somnambulism and susceptibility

[toto211]

Hi there.

Recently I've read one study that concluded only about 20 percent of the population can achieve somnambulism. And yet I've heard other people say that everyone can achieve somnambulism. So now I'm confused, who's right?

How do you exactly define somnambulism? Like what responses is it characterized on? I noticed that some people tend to define it quite differently from one another.

And just curious but what's the most difficult effect you've ever achieved using hypnosis? Things like amnesia, hallucinations, things in that order. :confused:

[Don]

Yes, there were tests made that came to this conclusion. But as always, the devil is in the details.

Here is how the tests were run:

Lab assistants were give a script to read to potential subjects.

So the truth is that 20% of people cannot reach "somnambulism" by lab assistants reading a one-size-fits-all script.

But here's the thing: trained and experienced hypnotherapists do not read scripts and do not limit themselves to one hypnotic induction. As a result, virtually all people can be hypnotized.

[Merlin]

Once the 'Critical faculty' (CF) is bypassed, then any of those effects may be achieved.
Anyone can achieve CF bypass/somnambulism.
It's a matter of the hypnotist's skill.

[Merlin]

since you're new here, I invite you to read my FAQ.

[toto211]

So in theory anybody can achieve somnambulism.

And from your site it says:

"Somnambulism is basically 'hypnosis'.
It is the state of mind where the CF is bypassed.
It is often associated with relaxation or sleep and is the cause of much confusion as to whether light trance, or medium trance is needed for a given hypnotic effect. No 'trance' is needed, just 'hypnosis'. "

So. Anyone who can be hypnotized even to the slightest extent is considered to be in somnambulism?

[Merlin]

>So. Anyone who can be hypnotized even to the slightest extent is considered to be in somnambulism?

yes, but not everyone looks at it that way.

[Poodle]

If one were to look at it objectively, there are two states in hypnosis:
1. HYPNOTIZED
2. NOT HYPNOTIZED

There are certain instructors that state that somnambulism must be achieved in order to work successfully with the client. If this were 100% true, Dr. Milton Erickson would have been a complete failure instead of "The Father of Modern Hypnosis". Terry works in what he calls "light trance" and he certainly has had a very successful career. NLP would not stand a snowball's chance in hades of working if light trance were not sufficient. It does not mean those instructors are not good instructors either. When one achieves and maintains somnambulism which is not difficult in the least, the rest is a cakewalk. ;)

States of trance are not all that important for most things. What is really super important is what is said to the client while they are in hypnosis, a/k/a patter.

Hope this clarifies it a bit for you. Pood :)

[Terry]

When I took my first training, I too learned about the scales, and the various depths of trance, and indeed practised all the tests for them. Sadly, what I was taught was nothing like the real thing. it just prepared me for the discovery of the real thing. You have to have a starting point in order to arrive at some understanding of something so complicated as the mind, so points of refference have been invented. Perhaps at one time, someone even believed in their existance. I do not, but like the rest, I will use them for purposes of communication..
Somnambulism is sleepwalking, and sleep and hypnosis have no connection. Somnambulism during the trance state, is requested play acting, and nothing to do with depth.....Likewise, decensitisation has nothing to do with depth, only need on the part of the client who may need pain prevention due to using hypnosis for an operation, natural childbirth etc.... I have yet to meet a woman who has used this method of childbirth and found that it failed her. No test for Somnambulism or any other depth required. No tests to find out if she is among that mythical twenty percent. Ask the author of that book you read how come?

[skip]

There is no such thing as 'no trance'.

There is one kind of trance.

And there is another kind of trance ...

And there is another kind of trance ...

And ...

Theraputic work can be done in every trance that humans can achieve given the flexability of both the 'hypnotist' and the 'client'.

skip

[Terry]

Listen, for he speakest truth..:)

[toto211]

Not sure. Might have been because it was a standardized procedure using a standardized induction. It was only one induction. And also I think his definition of somnambulism was different.

It was the study done by Hull in 1933 if you're wondering.

--
And about working in light trance. Isn't it true that the greater the depth is then the greater the chance the suggestion will get accepted? So wouldn't it be ideal to secure the greatest depth in the least amount of time possible?

[Jack]

Which one are you in, Toto? Or did it just change?

Jack

[Merlin]

>And about working in light trance. Isn't it true that the greater the depth is then the greater the chance the suggestion will get accepted? So wouldn't it be ideal to secure the greatest depth in the least amount of time possible?

No.
That's why it's best not to use the term 'trance'
There are many levels of 'trance'.
But only one for hypnosis.
Either you are, or you aren't hypnotised.
If you are hypnotised, then any effect can be had.
Whether light, medium, gone, or... level of 'trance'

[Poodle]

That is a good book to read. Do you possibly think that hypnosis could have changed since 1933? Why not read something a little more modern like maybe "Training Trances" by Julie Silverthorne. It's a lovely blend of Ericksonian hypnosis with some NLP. All in all, it's just a fun read. Please see the back pages as we are never out of suggested reading material.

Have you been to Merlin's FAQ? She has a nice reading list compiled.

[toto211]

Actually it wasn't a book at all. It was just some article with a reference to the study by Hull detailing the range of susceptibilities and the percentages.

I prefer "Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erikson" over "Training Trances"

I've read the book list, recognized a couple. I ordered Trancework by Yapko at Amazon a couple days ago. 3rd edition. Looks interesting. Still waiting for it.

[Don]

Actually, Pood, I don't think that hypnosis has changed at all over thousands of years. :eek:

However, our understanding of how hypnosis works and how to help people change behaviors has massively changed. ;)

[Terry]

Actually, Pood, I don't think that hypnosis has changed at all over thousands of years. :eek:

However, our understanding of how hypnosis works and how to help people change behaviors has massively changed. ;) How right you are, I don't even recognise what I do today as compared to what I was taught :cool:

[Jack]

I very rarely use a formal trance induction as I suspect many others do not, but last week I used a swinging watch to induce. Seemed right.

Don is right, understanding increases but only perception changes.

Jack

[Poodle]

Was that: Watch the second hand on this swinging watch - 1, 2, 3 Somnambulism? Pood ;)

[Jack]

Was that: Watch the second hand on this swinging watch - 1, 2, 3 Somnambulism? Pood ;)

Something like that but quicker:)

Followed by: see the stairway? Run down it very fast...whoa, not that fast...let me catch up, drift about while I fetch the zimmer, wait for me at the basement..I might be some time, slip down deeper and wait for me...as deep as you need..(therapist leaves and makes cup of tea).:eek:

(note: do not try this at home since it does not work and I have left out an important bit, i.e. the number of sugars in the tea).

Jack

[Terry]

Speaking for tea, I used to leave at the end of a session, and make tea or coffee, so that the client got used to waking themselves up, thus learning control and confidence for their practise during the week, which I insisted on....
Anybody else do that?

[Poodle]

I'm not that nice. I make them sign a written contract of what they WILL do that I demand of them. No wiggle room at all. I'm a tough taskmaster. :eek:

[Jack]

Trick is Terry to get them to make the tea, then emerge from trance. Or is that unethical? Probably if you do not offer them a cup.

Jack

[Terry]

Well gee, I think it might be a little much to make them work when they were paying me so handsomely. On the other hand, I confess I never thought of it...:)

[Jack]

Imagine what a great convincer it would be! A cup of tea magically appears..:)

Jack

[diggory]

Hi there.

Recently I've read one study that concluded only about 20 percent of the population can achieve somnambulism. And yet I've heard other people say that everyone can achieve somnambulism. So now I'm confused, who's right?

How do you exactly define somnambulism? Like what responses is it characterized on? I noticed that some people tend to define it quite differently from one another.

And just curious but what's the most difficult effect you've ever achieved using hypnosis? Things like amnesia, hallucinations, things in that order. :confused: Somnambulism, which although literaly means sleepingwalking is also the name given to the deepest stage of hypnosis, and may take several sessions to achieve. In a somnambulistic trance the subject can open his eyes and stay in the trance and follow instructions usually with amnesia after coming out of the trance. I've been put in a somnambulistic trance many times and also been made to do some things I would not normally do, also with amnesia afterwards.

[Terry]

Somnambulism, which although literaly means sleepingwalking is also the name given to the deepest stage of hypnosis, and may take several sessions to achieve. In a somnambulistic trance the subject can open his eyes and stay in the trance and follow instructions usually with amnesia after coming out of the trance. I've been put in a somnambulistic trance many times and also been made to do some things I would not normally do, also with amnesia afterwards. And you know this how?
The first part of your post is obviously a quote from a book, and an old one at that. The second part fails to carry the ring of truth in that you make two statements which when put together do not bear close scrutiny!!:confused:
I would ask that you explain yourself more fully for those who know nothing about hypnosis, and may take your quotes as gospel which they are not..,
There is not one skilled member on this board who could not obtain the state of somnambulism instanty when needed, and would rarely if ever feel the need to suggest amnesia afterwards, which by the way has no connection with the depth of trance as you suggest, but is often just a client's expectation coming into play unless the practitioner feels a need to suggest it for theraputic purposes....

[Connie]

http://sp1.yt-thm-a03.yimg.com/image/25/f11/146879974

Diggory has mistaken us for the National Enquirer.

[Poodle]

ALL of us HERE can and do obtain somnambulism within 10-15 seconds of the FIRST SESSION with ALL of our clients. The difficult part is AFTER the induction. :cool:

Go find a real hypnotherapist or a great psychiatrist --- nnnooooww!! :eek:

Be well,
Pood

[diggory]

And you know this how?
The first part of your post is obviously a quote from a book, and an old one at that. The second part fails to carry the ring of truth in that you make two statements which when put together do not bear close scrutiny!!:confused:
I would ask that you explain yourself more fully for those who know nothing about hypnosis, and may take your quotes as gospel which they are not..,
There is not one skilled member on this board who could not obtain the state of somnambulism instanty when needed, and would rarely if ever feel the need to suggest amnesia afterwards, which by the way has no connection with the depth of trance as you suggest, but is often just a client's expectation coming into play unless the practitioner feels a need to suggest it for theraputic purposes....
I would like to quote from a book entitled Medical and dental hypnosis by John Hartland BSc,MB,ChB,MRCS,LRCP, President of the British society of medical and dental hypnosis. page 150 somnambulism,this is generally considered to be one of the deepest stages of hypnosis,and one of the most reliable tests of this condition is to cause the subject to open his eyes without awakening from his trance.He will be able to walk and talk whilst still remaining deeply hypnotized and will carry out all the suggestions made by the hypnotist. Tests of somnambulism are found in the subjects ability to produce hallucinations,to carry out bizarre and complicated post hypnotic suggestions. to establish major anaesthesia to pain, and to produce complete amnesia for the events of the trance state. Turn to page 158.In the lighter hypnotic stages, the memory is usually unaffected.During the trance,the subject will remember everything of which he was conscious in everyday life,and when it is terminated he will recollect accurately everything that has happened during hypnosis.In the deeper hypnotic states however,it is a very different matter.There is frequently a complete amnesia upon awakening,and the subect is astonished to hear what he has actually been doing during the trance.

[Don]

Diggory, Heartland's book was very good for its time, which was over 40 years ago. That's at the very end of the period pre-Erickson. That's two generations ago. Do you think our knowledge of hypnosis hasn't evolved over the past four decades?

At that time nobody had computers on their desk--the beginning of the personal computer (with the Apple II) was still a decade away. There were no X-Boxes, no iPods. We were still years away from landing a person on the Moon. The Soviet Union was the main enemy of the West (at least so it was perceived). There was only the beginning of acceptance of the birth control pill. Open racism and sexism were accepted. The first season of the original "Star Trek" was on TV. Neither "M*A*S*H*" or "All in the Family" had appeared.

Do you really think there has been no evolution in our understanding of the way the mind works? Do you really think there has been no change in the practical application of hypnosis techniques.

Anything that doesn't evolve dies out. Hypnosis and hypnotherapy are alive and well, thank you!

[John B.]

The senior members of this forum pretty much share the same neo-Erickson philosophy regarding the practice of hypnosis. It is the same sort of approach that I was trained in. It should be said, however, that this approach is not the only one. There are still many effective practicing hypnotists that practice what might be considered here as "old school" hypnosis. You won't find their point of view represented here, but there are other hypnosis communities on line where you will. Forum policy prevents me from providing links to them here, but if you're interested, you can PM me and I'll point you in those directions.

As far as I know, there are no objective studies comparing the efficacy of "old-school" vs. "new-school" approaches, so it comes down to a matter of personal belief and experience of the individual practitioner.

My belief is that as a practitoner you find your own voice. This voice may incorporate both old and new with its timbre changing to fit the particular client it is addressing. For some, a new school-neo-Erickson- NLP type approach may be the best approach, for others, old-school- Elman-formal induction may work better. The point is that it depends on BOTH the predispositions of the practitioner and the client.

[Terry]

Good heavens JB, you haven't been paying much attention to the postings here have you? Old school you say, how long have you been in practise may I ask? Only neo Ericsonian philosophy practised here you say? No old school eh, well tell up please, how old in practise must one be in order to claim to be old school, and how long in practise before one learns several different teaching methods in order to become more proficient?

I can claim to be "old school factually since I began my practise forty years ago, but many of the youngsters here are already schooled in all methods and not just stuck with Ericsonian philosophy neo or otherwise, and to say such is insulting to some of the best in the business.. I suggest you owe an apology to the skilled members here, all of them since I know of non who are stuck in such a rut.....

[Simple Guy]

Hi John B,

The senior members of this forum don't have a monopoly on any
particular philosophy. There are different approaches and anyone,
senior members and others, may responsibly represent them here.
I'd be pleased to see additional participants here who are willing
to engage in informed, lively discussion -- even when it may
challenge what may or may not be prevalent points of view.

[diggory]

[quote=Don;62888]Diggory, Heartland's book was very good for its time, which was over 40 years ago. That's at the very end of the period pre-Erickson. That's two generations ago. Do you think our knowledge of hypnosis hasn't evolved over the past four decades?

At that time nobody had computers on their desk--the beginning of the personal computer (with the Apple II) was still a decade away. There were no X-Boxes, no iPods. We were still years away from landing a person on the Moon. The Soviet Union was the main enemy of the West (at least so it was perceived). There was only the beginning of acceptance of the birth control pill. Open racism and sexism were accepted. The first season of the original "Star Trek" was on TV. Neither "M*A*S*H*" or "All in the Family" had appeared.

Do you really think there has been no evolution in our understanding of the way the mind works? Do you really think there has been no change in the practical application of hypnosis techniques.

Anything that doesn't evolve dies out. Hypnosis and hypnotherapy are alive and well, thank you![/ How is all that relevant to the basic fundamentals I quoted from that book? The human mind itself is the same as it always has been 40 or 4000 years ago. Think what some ancient civalisations achieved.

[John B.]

Only neo Ericsonian philosophy practised here you say?

I used the word neo Erickson but I did not use the word only or practised,
so no, I did not say that. What I said was "The senior members of this forum pretty much share the same neo-Erickson philosophy regarding the practice of hypnosis." That it is my impression. Correct me if I'm wrong, but please don't put words in my mouth.


Diggory, Heartland's book was very good for its time, which was over 40 years ago. That's at the very end of the period pre-Erickson.

That pre-Erickson era of hypnosis practice with an emphasis on trance depth and somnambulism is what I'm defining as "old-school". Were we not talking about somnambulism in this thread? I don't see any of the senior members of this board advocating that approach, that is, I don't see them as "old-school"

I did not suggest either by word or tone that the good people here lack the knowledge or skill to practise in such a manner. Any such inference is misguided. I just don't see much evidence on this forum that they do. That's fine. It's for that point of view that I visit here.

You will see a greater advocacy of trance depth, deepeners, convincers and all the trappings of pre-Erickson hypnosis on some other hypnosis discussion communities than you will here. Again, my unjudgemental impression. That's fine. It's for that point of view that I visit there.

I did not suggest that it is the policy here to exclude anyone with differing views of hypnosis. Online communities have unique personalities. Perhaps those old-schoolers just don't feel comfortable expressing there opinions here. I can understand that.

[Poodle]

Sorry sugar. You lose on this one. Although we are very skilled at the Ericksonian type we can and often do a really mean Elman type. It all depends on our particular client at the time.

Milton could also be very, very direct as in "I know why you are fat. You eat too much."

Personally, when I learn I like to learn all but I did refuse Estabrooks. You can ask Don. He was with me. Hypnosis is trance, not sleep so I'm not standing up saying "sleep, sleep, sleep, sleep". I don't remember the word "sleep" in the Elman induction either.

Would you hunt through the back pages for the article Skip wrote on "Why I Prefer Ericksonian". You may find it very interesting or you may not. In any case, it is educational.

I sorta think Merlin may be more into the Elman style than Ericksonian although I trust her skills to use what best suits the client she has at that moment in time.

Then there's our Jack that actually induces with "poetry". Now that takes real skill

Stay COOL!!
Pood :)

[Don]

How is all that relevant to the basic fundamentals I quoted from that book? The human mind itself is the same as it always has been 40 or 4000 years ago. Think what some ancient civalisations achieved.

Well, some may say that the mind has evolved, but that's irrelevant to the point I was making. What I was saying is that our UNDERSTANDING of the mind has evolved.

[Jack]

JB, I am sorry you have that impression. My impression of this forum has always been that no-one really gave a flying fig about 'old school' or 'new school', Erickson, Hartland, Elman, Braid or ancient Egypt, and are really only concerned with what works.

For me and I suspect most of the senior members on here, sometimes a light trance suffices, at others I require somnambulism; sometimes I use NLP techniques at others a swinging watch and authoritarianism: to say that this 'old school' is not represented is a misrepresentation and simply untrue. Like Terry I have been in practice for a long time, and we both use what is useful and discard what is not without regard for any arbitrary demarcation. I think you have misunderstood what this forum represents, but that may be our fault as much as yours.

Other forums do concentrate on one 'style' but that is, IMO, a great mistake.

As for Hartland, well Diggory, he was a clever chap and his self esteem script is a classic for novices, and rightly so, but much has happened since then. One example:

In the lighter hypnotic stages, the memory is usually unaffected.During the trance,the subject will remember everything of which he was conscious in everyday life,and when it is terminated he will recollect accurately everything that has happened during hypnosis

Not so. I can induce a light trance state after which the client will remember absolutely nothing of the session if that is what I need for his wellbeing.

Things move on, and we, hopefully, move with them.

Jack

[skip]

Hi Diggory,

Well the others seem to have gone off on a tangent, and I would like to address your point and question.

I am going to offer you some criticism, I hope it wont hurt, and also hope that by the end of this post you will consider your new found learnings friends.

"How is all that relevant to the basic fundamentals I quoted from that book? The human mind itself is the same as it always has been 40 or 4000 years ago. Think what some ancient civalisations achieved."

I agree that ceretain fundamentals in sciences dont change over time. There are fundamental truths.

I also know that at one time there were only four elements, earth, air, fire, and water. Now there are a over a hundred and earth, air, fire and water arent among them.

The fundamental elements didnt change but our understanding of them did.

So it wasnt just the age of the belief that mattered, it was its accuracy, or was that perspective?

Now this fellow Heartland you are quoting may have been a giant in his day. I havent heard of him, but he probably hasnt heard of me either.

He had a contemporary named Esdaile who was exploring a much more profound trance state than somnambulism. So even allowing for his day, and the knowelege of hypnotism in his time, he is incorrect in his thinking that somnambulism is the 'deepest' level of trance.

But shouting at each other about whose 'daddy' is bigger, or older; isnt important to you is it?

You read a book and gained some knowlege about hypnotism.

Now are you interested in gaining some insight?

I certainly wouldnt want to try and go to a physics conference, still believing there were only four elements. I not only wouldnt understand what they had to say, but I would likely to be roundly criticised.

Would they be correct in that criticism?

Would an adequate defense of that criticism be, "Well fundamental truths dont change thru time!"?

Somnambulism isnt the earliest state of hypnosis, nor is it the so called deepest.

I would gently suggest that you are in somnambulism right now.

Or at least profound trance. All the deep trance phenomena, you exhibit in your every day life, all the time. Anything charateristic of somnambulism, you do every day.

The only relevent question, if I may be so bold, is ...

Is the trance you currently occupy helping you achieve what you want, or is it hendering you?

We here, and elsewhere, are in the business of exchanging trances. We exchange hindering trances for helping ones. Or at least that is our intention.

I myself doubt this 'trance level' business.

There is no chart. Ive seen some attempts, especially in the older books, but none hold up to reality.

The so called 'succeptability tests' are actually light trances themselves. But they exhibit nothing really different from daily living.

You cannot place one 'type' of trance in relation to others, because we humans exhibit all the charactaristic phenomena of other trance 'levels' at any given time.

Could that then mean, that the trance we are currently in, is the most profound of all?

Perhaps, my friend, perhaps.

I hope that helped in some small way.

skip

[John B.]

Sorry sugar. You lose on this one.
Not at all. I wasn't making an argument, I was making an observation. You just have to go back to the beginning of this thread and read the comments by Merlin, Don, Skip, and yourself to get the impression that, as Erickson himself put it, "Any old trance will do." That is not Elman, nor Kein, nor Banyan, nor Hunter. That is not old school with an emphasis on trance depth. That is Erickson, Grinder, and Bandler.

Although we are very skilled at the Ericksonian type we can and often do a really mean Elman type.

I did not say otherwise. I said you shared a neo Erickson philosophy.
I don't understand why that is being misinterpreted as you only practice neo Erickson hypnosis, especially in the context of this thread.

It all depends on our particular client at the time.
I said that as well. Again, not an argument I was trying to make.

Would you hunt through the back pages for the article Skip wrote on "Why I Prefer Ericksonian". You may find it very interesting or you may not. In any case, it is educational.
I remember the post, but it is unecessary to sell me on Erickson. The neo-Erickson style is the basis of my training and the script book that I most often turn to for inspiration is Havens & Walters' Hypnotherapy Scripts - A Neo-Ericksonian Approach to Persuasive Healing . My Voice Will Go With You is always close at hand, too.

Stay COOL!!
Pood :)

113 F here yesterday and more in store for today. Right now I've got an ice pack on my neck, but that has nothing to do with temperature. Seems like this scorpion objected to my sharing my pillow with it. Either that it or it considered me sugary as well. ;)

[Terry]

I hate to think I misrepresented anyone, or put words in their mouth as you suggest, but it can happen. However, you commented on how we represent ourselves here, and it seems that non of us agree with your observation, so perhaps you are not getting across what you truly mean...:confused: you think?

I ceased testing for trance the moment I observed that I could read my client and know without testing. I never from day one depended on any scale to achieve results, since the only important thing to me was to get the result I wanted, and to hell with how deep my client needed to go to get it, they did it all automatically as I led them
Your talk about old school and new school is foolish, we all learned from those who went before us, and the only difference between what you term old school and new school is the people on who's shoulders we stood on to reach the heights we have achieved to date. No doubt, others will stand on our shoulders in turn IF WE HAVE ANYTHING OF VALUE TO OFFER. That in turn depends on if we slavishly follow someone else, or strike out into new fields of understanding, and develop something of value that nobody thought of prior to us. Books won't do that. Training won't do that. Only imagination will allow us to achieve our highest level of performance...
School is out, life awaits, so what will you learn from life today?

[Jack]

Hi Diggory,
Well the others seem to have gone off on a tangent, and I would like to address your point and question.
skip

It's interesting that you think so, Skip. My impression was that most correspondents had addressed the question comprehensively with the occasional tangential foray. Of course, I may be wrong.

What I think does happen is that once everything to be said about a subject has been said any discussion wanders off into other realms, but there will always be something else to be said and some of it may be useful.

Even this post is tangential.:)

Jack

[Merlin]

I would like to quote from a book entitled Medical and dental hypnosis by John Hartland BSc,MB,ChB,MRCS,LRCP, President of the British society of medical and dental hypnosis. page 150 somnambulism,this is generally considered to be one of the deepest stages of hypnosis,and one of the most reliable tests of this condition is to cause the subject to open his eyes without awakening from his trance.He will be able to walk and talk whilst still remaining deeply hypnotized and will carry out all the suggestions made by the hypnotist. Tests of somnambulism are found in the subjects ability to produce hallucinations,to carry out bizarre and complicated post hypnotic suggestions. to establish major anaesthesia to pain, and to produce complete amnesia for the events of the trance state. Turn to page 158.In the lighter hypnotic stages, the memory is usually unaffected.During the trance,the subject will remember everything of which he was conscious in everyday life,and when it is terminated he will recollect accurately everything that has happened during hypnosis.In the deeper hypnotic states however,it is a very different matter.There is frequently a complete amnesia upon awakening,and the subect is astonished to hear what he has actually been doing during the trance.

Thanks for the ancient history lesson.

[Merlin]

Old school?
it's like an MD bleeding a patient.
we've moved beyond it.

[Merlin]

I used the word neo Erickson but I did not use the word only or practised,
so no, I did not say that. What I said was "The senior members of this forum pretty much share the same neo-Erickson philosophy regarding the practice of hypnosis." That it is my impression. Correct me if I'm wrong, but please don't put words in my mouth.



That pre-Erickson era of hypnosis practice with an emphasis on trance depth and somnambulism is what I'm defining as "old-school". Were we not talking about somnambulism in this thread? I don't see any of the senior members of this board advocating that approach, that is, I don't see them as "old-school"

I did not suggest either by word or tone that the good people here lack the knowledge or skill to practise in such a manner. Any such inference is misguided. I just don't see much evidence on this forum that they do. That's fine. It's for that point of view that I visit here.

You will see a greater advocacy of trance depth, deepeners, convincers and all the trappings of pre-Erickson hypnosis on some other hypnosis discussion communities than you will here. Again, my unjudgemental impression. That's fine. It's for that point of view that I visit there.

I did not suggest that it is the policy here to exclude anyone with differing views of hypnosis. Online communities have unique personalities. Perhaps those old-schoolers just don't feel comfortable expressing there opinions here. I can understand that.

We've simply learned over the past few decades how meaningless such things are

[Merlin]

Personally, I consider Ericksonian outdated too.
about 30 years outdated.

[Merlin]

John,
hypnosis is an on-off switch.
either the CF is bypassed or it isn't.
it's like pregnancy, either you are or you're not.

[Poodle]

the ancient history lesson was not as ancient as it should have been. It was during Mesmer's time (who was not a hypnotist but practiced energy healing called Animal Magnetism) that the word somnambulism came into use termed by the Marquis de Pusseguyr.

Do we really need to go all the way back to the beginning of man in this world or up to the ancient Sumarians, Egyptians and Greeks or can we practice the art of hypnosis in the 21st Century?

[Jack]

Old school?
it's like an MD bleeding a patient.
we've moved beyond it.

Nothing has changed. Now the MD bleeds a bank account.
And there is no leech overhead.:D

Jack

[skip]

Jack,

If Hartland's self esteem script is indeed a classic, I think I ought to have a look at it.

Googling proved delima...

There is a third edition by Waxman for $60 US (Crown House Publishing) In paperback.

Here is the advertising blurb:

"This classic edition is available in a limited supply only. Many training organizations still recommend the third edition to their students because the content is 90% original Hartland.

The work has been extensively revised and updated while retaining the distinctive style of the original author. Much of the original content, now outdated, has been amended, deleted or extended, in order to bring the work into line with modern thinking and developments. The first two parts include more recent and better known techniques and this is reflected in more comprehensive reference lists at the end of each chapter. The third part, dealing with the clinical applications of hypnosis, is more fully documented, particularly in chapters dealing with treatment of neuroses, problems of personality and, most extensively, on hypnosis in the alleviation of pain and in surgery. New chapters dealing with the treatment of depression, the use of hypnotherapy in chronic and terminal illness and hypnosis with children are added.

Part four is a completely new section covering the uses of hypnosis in competitive sports and criminal investigation as well as containing chapters on legal aspects and lay practitioners of hypnosis."

And Amazon has an edition by by Heap and Aravind for $83 US ($75 used) in paperback. It is the Fourth Edition.

Here is a review I thought amusing:

"Hartland's book on hypnosis is a staple in the field. It has gone through many editions, this being the most recent and up-to-date. The information is scholarly, well presented, and clinically very useful. The authors do seem to have an academic bent and a bit of an anti-American bias. They question the importance of Milton Erickson's work and poo poo the NLP literature, while at the same time borrowing many clinical techniques from Erickson and NLP without giving due credit. That minor objection aside, I found this book to be richly clinically relevant and I would recommend it to anyone who uses hypnosis in clincial practice. It is one of the "Bibles" in the hypnotherapeutic literature."


Now the delima. I bought the British Edition of Greys Anatomy, because the illustrations are much better and after all anatomy books NEED good illustrations.

But I cannot decide about Hartlands book. I lean towards the Third edition because of the 90% Hartland content.

Ordinarily I would go for later editins because they would tend to reflect what has been learned since. But if what is there in addition to Hartland's work is merely the reflections of arrogant bastards ignorant of Erickson and NLP; why would I want to spend extra for that?

What edition, if any, would you recommend?

skip

[Henrik]

Jack,

What edition, if any, would you recommend?

skip

Hi, Skip.

I'm not Jack and I don't recommend either edition since and I have not read any of them. Anyway, Google has something called Google Books, and for some reason or another the 4th edition is available here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=g8Og8TEMxegC&dq=hartland+hypnosis&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=FrXPyuXpVe&sig=iRtXMqpvv6RivTJ_1d3d1NH2Jp8&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=g8Og8TEMxegC&dq=hartland+hypnosis&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=FrXPyuXpVe&sig=iRtXMqpvv6RivTJ_1d3d1NH2Jp8&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA145,M1)

So perhaps you'd like to take a look and see for yourself.

Henrik

[Poodle]

Definitely into the "God" mode - "Your eeeyyyeees are getting heavy". "Your aaarrrmmmm is getting heavy". These are things that only a "God" would know. Also the metaphor re: smoking cessation/nail biting takes away but doesn't put anything back.

A book ill destined for my bookcase. What about yours?

Thank you Henrik for the link. You are super wonderful!! :)

Pood

[Jack]

I've PM'd the script to you, Skip.

If it were me I would not bother with the later editions and I think your instinct is dead right. The first edition which I have is definitive of John Hartland's work and not at all anti-American. It is however pretty much anti-anything-that-does-not-fit-in-with - Hartland's ideas, after all he was a medic and a dentist so anyone without a medical degree was obviously a charlatan. It's a little like the philosophy behind the 'Big Red' book. But, you might find it interesting to contrast the different editions if you have the money.

For all that it is an interesting historical work which still has some relevance and is quite useful as an example of authoritarian hypnotherapy.

Jack

[John B.]

JB, I am sorry you have that impression. My impression of this forum has always been that no-one really gave a flying fig about 'old school' or 'new school', Erickson, Hartland, Elman, Braid or ancient Egypt, and are really only concerned with what works.
Jack

Thank you. That's rather my point, Jack. I said the senior members share a philosophy. You agree. I said that the point of view of those who still teach and practice that somnambulism is the starting point of hypnotherapy is not represented here. You agree. I said that point of view is represented on other online forums. You agree.

Now please read my last paragraph of that very same post. Does it not agree with what you all are saying?

BTW I wish I knew about flying figs before my wife planted that ficus in our back yard. The figs don't fly but rather drop into the pool making a mess.:mad:

[John B.]

John,
hypnosis is an on-off switch.
either the CF is bypassed or it isn't.
it's like pregnancy, either you are or you're not.

Thanks, I agree and did not express a belief to the contrary. I did point out that others, who are not represented here, believe that the threshold of somnambulism is where that switch occurs.

JUST SAYIN', OK?

[diggory]

This has strayed completely off the point I was trying to make. I did not say anything about hypnosis in anciemt times. How this started-I quoted from Hartlands book, Medical and dental hypnosis.I was told it was 40 years old such a long time ago. The point I am trying to make is that peoples brains which are mainly made of fat are the same now as they were however far back you would like to go. Just because they once thought the sun went around the earth does not mean they were more stupid then or our brains are better now. It means we have aquired more knowledge. For example.rocket scientists today use the maths worked out by Isaac Newton who discovered gravity. Now if the apple had not fallen on his head the Americans could not have put a man on the moon.

[Merlin]

diggory,

yes, the brain is the same, just as the solar system is.
but as you note, to quote a book saying the sun moves around the earth is ancient.
hypnosis is not about the brain, but rather how we learn. We are not discussing whether the brain has changed or not, but rather how we learn and the CF.

[Merlin]

Thanks, I agree and did not express a belief to the contrary. I did point out that others, who are not represented here, believe that the threshold of somnambulism is where that switch occurs.

JUST SAYIN', OK?

Yes.
That is an ancient belief, still held by many.
but Somnambulism is a trance phenomena, not hypnosis.

[Jack]

Thank you. That's rather my point, Jack. I said the senior members share a philosophy. You agree.

Not really. What you said was:The senior members of this forum pretty much share the same neo-Erickson philosophy regarding the practice of hypnosis

What I say is that the philosophy of most of the senior members of this forum is not neo-Ericksonian, it is not neo-anything; it is a pragmatic approach rather than one with a label attached. Therefore the statement you made is not true, hence my disagreement. Of course we can argue until the figs fly home what we mean by 'Ericksonian'.

I said that the point of view of those who still teach and practice that somnambulism is the starting point of hypnotherapy is not represented here. You agree.

Not really. In the post to which I replied there was no mention of somnabulism as the starting point of hypnotherapy or of a particular school of thought which believes or believed that it was, or is. What you actually said in that post was:

There are still many effective practicing hypnotists that practice what might be considered here as "old school" hypnosis. You won't find their point of view represented here.....

I disagreed since that POV is represented here in the catholic mix of opinion and the 'use what works' approach prevalent amongst the experienced members of this forum. We all practice old, new, semi-new semi-old or any other age of hypnotherapy you would like and we do it without having to call it (shock horror!) anything at all. My own brand of hypnotherapy is the 'Get-The-Job-Done, Dummy' school and sometimes involves an 'old school ' swinging watch, eye fixation and somnabulism. Occasionally, I rather sternly tell my client to do something rather than ask.:eek:

I said that point of view is represented on other online forums. You agree.

Yes I did, but I fail to see your point in mentioning it, since I did not disagree with it.

Now please read my last paragraph of that very same post. Does it not agree with what you all are saying?

Yes, it seems to but is in conflict with the first part of you post: the part with which I disagreed and still disagree.

For some, a new school-neo-Erickson- NLP type approach may be the best approach, for others, old-school- Elman-formal induction may work better. The point is that it depends on BOTH the predispositions of the practitioner and the client.

Nothing wrong with any of that except that it limits a practitioner to an either/or choice which is far from the reality since the blend in most experienced hypnotherapists is not discernible as either/or but simply is what is at the time and is usually not repeatable the next time.

But I think you know that.;)

Jack

[skip]

Sorry Diggory,

Completely wrong.

Brains are generally larger these days and the corpus collosum is considerably larger.

Research indicates that areas of the brain used are somewhat shifted.

And our better understanding of how the brain works is allowing us to do far more with it just as our better understanding of how the universe works allowed us to 'go to the moon' using Newtons principals, even though Newton himself didnt have a prayer.

Your supposition that principals remain the same, simply doesnt hold water, as I already have shown, and point out here again.

This insistance on your part, doesnt bode well for you, in any endeavor.

I wonder why it is so important to you?

skip

[diggory]

I just wanted to put the discussion back on track

[Poodle]

Around here it's when PIGS fly. :eek:

[Terry]

I just wanted to put the discussion back on track Why? You were just told that you are on the wrong track, so why should we return to it? In my world we call that "beating a dead horse" which makes as much sense as believing in flying pigs, or flying figs.
Believe whatever you wish to believe, but please know that we decide what we will write about, and we often wander off course when bored. Just a polite way to let a poster know they are not holding our interest for some reason, usually stupidity or stubborness, but not nescessarily....

[Jack]

There is too much loose talk around here about flying figs.
Unfortunately, I started it, but now disclaim any responsibility
for damage caused to figs, pigs or any other igs whatsoever.

Diggory, brains are bigger than they once were as far as anyone
can tell (we do not have much soft tissue left from 5,000+ years ago).
However, that is not to say that this increase in size has resulted in
any recognisable or measurable increase in cognitive power, so you may
be right in your assumption, then again, you may be wrong. When one
doesn't know - or can logically extrapolate - if one is right or wrong it is
probably best to assume that one does not know and leave it at that.

Jack

[skip]

OK I can understand that desire.

But you by now recognize that the attempt didnt out it back on track they way I imagine you might have hoped.

Threads tend to drift, especially when people feel the initial question or main theme has been exausted.

Since I dont know where you want this to go, how could your communication be adjusted to put the discussion back on the track you want and going in the desired direction?

skip

[Terry]

Not so fast Jack, the rest of the world wants to know from whence these apparently useless saying arose, and what value they had in order to remain in our lexicon for so long????

Wellll, flying fig is an easy one, the most modern of all the sayings, this one is a polite way of saying something to which a rude reply is comtemplated, but resisted due to ladies being present, or because one wouldn't say s..t if ones mouth was full of it...:D

"Flying pigs"? My suggestion would be a way of saying no to a suggestion that one should do something, such as, "Yes I'll do it when pigs fly"..;)

"Beating a dead horse". Possibly from the days when horses were the normal form of transportation, and a thoughtless owner beat a horse, first to the point of exhaustion, and then to death in order to get the last ounce of strenth out of it...

"Waiting with baited breath" Now here's a good one because I suggest it arose, not from the use of breath mints to attract the oposite sex, but simply is a shortening of holding one's breath, ie "abated" breath, not "baited breath"....

Now that is an excercise in knowledge and imagination that every good therapist might enjoy......:eek:

[Terry]

Diggory, I realise that you think your points are important, I would lose all respect for you if you did not, since you would then be intentionally wasting our time. However, consider the hundreds of hours, or perhaps thousands of hours spent by the assembled members here, not just in book reading which is easy to do, but also in the development of knowledge and skills from practise. Your efforts will then seem puny in comparison, and you may develop a more humble attitude instead of clamboring like a child to be heard above the crowd.... Yes we found your points boring, not because you are a bore, but because all you are doing is regurgitation from books which bears no relation to real life situations that some of us face daily.
Faced with someone with Cancer, what would or could you do for them? I can tell you, book reading won't cut it.
Faced with someone in a wheelchair, would you know what questions to ask in order to feel comfortable in offering them therapy when they hope that your efforts will result in them walking again? These are the things we can face in real life, so you see, your points are indeed boring to us, and time wasting, so do yourself and the rest of us a favour and stop wasting time asking us to improve on your book learning. Take proper training and become a truly valuable member of your community, doing something that few others can do because like you as you are now, they see no need to got off their asses and do something to be above the crowd....

[diggory]

Terry-regurgitate is what a dog does with its food, I don't think you've chosen the right word here

[Terry]

No mistake, use a dictionary before challenging me on my use of language. I paid attention in English classes, and was an avid reader to boot... Regugitate means "to throw back" ie you regugitated what you had read in a book even though you failed to understand it, or to check it for accuracy.
What your dog does is natural regurgitation, but what you did was pure lazyness.... All you just did was disclose your ignorance in an attempt to cover up your lack of knowledge.

[diggory]

I'm sorry this discussion has turned so petty. I would like to go back to the original question wich was, how do you define somnambulism? I think the quote from Hartland was relevant,that was from the 2nd edition. the fact is hartland is highly regarded and a 4th edition was published in 2001. A comment on the internet about it-This book is a revised edition of a highly successful and comprehensive manual for the use of clinical hypnosis. Something about the 3rd adition, This classic hypnotherapy work was out of print when the 4th edition was published in 2001. We were dismayed as the 1st 2nd and 3rd editions had formed a cornerstone of much of our training syllabus. We have been able to negotiate for the re-publication of the 3rd edition. So I think Hartland is certainly worth quoting from and probably even regurgitating.

[skip]

Well Diggory.

Thanks for your thought, sigh.

I for one dont regard Hartland as worth discussion. That after reading a considerable portion of his book. (3rd Edition) I most certainly am not going to buy it.

Now do I consider attempting to define somnambulism with someone who is as stuck on one point, to the exclusion of all input, as you seem, to be something I wish to spend my time doing. I am not really interested in trying to define somnambulism with anyone. That horse has been chased around the barn enough that there is a well worn path. One anyone who can 'search' is capable of finding.

But dont take it personally Diggory.

What you want to do is simply not interesting to me, perhaps you might find someone else ...

Or SOMETHING ELSE!

I thought there was a chance here. I too was mistaken.

skip

[Terry]

"I am sorry the conversation has turned so petty"...
Nuf said, it is we who are at fault, and nobody can deny we were unkind to poor little lost child, so let us turn the conversation off for good, we do after all have an ignore list....

[Jack]

Well Diggory, unlike Skip I do think Hartland has some value, but I can understand why Skip does not.

Much of the value in Hartland is in its historical aspects: it is light years from current NLP influenced hypnotherapy and harks back to a medical authoritarian view of hypnotherapy which has all but died out - except perhaps with old sods like myself, who still use aspects of the Hartland type of philosophy quite comfortably alongside any new and sparkling techniques that appear from time to time. As I have said many times, I will use a smoked kipper if it achieves the right outcome for the client. Haven't done so yet, but who knows?

As for somnambulism, I wonder why it is so important for you to have a definition? What may be somnambulism to you may be something else entirely to another practitioner. It is a label and as such is meaningless, so if you like Hartland's label, you can have it with my blessing.

Once you get beyond labels, free yourself and forget about depth of trance you will understand why they are hugely unimportant.

Jack

[diggory]

"I am sorry the conversation has turned so petty"...
Nuf said, it is we who are at fault, and nobody can deny we were unkind to poor little lost child, so let us turn the conversation off for good, we do after all have an ignore list....
ignore-ok you ignore anyone you don't agree with and I'll ignore anyone I don't agree with, that would make an interesting discussion.