometime."
Next day the guy talked for six hours, Erickson talked back for six. Then the man talked another four hours with Erickson following him with another four. Then the man said, "Nice to meet someone who makes sense."
Two years later the guy left the institution and got a job, got married, and had children, which in Ericksons world view was what everybody was supposed to do.
Now that aint Cognitive Brief Therapy.
Erickson did some amazing things, but speed wasnt always a concern of his. And for many years he had a captive clientel.
He could do brief therapy, even abrupt. Read about the girl who was always late to class.
But I think the point IS ...
Mental disorders are just another trance form.
Daily we go from one trance form to another.
We as hypnotists are generally trying to wake people up from their particular limiting trance, and leading them to a more successful trance state.
I tend to view mental disorders as simply another trance state, in which the person can forsee no better alternative. My job is to help them realize better alternatives.
Obviously some of these dysfunctional trance states are more challenging than others.
cheers,
skip
Terry (existing)
04-20-2007, 09:44 PM
A hypnotherapist makes no diagnosis.
I was talking about a person who have severe emotional problems.
I don't know where you get off saying things like that poodle. You should think before you speak. No one in their right mind would say the things you say. How do you know what kind of background I have. I haven't said anything about my background.
zack
You haven't? What do you think all those sqiggles on the screen are saying about you?
Let me see, you may be thirteen, though at times you appear younger.
Your native tongue is English, but you have a very poor understanding of it.
You are likely an only child, and your parents, or perhaps parent, spoil you badly, leading you to believe that you are the equal of an adult. Not true...
You want to know about hypnosis, but are not willing to put in the time, so you ask questions, and get frustrated when you don't get the replies you hope for. You assume that it is due to the stupidity of the adults, fact is you have a very poor command of language, and poor communcations skills as a whole.
A word of advise, exam time is near, better hit the books instead of wasting your time here. Oh yes, better apologise to Poodle, even if your parents spoil you that is no excuse for being rude to an adult who was trying to help you. How do I know all this about you? The squiggles told me silly...:eek:
Well Don, you seem never to have heard of the poem to which I referred, so I apologise for assuming that you had. I was attempting an elegant way to describe my point but it failed.
The purpose of mentioning the poem was to demonstrate that categorisation is essential for understanding.
Why are you persistenty clinging to the mistaken point you made that mental illness can mean anything when it patently cannot? Does it mean aardvark? Does it mean physical illness? You insist that it does, but then go on to quote lengthy and irrelevent quotes from Wikipedia which do categorise into broad sections and refute your previous point.
And, in your Wikipedia quote there is constant reference to mental health. You cannot use the broader term 'mental health' without asking what we mean by it. Mental illness is simply the downside of mental wellness since 'mental health' does not impute any value. You see? Probably not.
So, if I say, "There is a flea," everyone knows what I mean
Well yes, apart from the hundreds of types of flea in existence, but I have already said that 'flea' is specific, so why are you arguing a point that is not in dispute? :confused:
Mental illness, on the other hand, has no specific meaning. It's not even in my dictionary (Oxford American Dictionary)!
Concise Oxford English Dictionary: mental illness - disorder of the mind.
Did you lose a page or just fail to see it?
"Mental illness" might be a good phrase for a psychologist to tell the family of a patient instead of saying "acute dissociative disorder" which they might not understand. But do you think a psychologist would tell another psychologist "I'm treating a patient for a mental illness?" I don't think so.
Do get a grip, Don, in your desperation to put one over on me. Mental illness is a broad root term as I have said repeatedly, but I do remember going to a conference at which one of the seminars was entitled 'Mental Illness and Poverty'. The conference was hosted by the British Psychological Society. The term 'mental illness' was used as a broad definition of disorders of the mind, in this case engendered by or encouraged by poverty.
"He has a mental illness," it could mean any of hundreds of different things.
Yes it could, I have never said anything which differs from that. It is a broad term with many children. If you follow the logic of your own proposition however that it can mean anything you would also say that the term 'physical illness' also can mean anything, when in fact it cannot since it refers specifically to physical illness and not to disorders of the mind as mental illness refers to disorders of the mind and not to disorders of the body .
If you would make your mind up then perhaps we could have an intelligent discussion. Can the term 'mental illness' mean anything or can it not? You have already said both that it can mean 'anything' and then gone on to say that it can mean 'hundreds of things', would you like to try for another definition to further what is a pointless argument, or are two enough?
Jack
The purpose of mentioning the poem was to demonstrate that categorisation is essential for understanding.
I agree. That's why categorization requires specifics.
Why are you persistenty clinging to the mistaken point you made that mental illness can mean anything when it patently cannot? Does it mean aardvark? Does it mean physical illness? You insist that it does, but then go on to quote lengthy and irrelevent quotes from Wikipedia which do categorise into broad sections and refute your previous point.
Since, as I have repeatedly pointed out, mental illness can mean thinking in a way that is not the same as mine, yes, if someone thinks mentioning an aardvark is mental illness, to that person it is mental illness. I someone thinks being physically ill is a sign of "mental illness," then yes, physical illness is mental illness. That's what happens when a phrase has no meaning.
And, in your Wikipedia quote there is constant reference to mental health. You cannot use the broader term 'mental health' without asking what we mean by it. Mental illness is simply the downside of mental wellness since 'mental health' does not impute any value. You see? Probably not.
Precisely! The term "mental health" is just as meaningless as "mental illness" because it can mean anything. If a person can exist easily in a social situation we can say that the person indicates they have mental health. If they then go into a dissociative fugue we say they are mentally ill. Now, I think you'll admit that a person cannot be mentally healthy and mentally ill at the same time, and yet that is the condition we have here. How can that be? Because the expressions are meaningless.
Or more to the point, as Humpty Dumpty said in Through the Looking Glass, "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." If it means whatever you want, then without explaining what you mean, it is useless for communication.
If you talk about "communism" and mean "an idyllic society where all work for the good of each other and government has faded away" while I use the same word to mean "a totalitarian government that has removed all civil rights and liberties," we can use the same work, "communism," and have no communication. The only way to change that is to get rid of the word that means different things to different people (i.e., can mean anything) and get to the specifics.
If you use "mentally ill" to mean "any attitude that is different from the view of the government" (i.e., "You'd have to be mentally ill not to agree with the government on this issue.") while I use it to mean "body dismorphia," we could use the same expression and not be able to communicate.
So, if I say, "There is a flea," everyone knows what I mean
Well yes, apart from the hundreds of types of flea in existence, but I have already said that 'flea' is specific, so why are you arguing a point that is not in dispute? :confused:
Uh, actually there are only four types of fleas:
http://www.castlemorpeth.gov.uk/an/webconnect.exe/ao2/View/?Doc=10092&Site=1660
I'm arguing it because you wrote, "The description of fleas without an elephant can mean absolutely anything." No, it can only mean one of four types of creatures.
Mental illness, on the other hand, has no specific meaning. It's not even in my dictionary (Oxford American Dictionary)!
Concise Oxford English Dictionary: mental illness - disorder of the mind.
Did you lose a page or just fail to see it?
Different dictionary.
But are you agreeing that "mental illness" is a disorder of the mind? What does that mean? That the mind isn't organized? What is the normal organization against which a disorder is determined? If everyone believes that apples are really sausages, do you have a mental illness for saying "No, they're sausages?" Did the child who revealed that the emperor wore no clothes have a mental illness?
In fact, how about showing us a mind that can be disordered?
"Mental illness" might be a good phrase for a psychologist to tell the family of a patient instead of saying "acute dissociative disorder" which they might not understand. But do you think a psychologist would tell another psychologist "I'm treating a patient for a mental illness?" I don't think so.
Do get a grip, Don, in your desperation to put one over on me. Mental illness is a broad root term as I have said repeatedly, but I do remember going to a conference at which one of the seminars was entitled 'Mental Illness and Poverty'. The conference was hosted by the British Psychological Society. The term 'mental illness' was used as a broad definition of disorders of the mind, in this case engendered by or encouraged by poverty.
In this particular case, as a broad description of a variety of conditions, it certainly can be used. That's because they were not talking about "a" mental illness, but using the term in a plural way. That is, a multiplicity of conditions and poverty.
However, you didn't talk about other discussions. Cherry picking like that doesn't count. For example, I went to the BPS society and found a paper that discussed, "the definition of ‘mental disorder’, from mental illness to
disorder and ultimately to dysfunction."
So here the speaker seems to be saying that a mental illness is a mild problem only and is not the same as a mental disorder. Oh, but wait, your dictionary defined mental illness AS a disorder of the mind: a mental disorder.
So it seems that the BPS considers "mental illness" to be a subset of the term "mental disorder" and that they are not the same.
I guess different people have different meanings for the same expression. And when it can mean anything like that, it's rather meaningless.
"He has a mental illness," it could mean any of hundreds of different things.
Yes it could, I have never said anything which differs from that. It is a broad term with many children. If you follow the logic of your own proposition however that it can mean anything you would also say that the term 'physical illness' also can mean anything, when in fact it cannot since it refers specifically to physical illness and not to disorders of the mind as mental illness refers to disorders of the mind and not to disorders of the body .
Yes, that's right. It's about a meaningful as the people who used to describe any of the many types of cancer as a "lingering disease" or "The Big C." Saying someone has "The Big C" tells you little: do you treat for Sarcosi's Lymphoma or leukemia?
If you would make your mind up then perhaps we could have an intelligent discussion. Can the term 'mental illness' mean anything or can it not? You have already said both that it can mean 'anything' and then gone on to say that it can mean 'hundreds of things', would you like to try for another definition to further what is a pointless argument, or are two enough?
Jack
Yes, it can mean tens of things, hundreds of things, or anything. Perhaps your mind is disordered in not being able to follow that. Why, that would mean you have a "mental illness" to some people. If you disagree with me, that would mean you have a mental illness to others. If you don't like peanut butter that definitely means you must have a mental illness.
The term "mental illness," IMO, is nothing more than a modern replacement for "crazy," as crazy has now become watered down to mean...well...just about anything. Someone can be "crazy" about peanut butter or crazy for not liking peanut butter. I would prefer to be more specific by saying they have a fetish for peanut butter or a mild phobic response to peanut butter.
It would seem that I prefer specifics whilst you prefer generalities. Nothing wrong with that (unless someone thinks that preferring one over the other is a sign of "mental illness"), and each person's preferences are simply their own.
I think we'll merely have to agree to disagree on these points.
I agree. That's why categorization requires specifics.
Therefore the word animal as a broad term, for instance, is not specific enough for you. It can mean anything. What you are saying is that 'animal' can mean blancmange, chair, Ford V8, cabbage...or anything you wish it to mean. Similarly human being, vegetable, insect, mineral and a host of other broad terms can, to you, mean anything at all.
So, fringe burgling ocelots may invade artefacts of banana flow in a terrific parody of calm but frigid park bench emeralds?
I am glad we understand each other.
Have you read 'The Man Who Thought His Wife Was a Hat' by Oliver Sachs?
With respect you are the 'Man Who Thought an Animal Was a Banana'.
Since, as I have repeatedly pointed out, mental illness can mean thinking in a way that is not the same as mine, yes, if someone thinks mentioning an aardvark is mental illness, to that person it is mental illness. I someone thinks being physically ill is a sign of "mental illness," then yes, physical illness is mental illness. That's what happens when a phrase has no meaning.
Don, I agree that mental illness means thinking in a way that is not the same as mine, but only to ill-educated morons, as I have repeatedly pointed out. The phrase has meaning but the interpretation, as with all phrases and all language is the result of education and intelligence.
Precisely! The term "mental health" is just as meaningless as "mental illness" because it can mean anything. If a person can exist easily in a social situation we can say that the person indicates they have mental health. If they then go into a dissociative fugue we say they are mentally ill. Now, I think you'll admit that a person cannot be mentally healthy and mentally ill at the same time, and yet that is the condition we have here. How can that be? Because the expressions are meaningless.
You say that if a person can exist easily in a social situation that indicates mental health. Following your logic I would say that the broad term 'social situation' has no meaning, so your conclusion similarly has no meaning.
Let us say that someone goes into your 'dissociative fugue' and it happens to be paranoid schizophrenia, is this person mentally well? Of course not, so your statement that the condition of wellness and illness can exist simultaneously is absurd.
Or more to the point, as Humpty Dumpty said in Through the Looking Glass, "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." If it means whatever you want, then without explaining what you mean, it is useless for communication.
Well, yes. That is the point of the argument. You are the one saying that mental illness can mean anything. One more time...it is broad parent term leading to specific child terms.
If you talk about "communism" and mean "an idyllic society where all work for the good of each other and government has faded away" while I use the same word to mean "a totalitarian government that has removed all civil rights and liberties,"
I agree. Communism is a broad term that may mean different types of communism: Soviet, Chinese, or even the communism of the kibbutz. The basis of the system is the word 'community' which immediately separates it from the idea of a 'singularity' and informs us that a group of people are working for a defined end. It does not matter what their methodology is or what means they use to achieve that end as long as it involves a community or a group. Without the word 'communism' we have no idea that the philosophy is based on anything at all, which is what you seem to be trying to achieve. It is a broad term, as is mental illness. From both one can move to specifics.
Different dictionary.
Yes it is.
But are you agreeing that "mental illness" is a disorder of the mind? What does that mean? That the mind isn't organized?
Since you say I may be agreeing then I must be agreeing to something you have proposed. You have not proposed that mental illness is a disorder of the mind, so your question is logically meaningless.
However, in the spirit of your question rather than its irrationality, mental illness can be described as a disorder of the mind, It can be descibed thus because it is not a broken leg or a brain tumour and is therefore not physical.
What is the normal organization against which a disorder is determined? If everyone believes that apples are really sausages, do you have a mental illness for saying "No, they're sausages?"
Well if everyone believed that then there would be be no dissent so the question is, once again, meaningless. Let me ask you, if 99% of humanity believe the moon is rock and 1% believe that it is green cheese is the 1% mentally ill? Extrapolating a little, if that 1% believed this so fanatically that they were prepared to bomb the other 99% infidel rock believers out of existence would they be mentally ill?
In fact, how about showing us a mind that can be disordered?
Anyone can take a mirror.
In this particular case, as a broad description of a variety of conditions, it certainly can be used. That's because they were not talking about "a" mental illness, but using the term in a plural way. That is, a multiplicity of conditions and poverty.
That is what I have been saying for so, so long. Thank you for finally agreeing. My argument has always been that mental illness is a broad term from which specifics can be extracted. We have no argument.
However, you didn't talk about other discussions. Cherry picking like that doesn't count. For example, I went to the BPS society and found a paper that discussed, "the definition of ‘mental disorder’, from mental illness to
disorder and ultimately to dysfunction."
So here the speaker seems to be saying that a mental illness is a mild problem only and is not the same as a mental disorder. Oh, but wait, your dictionary defined mental illness AS a disorder of the mind: a mental disorder.
So it seems that the BPS considers "mental illness" to be a subset of the term "mental disorder" and that they are not the same.
I guess different people have different meanings for the same expression. And when it can mean anything like that, it's rather meaningless.
But it doesn't mean just anything Don. It does not mean physical illness and it does not mean aardvark. It is directly related to disorders of the mind. You continue to try to prove the unproveable simply because you made the mistake of writing it as fact. However I note that you now say 'rather' meaningless, which is an improvement.
Yes, that's right. It's about a meaningful as the people who used to describe any of the many types of cancer as a "lingering disease" or "The Big C." Saying someone has "The Big C" tells you little: do you treat for Sarcosi's Lymphoma or leukemia?
A physician would treat for whatever specific cancer was indicated. But if he did not realise it was Cancer (a broad and general term) and treated it as broken arm then he would be remiss.
Yes, it can mean tens of things, hundreds of things, or anything.
OK. So it can mean blancmange. Do you realise how irrational that is? I am surprised that you still cling to it, but perhaps not that much.
Perhaps your mind is disordered in not being able to follow that. Why, that would mean you have a "mental illness" to some people. If you disagree with me, that would mean you have a mental illness to others. If you don't like peanut butter that definitely means you must have a mental illness.
Oh Don, really, I won't even dignify that with a reply.
The term "mental illness," IMO, is nothing more than a modern replacement for "crazy," as crazy has now become watered down to mean...well...just about anything. Someone can be "crazy" about peanut butter or crazy for not liking peanut butter. I would prefer to be more specific by saying they have a fetish for peanut butter or a mild phobic response to peanut butter.
Fine. You may do as you wish and think what you wish no matter how irrational.
It would seem that I prefer specifics whilst you prefer generalities.
Nope. I prefer broad terms leading to specific terms, and you prefer specific terms without any indication of their parentage.
I think we'll merely have to agree to disagree on these points.
We agree on that.
Jack
I agree. That's why categorization requires specifics.
Therefore the word animal as a broad term,
But the original subject is not about things (animals). Rather, it is about states. I contented that to appropriately name the state one should be specific, otherwise it is meaningless. You, it would seem, think this is okay.
Don, I agree that mental illness means thinking in a way that is not the same as mine, but only to ill-educated morons, as I have repeatedly pointed out. The phrase has meaning but the interpretation, as with all phrases and all language is the result of education and intelligence.
Having studied the philosophy of language at a university, I agree with what you've written. And that is the problem. If I want to communicate something about a state I need to be specific, otherwise the person I'm trying to communicate with may misinterpret what I'm saying. If I say X and they think Y, my attempt at communication is meaningless.
You say that if a person can exist easily in a social situation that indicates mental health. Following your logic I would say that the broad term 'social situation' has no meaning, so your conclusion similarly has no meaning.
That's a great point. By social situation I meant a situation where a person interacts with others. The fact that you didn't understand this shows that I failed in my communication attempt and my phrase was meaningless. That's why I say specifics are important. I believe you have proved my point.
Well, yes. That is the point of the argument. You are the one saying that mental illness can mean anything. One more time...it is broad parent term leading to specific child terms.
And, as such, it is terrifying! Doctor: "You have a mental illness." Patient: "Oh my God! Will I need to go to a hospital? Will I lose my mind? Will I kill someone?"
Why not just discuss exactly what is there?
However, in the spirit of your question... mental illness can be described as a disorder of the mind, It can be descibed thus because it is not a broken leg or a brain tumour and is therefore not physical.
So by your definition it could also be a box in the corner or a green egg as neither is a broken leg or a brain tumor.
Instead of trying to identify something by what it is not, why not identify it by what it is?
Well if everyone believed that then there would be be no dissent so the question is, once again, meaningless. Let me ask you, if 99% of humanity believe the moon is rock and 1% believe that it is green cheese is the 1% mentally ill?
That doesn't interest me so much as asking, if 99% of humanity believe the moon is green cheese and 1% believe that it is rock is the 1% mentally ill?
In this particular case, as a broad description of a variety of conditions, it certainly can be used. That's because they were not talking about "a" mental illness, but using the term in a plural way. That is, a multiplicity of conditions and poverty.
That is what I have been saying for so, so long. Thank you for finally agreeing. My argument has always been that mental illness is a broad term from which specifics can be extracted. We have no argument.
But in the initial case we were describing a single problem, not a variety of problems. If you have a dog you are far more likely to say, "I have a dog," while if you have a dog, cat, fish, ferret, pig, bird, lizard, turtle, and hen you are more likely to say, "I have animals," a generic term for a variety of things, not one.
Yes, that's right. It's about a meaningful as the people who used to describe any of the many types of cancer as a "lingering disease" or "The Big C." Saying someone has "The Big C" tells you little: do you treat for Sarcosi's Lymphoma or leukemia?
A physician would treat for whatever specific cancer was indicated. But if he did not realise it was Cancer (a broad and general term) and treated it as broken arm then he would be remiss.
That is exactly my point.
OK. So it can mean blancmange. Do you realise how irrational that is? I am surprised that you still cling to it, but perhaps not that much.
I am sure you are just as surprised as I am that as a professional in a field that relies on communication you want to "cling" to your "irrational" use of terms that are so broad they could mean anything.
The term "mental illness," IMO, is nothing more than a modern replacement for "crazy," as crazy has now become watered down to mean...well...just about anything. Someone can be "crazy" about peanut butter or crazy for not liking peanut butter. I would prefer to be more specific by saying they have a fetish for peanut butter or a mild phobic response to peanut butter.
Fine. You may do as you wish and think what you wish no matter how irrational.
Thanks for your permission. ;)
And likewise, you may do as you wish no matter how unprofessional. :eek:
It would seem that I prefer specifics whilst you prefer generalities.
Nope. I prefer broad terms leading to specific terms, and you prefer specific terms without any indication of their parentage.
Ah, so you're back to the we-don't-know-what-a-flea-is-without-an-elephant argument, something which I already disproved and rejected.
I think we'll merely have to agree to disagree on these points.
We agree on that.
Jack
Thanks for this discussion!
But the original subject is not about things (animals). Rather, it is about states. I contented that to appropriately name the state one should be specific, otherwise it is meaningless. You, it would seem, think this is okay.
You are changing your argument, but even if I accept that you meant 'states' what I said is still valid. You fail to understand the difference between broad and specific, which is at the root of this argument.
I have dealt comprehensively with this point but if you cannot understand that then we are wasting breath.
Having studied the philosophy of language at a university, I agree with what you've written. And that is the problem. If I want to communicate something about a state I need to be specific, otherwise the person I'm trying to communicate with may misinterpret what I'm saying. If I say X and they think Y, my attempt at communication is meaningless.
I agree, but you are saying that there are only children and their parents do not exist, or are meaningless. Broad/specific? Mean anything? As a side note it is interesting how you have this anal obsession with specificity: I find 'leaping to conclusions without provenance' prevalent in 1st year Philosphy students simply because they are looking for a short cut to actual thinking.
That's a great point. By social situation I meant a situation where a person interacts with others. The fact that you didn't understand this shows that I failed in my communication attempt and my phrase was meaningless. That's why I say specifics are important. I believe you have proved my point.
You failed to understand yet again. Ah, but I forgot you prefer specifics or absolutes. Rather than 'the cat sat on the mat' you would prefer 'the white feline belonging to Mr Smith of 34 The Grove, Anytown, adopted a posture unrelated to standing and closer to reclining whilst situate upon a brown sisal floor covering which originally came from a tree on the Indian sub-continent'. As statements both are ok although neither is necessarily true. But the first is succinct and describes the occurrence in broad terms. The second is the child of the first and deals with the specifics of the cat and the mat. This is surely not difficult to understand for a student of the philosophy of language, and at a real university too, wow!
And, as such, it is terrifying! Doctor: "You have a mental illness." Patient: "Oh my God! Will I need to go to a hospital? Will I lose my mind? Will I kill someone?"
Why not just discuss exactly what is there?
Of course you can. A doctor will decide what is best for his patient, as you would decide how to approach client treatment. Reversing your point what if he said 'You have paranoid schizophrenia with underlying sociopathic and homicidal tendencies, in other words you could kill somone either now or in the future so we need to get you onto mind numbing drugs which will turn you into a zombie' (specific) rather than 'you have a mental disorder'(broad). Which of these statements would freak him out?
Jack said: However, in the spirit of your question... mental illness can be described as a disorder of the mind, It can be descibed thus because it is not a broken leg or a brain tumour and is therefore not physical.
So by your definition it could also be a box in the corner or a green egg as neither is a broken leg or a brain tumor.
Are you purposefully trying to cloud the argument, heaven forbid! The clue to it lies in the words 'mental' and 'physical', which I think you well understand. Squirming is not pleasant to watch.;)
Instead of trying to identify something by what it is not, why not identify it by what it is?
That is broadly what the terms 'mental illness' or 'mental disorder' do. Do try to keep up.
That doesn't interest me so much as asking, if 99% of humanity believe the moon is green cheese and 1% believe that it is rock is the 1% mentally ill?
Of course it does not 'interest' you since you cannot answer it using your current philosophy.
But in the initial case we were describing a single problem, not a variety of problems. If you have a dog you are far more likely to say, "I have a dog," while if you have a dog, cat, fish, ferret, pig, bird, lizard, turtle, and hen you are more likely to say, "I have animals," a generic term for a variety of things, not one.
A generic term...by George I think he has it! A generic term is a broad term to describe a class of things. From this generic term you may specify within that class. So maybe it would suit you better if we use the terms 'generic' and 'specific' rather than 'broad' and 'specific'?
You see Don, when a physician is faced with a patient who has a number of symptoms he would first attempt to classify those symptoms generically, before fining down his conclusion to specifics. What you have been suggesting thoughout your posts is that he immediately goes to a specific without the intervening stages of rational thought generated by physical or mental evidence.
That is exactly my point.
Well, no, it isn't, but I am not surprised that you fail to understand that.
I am sure you are just as surprised as I am that as a professional in a field that relies on communication you want to "cling" to your "irrational" use of terms that are so broad they could mean anything.
I just laughed out loud and surprised my dog. :D :D Have you ever heard of 'clean language'? Us amateurs use it all the time in therapy. It enables clients to give their meaning to relatively meaningless words and phrases. Ok Don, I know that logical and rational thinking is not your forte, but I tried.
And likewise, you may do as you wish no matter how unprofessional.
Tut-tut. Your neuroses are showing. But I am not offended, since I know how you think.
Ah, so you're back to the we-don't-know-what-a-flea-is-without-an-elephant argument, something which I already disproved and rejected.
You think you have, Don. And you still have no idea about what I meant regarding fleas and elephants do you?
Thanks for this discussion.
If you really meant that and weren't saying it through gritted teeth then I would reciprocate, but what the heck, I will, so thank you too, my friend.:)
Jack
I just heard a long report on the radio discussing the mass killer Cho Seung-hui. During the interview, the reporter interviewed a doctor of psychology who had seen the killers videos and writings. She discussed his possible problems, identifying each by the appropriate name and describing the symptoms that identified the particular problem. During the six-minute interview, she never said "mental illness." Not once. Instead, she used the accurate terms.
So I guess I'll be on the side of accurate communication and be able to hang with the doctors and professionals who rely on the correct use of terms. I'll be on the side of dentists who tell you that you have caries or cavities in a particular teeth and not simply that you have "tooth illness." I'll be on the side of the professional plumber who tells you that roots from a tree have gone into your pipes in a certain location, not that you have "pipe illness." I'll side with the optometrist who tells you that you have glaucoma and not "eye illness." I'll side with the lawyer who objects to a question given to a witness as being leading, not that the opposing lawyer has "legal illness." And I'll side with the psychologist who describes specific problems rather than using the meaningless "mental illness."
Others, of course, can use whatever terms they like.
If people go to the National Guild of Hypnotists web site you can find a list of suggested terminology.
(See: http://www.ngh.net/CodeEthicsStandards.pdf and scroll down to page 11)
The purpose of such terminology is to make sure that hypnotists do not overstep their area of expertise and end up in trouble with the law for doing what only doctors or licensed professionals can legally do.
For example, they say, "Hypnotists do not Diagnose clients; they help clients do Goal-Setting regarding Problems, Challenges or Issues." It's very precise.
So I'll also stay on the side of precision and with the NGH. Others, of course, are free to do as they will.
And Jack, my degree from UCLA was in philosophy. I enjoy a good exchange of ideas and do not need to grit my teeth.
Poodle
04-23-2007, 10:58 AM
The only reason the National Guild has changed terminology is to put it simply: so we don't piss off the doctors. I find some of it very stupid but they did not consult me. My female clients are not here for WEIGHT MANAGEMENT, they want weight LOSS. Phobias are now FEARS AND APPREHENSIONS and ANXIETY -- definite no no. Sorry, we'ze just poor ole dirt kicken' clods out here and we dozn't know what "fears and apprehensions" mean but we sure know what the word phobia means.
Mom was in the hospital for about a month. She uses a small amount of Valium to help her sleep. Her MD had to diagnose her as having 'ANXIETY" so she could have the med in the hospital. A couple of weeks ago, she looked at me and gave me one of her devilish smiles and said: "You know - I have anxiety. It was written on my papers." I said: "Right Mom. Just keep believing it and maybe it will come true."
Now as Jack does not live in the USA, I'm quite sure he doesn't give a flying fig what NGH says as he is not a member. Pood
Hi, Pood. You're correct as to why the NGH suggests certain terminology. I used to have debates on their forum over why I think hypnotherapist is more appropriate as compared to their favored hypnotist.
However, the point I was making is that they focus on specificity. So I agree with you: Weight loss, not weight management.
Connie
04-23-2007, 01:14 PM
:) Well, you have to manage to lose the weight, then you have to manage to maintain your weight loss. :p
Merlin
04-23-2007, 04:42 PM
managerial training for wait, loss
Poodle
04-23-2007, 05:58 PM
Do people in your state understand "fears and apprehensions"? To me there is a very large difference in being afraid of a spider and having an all out spider phobia. I'm not sure I really understand the word apprehensions - is that just being very mildly afraid. I just throw it under NLP and then no one can bother me. My brother got upset with me in an NLP ad as I used "Fast Phobia Cure". He said only Doctors can cure. I said cool. A Doctor created it and taught it to me so I guess that makes it a cure. He left shaking his head
People really don't like the word "hypnotist" as it conjurs up in their mind the old swinging watch or Hollywood movie scenario. For some strange reason they approve of hypnotherapist as they don't envision us doing those things as we help people
or
at least that is the way it is here.
Today at the lecture and free demo one gal was so gone. I thought maybe she had even gone into Esdaile. It was a lot of fun and everyone had a super good time and got a better view of the power of the SC mind. They were pretty well blown away just with the simple things but when we went all the way down for no pain, it blew their minds. It was the first for all of them so it's probably good that they got it correctly instead of other sources. A definite reminder of how much I loved teaching.
I am glad that you have found one psychologist who did not use the term 'mental illness' or even 'mental disorder'. It must make you feel justified. Would you like me to quote another six who have? Shall we play the numbers game? Or use some other foolish reasoning process? Really, Don, I expected more.
I enjoyed your rationale for why you believe that all terms must be specific without any origin or provenance whatsoever.
Me? Well I think I will go along with those who start at A proceed to B and through the rest of the alphabet, rather than those who start at N then on to B and then Q, or any combination which takes their fancy at the time. You see, I find that irrational and in the case of communication quite confusing. You do not. Which is probably why we are not communicating.
With regard to your NGH reference, I have no argument with it. If that is the way that the NGH perceives hypnotherapy in the US then I can understand why legally they must do so, but it is not the case in the UK.
I would only say that they are called the National Guild of Hypnotists and 'hypnotist' itself is not a precise term. Perhaps they should be renamed the 'National Guild of Various People With Various Qualifications Who Try To Help Other People Who Have Goal-Setting Problems, Challenges or Issues, using Subconscious Critical Faculty Bypass Techniques and Carefully Crafted Suggestions To Inhibit or Remove Behavioural Anomalies Which Are Not Beneficial To The Other People Aforementioned'.
The NGVPWVQWTTHOPWHGSPCISCFBTCCSTIRBAWANBTTOPA.
Precise enough? And I have not even mentioned members who are stage hypnotists and in the NGH. Of course you can define it in many other ways, depending upon your predeliction, but try saying it on the 'phone. Do you think that degree of precision would help communication?
You must know that language is, and has always been a moveable feast, as I think we have proved here. Likewise, definitions are similarly malleable and open to interpretation, no matter how precise you make them.
Which is why we have to have an agreed starting point for any word or phrase, a broad term, before moving on to as precise a definition as we can get. 'Mental Illness' is such a broad, generic term from which precise specifics can be extracted. You do not agree, despite my best efforts, so the argument is redundant.
And I wasn't attacking your educational achievements, Don, merely the fact that you keep mentioning them: something which is not terribly pertinent to the argument, since we all have some imprecise qualification or other.
Jack
Connie
04-24-2007, 07:50 AM
Perhaps they should be renamed the 'National Guild of Various People With Various Qualifications Who Try To Help Other People Who Have Goal-Setting Problems, Challenges or Issues, using Subconscious Critical Faculty Bypass Techniques and Carefully Crafted Suggestions To Inhibit or Remove Behavioural Anomalies Which Are Not Beneficial To The Other People Aforementioned'.
I like that, Jack! Not in terms of the guild but in terms of the the description of hypnotist. Of course, I intend to add stage performing to my repertoire, so we'll need another phrase or two. :)
Do people in your state understand "fears and apprehensions"? To me there is a very large difference in being afraid of a spider and having an all out spider phobia.
I think adults everywhere do understand "fears." What I also have seen is the overuse and abuse of the term "phobia" in the psychological sense: it's not simply having a fear or apprehension. Rather, it so controls a person that it prevents them from doing their daily tasks.
Jumping when you see a spider is a fear. Spending an hour every day spraying the corners of your house with bug spray to prevent any spiders, and if you see one spending an entire day cleaning and spraying with poison as a result is a phobia.
I'm not sure I really understand the word apprehensions - is that just being very mildly afraid. I just throw it under NLP and then no one can bother me. My brother got upset with me in an NLP ad as I used "Fast Phobia Cure". He said only Doctors can cure. I said cool. A Doctor created it and taught it to me so I guess that makes it a cure. He left shaking his head
LOL! I like it. :)
The word "apprehension," IMO, is more likely to be seen in novel rather than in common usage. I generally don't use it and just stay with "fear."
If someone says to me, "I have a phobia about X," I say, "What exactly do you mean by "phobia?" How does it effect you?" In this way I get beyond the term to the actual behavior. Then I help them change their behavior.
I'm not a NLPer, so I don't have your "out."
People really don't like the word "hypnotist" as it conjurs up in their mind the old swinging watch or Hollywood movie scenario. For some strange reason they approve of hypnotherapist as they don't envision us doing those things as we help people
That's often true. Personally, I prefer hypnotherapist although I will also use hypnotist. Were it up to me--and it's not--I would define the difference this way:
Hypnotist: someone who helps another achieve a state of hypnotic trance.
Hypnotherapist: someone who uses hypnosis and suggestion to help people achieve changes in their lives according to a hypnotherapeutic paradigm.
However, the NGH claims their preference for "hypnotist" comes from the fact that some localities do not permit the use of "therapist" unless you are a licensed professional (i.e. a psychologist, under a religious setting, etc.).
This brings up a good point: anyone practicing changework with others should check out state and local laws! Be aware that what you do can be very powerful and quick, and may make enemies in the ranks of people with licenses. It is better to make friends than enemies. Go to local organizations and network. Make friends with licensed professionals. Know the legal limits of your practice and be ready to make referrals.
Today at the lecture and free demo one gal was so gone. I thought maybe she had even gone into Esdaile. It was a lot of fun and everyone had a super good time and got a better view of the power of the SC mind. They were pretty well blown away just with the simple things but when we went all the way down for no pain, it blew their minds. It was the first for all of them so it's probably good that they got it correctly instead of other sources. A definite reminder of how much I loved teaching.
That's a WONDERFUL and fun report, Pood! I like it! As I've said before, I often ask if there are people who believe they cannot be hypnotized. After the talk and demos I ask one or two of them, specifically, if they'll agree to be hypnotized. Usually, they're the first to go into trance! Its such fun and so rewarding showing people the power they have.
I like that, Jack! Not in terms of the guild but in terms of the the description of hypnotist. Of course, I intend to add stage performing to my repertoire, so we'll need another phrase or two. :)
Thank you Connie!
You can change it to anything you like as long as it is specific and does not include the word 'hypnotism' or the word 'stage' both of which can mean many things which they are not, or might be, but only just, perhaps.
I am sure you can think of lots of incredibly specific words to apply to 'stage'..
Jack:)
Poodle
04-25-2007, 11:38 AM
I was informed by the National Guild that Milton referred to himself as a hypnotist so therefore, what was good enough for Milton is good enough for us. Duhhh, he died in 1980 and this is 2007. Has the world changed? I'm getting a little bit tired of them and their excuses for "never being able to find me" by mail or email. We finally have the mail problem okay but email still does not work. I am in three other guilds and really don't need them. I'm not sure I will renew. It basically is a labor union for hypnotists. I am beginning to appreciate Skip's views on organizations.
It is a sad state of affairs when any organisation which purports to represent the interest of hypnotherapists, and promote and regulate hypnotherapy cannot elicit loyalty from its members.
My opinion is that we need an organisation for those purposes, plus many others. Without one we are a disparate bunch of variously qualified therapists, each shouting the odds from our own corner, without any cohesion. Politically that makes us powerless, so if a government decides to outlaw hypnotherapy we would be able to do nothing about it.
That organisation does not exist.
Instead we have a number of organisations, both here and on your side of the water which, with various degrees of feebleness attempt to make rules governing conduct - some even engage with government - but in the main seem more intent upon promoting their own seminars, training and the interests of individuals.
I, too, have some sympathy with Skip's VP, but I still think it is possible to produce such an organisation, so I don't fully subscribe to it.
Until we have one universal qualification which declares that an hypnotherapist is fit to practice then we, as a body of ethical individuals will not be taken seriously. The only way to achieve that is through organisation, and dreadful though it might seem, legislation, preventing those who do not have that qualification or training from practicing as hypnotherapists.
My own organisation the NCH here in the UK has made some moves in that direction with the Hypnotherapy Practitioner Diploma, but in my opinion it does not go far enough in the stringency of its requirements, although for some I know it does.
If I were younger I would start a new organisation, but since I am not and my time on earth is becoming more limited I will have to leave it to the youngsters.
Any out there?
Jack