Skilled? Effective? How can I know?

[Unregistered]

Hello,

Although I'm a registered member of these boards, I thought it best to post anonymously. I've scheduled a consultation with a hypnotherapist; since I don't know if they visit this site, I wanted to preclude the possibility of embarrassing them.

I've espoused the use of hypnosis for years, but now I plan to practice what I preach and undergo hypnotherapy. I thought my therapist search would be difficult, but in this instance I seem fortunate: Despite being physically disabled, suffering major depression, and having minimal income, I've found an individual who can help--at least, their website claims as much.

It's a lovely site that confers on them the title of experienced "Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist," one who has "earned a Doctorate in Clinical Hypnotherapy (DCH)," and is the author of two self-help books. It also mentions certification in at least one unrelated form of treatment.

I cannot reasonably doubt the site's claims or the sincerity of the friendly voice who answered when I phoned; after all, they may indeed be a model of their profession. But I also know titles can be meaningless, and finding those truly skilled can be daunting.

Where can I find unbiased information about this individual, and about the training of hypnotherapists in general? Is a simple DCH enough? What do I look for when I visit this person? What kinds of questions should I ask? And suppose the therapist is perfectly competent but ineffective for me--how can I tell?

This search was undertaken on my initiative; I received no recommendations or referrals, so these issues will continue to gnaw at me until my first appointment. Any answers or advice would be very gratefully received.

Thank you.

[Terry (existing)]

I understand the feeling, but would suggest that if you are getting, as you should, an interview which is at no cost, you have nothing to worry about. You say the voice was cheerfull, and you have a good feeling about it. All that stands in the way of your success is going to confirm what you hope and think but are unsure of.....I doubt your feelings would be any different if your appointment was with me, and I KNOW I am honest and fair. Problem is YOU DON'T right? How would my words make any difference to you, since I also am an unknown? Change is scarry, even change you want and need, and that is what is scaring the hell out of you, not the person you will be seeing. Go and have a super day........

[Unregistered]

Hello!

I appreciate your points.

My concern isn't really being hypnotized, getting help, or being introduced to a new experience; I just want to be confident I'm getting the best help I reasonably can. After all, practically anyone can induce trance; I learned how to do it in others when I was little. But does the therapist truly understand what to do after they've achieved it? I'll wager a great many don't.

Do I know about your skills and the others on this board? Well, I do and I don't. There are people here whom I have profound respect for--from their responses, I know they know what they're talking about.

But do I know about the inricacies of hypnosis? I don't, and the skilled people on this board aren't going to tell me.

So, am I going to get the best help I can? I have no idea. What I can do is ask the good people here to guide me about what I should look for.

[Terry (existing)]

The fact that you are on minimal income means that if you do get the services of the best, you will also get those services at a greatly reduced price.....I would say that you have little to worry about....The service I gave to those whom I treated without charge was the same I gave to those who paid for my services....the joy is in the success for the good practitioner, not in the money we make. That is only counting coup.......

[Unregistered]

Your comments are well-taken.

I'm not presumptuous enough to expect I'll get the "best"--I know it's extremely unlikely, if not impossible. I just hope they're good. . . .

[skip]

I have read this thread, and I cannot help but wonder why you havent simply said, "I have an appointment with xxxxx, and I was wondering if anyone here knew anything about them?"

Or "I am looking for a qualified hypnotherapast in the 'West OhmyGod Texas" area and was wondering if any of you had someone close you could recommend for xxxxxxx malady.

Instead you have said, I made an appointment with a hypnotist who shall remain nameless, who has an impressive web site, and I was wondering if you think this person will be able to help me, because I want to get the best, most competent help I can?"

Now Ill ask you, do you think you have used the best possible selection strategy, or the best method of reinforcing your decision?

If not, what do you suppose you might to to remedie that?

skip

[Unregistered]

I have read this thread, and I cannot help but wonder why you havent simply said, "I have an appointment with xxxxx, and I was wondering if anyone here knew anything about them?" I was waiting for someone to ask. :) The answer is that I'm trying to be sensitive--and yes, maybe I am overdoing it. . . .

It's been my experience that professionals are often very sensitive to their patients' supposed lack of faith in them. Indeed, I know of two good doctors who were irritated that I tried getting second opinions about the need for an operation; of course, they didn't express their discontent outright. I've heard similar stories from others.

It occurred to me that my prospective therapist might already be a visitor or even a member of these forums. If that's the case, I don't wish to jepordize my relations with them simply because it seemed I spoke "behind their back." So, instead of announcing the name for all to see, I thought I a more discreet approach would be to private message those who respond to this thread.

Do you think I am too cautious?

[skip]

"Do you think I am too cautious?"

I think that if you are going to doctors and or therapasts who are more immature than your average used car salesman, who DOES understand, you are going to shop around and ask about reputations, then you might want to rethink a few things.

But thats just what I think.

skip

[Unregistered]

I think that if you are going to doctors and or therapasts who are more immature than your average used car salesman, who DOES understand, you are going to shop around and ask about reputations, then you might want to rethink a few things. Is that an indirect suggestion? ;)

[Neurotic1]

Hi

I wonder if you will find out at the consultation/interview. Surely if you feel completely comfortable with the therapist than that helps at least as much as any words/therapy the give you. After all, it is your mind which will do the work to change. I understand there is a lot more to a hypnotherapist than that you feel completely comfortable with them. However it is a good start yes?

[Jack]

Hello Guest,

If the hypnotherapist you intend to see was present on this board, how would he/she know who you are since you are anonymous?

On one of your other questions: if you are concerned about the ability of your chosen therapist then you could ask said therapist what experience they have with your problem. Of course, you have no way of checking the veracity of their reply, but a quick check on the professional association to which they belong will tell you whether the association is one which can be joined simply by paying a fee or requires certification(not self certification from the association) and clinical 'flying hours' as a prerequisite of membership. If you are satisfied, then as Terry has said, if the cost is low you have little to lose.

Jack

[Unregistered]

If the hypnotherapist you intend to see was present on this board, how would he/she know who you are since you are anonymous? Exactly.

[A] quick check on the professional association to which they belong will tell you whether the association is one which can be joined simply by paying a fee or requires certification(not self certification from the association) and clinical 'flying hours' as a prerequisite of membership. The only reason I found the therapist in the first place was because they're listed on the website of the American Association of Professional Hypnotherapists (http://www.aaph.org/index.html). However, as far as I can tell, such membership is meaningless. The therapist's own site offers no indication of their certifications or affiliations.

[Jack]

I agree with you. There are many meaningless pieces of paper floating about pretending to be an indication of proficiency in hypnotherapy, as there are many spurious organisations claiming to be the only professional organisation, and it can be a minefield for people simply looking for help.

In the UK, the National Council for Hypnotherapy at www.hypnotherapists.org (http://www.hypnotherapists.org) demands the completion of an accredited course by private schools not related to the NCH, and gives an indication of clinical experience by the use of various grades of membership. I think the same applies to the National Guild of Hypnotists in the USA. The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis demands a medical qualification. Whether the latter requirement has any value I could not say.

I hope you find an appropriate therapist to help you with your problem, but if you have a session and find that for some reason it isn't working then change your therapist. It is amazing how personalities can sometimes intrude on the efficiency of therapy.

Jack

[Merlin]

http://users.snip.net/~drsteve/Articles/Dr_Zoe.htm

[Don]

For those who didn't want to go to the site, it basically explains that the author was able to get certifications from legitimate organizations...for his cat. The claim, therefore, is that because in this one instance, a person showed that by misrepresentation, lies, and cheating, he was able to deceive quality groups, so the certification is just a "con."

Unfortunately, this type of debunking simply doesn't wash.

The truth is, someone who is dishonest, if he or she really put their mind to it, can deceive just about anyone. The reason for this is simple: honest people tend to believe that others are honest (and dishonest people tend to believe that others are dishonest). This was not a debunking, it was a sliming by someone who would lie, cheat, mesirepresent, give false testimony, etc., to try to prove his point.

Lost of debunkers try to do this. I write this from a Macintosh computer running the latest operating system. At this point in time there is not one piece of "malware" (i.e., trojans, worms, viruses, spyware, etc.) for the Mac that is "in the wild." There have been one or two people who have shown that it is possible to make a type of malware for the Mac (they do not propagate and somebody has to literally put it onto your computer and you have to choose to let it run). No Mac has ever been infected by such Malware. However, because it is possible, a few Windows users--anxious to knock others because of over 10,000 pieces of malware that are running wild in the field--have metaphorically shouted, "Aha! See? The Mac has viruses, too."

This is not to start a Mac-Wiindows war, but to point out the fact that even if one or two viruses were out there for the Mac, that does not make the Mac as virus-prone as the Windows.

If 10,000 people are certified by organizations, and one person--by lying and misrepresentation shows that it is possible to falsely obtain certification--isn't worth his certification, does that prove that the organizations are bad and that all their certifications are bad? Of course not! It only proves that one person is a lying, cheating, fraud.

Some auto repair people cheat customers. They may have been certified by various organizations, including the state. Does that make honest repair people bad because they have the same certifications? I don't think so.

Recently, some wealthy people has a sports stadium named after their daughter. When it was discovered that their daughter cheated her way through college, they withdrew the naming of the stadium. Does this prove that the college she attended was bad? Does it prove that all of the people who earned degrees from the college were frauds? Does it prove that any college degree is a fraud? Does it prove the author's claimed degree is a fraud? No, it shows that trusting people can be fooled by dishonest cheaters.

To be certified by some hypnosis organizations, a person must take classes and pay membership fees. To maintain certification a person must show that they are continuing their training and education along with paying fees. Going to this amount of trouble to rip people off by pretending to be a certified hypnotherapist is really going to wacky extremes.

So to the author of the article--the dishonest, misrepresenting, liar named Steve K. D. Eichel--I challenge you to prove that the "con" you imply is rampant in fact exists. Until then, this is what I say:

That a person is certified does not guarantee he or she is a good hypnotherapist, but the fact that it shows they are willing to study and pay to keep up their certification(s) implies that they are dedicated. I would add that any particular hypnotist may not be good for any particular client, just as many MDs are better in one field than in another. However if you are seeking a physician, find one who's been to school and is a member of the AMA. If you are seeking a hypnotherapist, find one who has been trained, continues training, and is certified by one of the major certification boards. It won't guarantee excellence, but it is an indicator.

[Merlin]

I'd say it shows that the papers *may* not be a valid indication of skill or knowledge.
It's better to evaluate the individual, rather than the credentials.

[Don]

I'd say it shows that the papers *may* not be a valid indication of skill or knowledge.
It's better to evaluate the individual, rather than the credentials.

Agreed.

All of the creditials in the world are only an indicator, not proof.

On the other hand, they do add to the prestige of the hypnotist which can help enhance acceptance of suggestions by a client (i.e., "prestige suggestions").

[Unregistered]

This type of debunking simply doesn't wash. Hello, Don.

I have little time, but please indulge me a brief response to your post.

Your response to Dr. Eichel's article seems to involve a great deal of anger, not just toward the substance of the essay but on other levels. My perception is that you or people you respect belong to one or more of the organizations he cites. You may believe that by dealing with the subject in this manner he demeans and falsely delegitimizes your profession, therefore representing a direct threat to you and the ideals you work hard to uphold.

Don't take it personally. Every profession has excesses and corrupt elements, and the profession can only become stronger when someone has the courage to identify them.

I believe in what you and those of your field can do; I wouldn't be here if I thought it was all a fraud.

Thank you.

[Jack]

Hello All,

If this article is kosher I am truly shocked with regard to the NGH and will forthwith stop recommending them. I will be contacting my own organisation to investigate. Thanks for the article link, Merlin.

As for the article, if true, it demonstrates how important it is to have one body per country representing hypnotherapy and certification. Of course, this just isn't possible in the real world.

Neither is it possible in the real world for every doctor, surgeon, anaesthetist, dentist or other medical professional to be who they say they are, despite the article's avoidance of any attack on these worthy professions.

"With few possible exceptions--psychological testing may be the only one--they do not require an ability to utilize a clearly-defined or unique technology (like surgery) or a tangible asset (like pharmaceuticals)."

I well remember that a few years ago, here in the UK we had a flood of West African doctors into the NHS (National Health Service). They were all apparently qualified, but in fact none were. They were picked up quite quickly (more by luck than judgement) and sent packing, but several had already treated patients, some of whom were vulnerable or terminal.

I found the tone and content of the article intelligent and quite reasonable, in general. It should act as a wake up call to all professional hypnotherapists to either get their act together or wait for the legislators to do it for them. This is not a hobby or a pin money occupation for me and most of my colleagues. It is a lifelong career for which we feel passion and commitment, no less than any medical doctor and much more than many(of my acquaintance).

We know, as professionals, that we have handled and resolved the damage occasionally done by the medical and psychiatric professions. We also know that we have worked alongside the more enlightened members of those same professions with positive effect. This is not a them-versus-us debate. It is a debate we should welcome with anyone involved in the caring professions. Shooting the messenger is not an option.

Jack

[Don]

You're right.

I'm angry toward people who pretend to defend science while mocking it.
I'm angry that "defenders of science" do their utmost to prevent scientific investigation in the guise of being scientists.

I have seen them use fraud to ruin the lives of real scientists. I have also seen lap-dog groupies bow down to their pseudo-gods of skepticism.

So yes, I'm angry toward frauds. I'm angry toward liars. I'm angry toward cheats. I'm angry toward their destruction of lives and careers.

And what I've seen is that these liars and cheats shout loudly about how wonderful they are for their fraud. I've seen the people who would dare to stand up to them washed over with the screams and denunciations of the frauds and their pious "I'm against pseudo-science" claims when, in fact, they are frequently the main purveyors of fraud and misrepresentation.

One of Milton Erickson's techniques involved responding to certain difficult clients by establishing communication through the same means as the client was using. If the liars and cheats only understand yelling, then being quiet won't make them sit up and take notice, and it won't make the groupies and observers wonder how anyone could stand up to their demi-gods or question them.

This is a hypnosis board. In the 18th century, a board of inquiry in France was established to check into the claims of Mesmer. Included on the board were Benjamin Franklin and several physicians who felt they were threatened by Mesmer.

Many people talk about the report and how it proved that Mesmer was a fraud, but in my experience few people have actually read the report. Even hypnotist talk about it.

But if you actually read it you'll find out that they never tested Mesmer. They did test a person who did something like Mesmer but had disagreements with him. And when that person wasn't available, they thought they could do what Mesmer did by simply copying his actions.

What they did was not science, it was pseudo-science. It is the model for many debunkers today. It was also out-and-out fraud.

So I will stand up to the frauds and liars, and I'll do so loudly. I'm glad that you've taken notice, because unless I shout, most people don't take notice.

In my post to which you responded, I did not talk about any particular boards. Rather, I talked about the bad technique and outright fraud on the part of Dr. Eichel. When I went to UCLA, psych experiments (in which undergrads were the guinea pigs) often involved lying to subjects. Today such behavior is forbidden. Lying is bad science. Fraud is bad science. Allowing it anywhere justifies it anywhere. I stand for the furtherance of science, not any particular boards.

Dr. Eichel showed that by lying to people he could get them to act improperly. As modern hypnotists say, people do the best they can with the knowledge and tools that they have. You put in bad information and you get bad results. Yes, he can do that. But his implied conclusion is that certification boards are cons because liars can get credentials. Note that he picked on an easy target (debunkers always do that). Why not look at the state boards of medicine and the numerous people who end up licensed physicians when their licenses were revoked due to malpractice in other locations? Should state licensure be denounced because some people lie to get in? That's what Dr. Eichel is claiming, only he doesn't dare attack governments, only small independents. Further, you can find out how many people lose their medical licenses. Has Dr. Eichel done any research as to how many certified hypnotherapists lied and committed fraud to get certified? I saw no evidence of it in his article.

Dr. Eichel, in this matter, is a lying fraud presenting bad science as if it was some great revelation that could save the world. If he wanted to improve the profession of hypnotherapy he could join one or more board and work to get rid of frauds. Instead, he presents bad science to build up his own ego.

Yes, I'm yelling. I'm yelling that I support good science, not fraud. I take your post personally, but not in a bad way. I got you to pay attention. Now, I hope, it will lead to a stronger profession and better science.

[Unregistered]

I take your post personally, but not in a bad way. I got you to pay attention. Now, I hope, it will lead to a stronger profession and better science. Don,

I am deeply honored my post helped elicit such an impassioned reaction!

Do you realize that if enough people shared your depth of conviction, the profession might gain the kind of critical reevaluation it needs to thrive? Unfortunately, shouting at us will probably have little effect. You'll need to convert many others in many different ways before you can cause it to happen. I, for one, would welcome the opportunity to let you do so.

[skip]

Dear Unregistered,

"Do you realize that if enough people shared your depth of conviction, the profession might gain the kind of critical reevaluation it needs to thrive?"

Mein Gott! 'The profession' is better, and stronger, and more accessable (read open to self regulation) than ever before.

Where in the world did you come up with this presupposition, and where is your evidence that 'the profession' isnt thriving?


skip

[Unregistered]

Hello, skip.

I can see why you use that screen name--you don't "skip" a beat. (Of course, if it's your real name, it's apt too.) :)

You're right--I should have qualified my comment. But you also make broad assertions. While I have little doubt you have substantial evidence to support your claims, I think recent posts indicate that the current state of the "profession" is a matter of debate.

We have wandered far off topic, and I would like to shift the discussion back to the subject I originally intended.

I'll post more later.

Thanks.

[Merlin]

Hello Guest,

I think the bottom line, at least from where I sit, is to follow the advice of a very wise statesman who once said:
"trust, but verify"

Anyone can put anything on a webpage.
Most of the hypno groups are there for the hypnotist, not the public.
What do they call a hypnotist who has a weekend class: Hypnotist
public.
What do they call a hypnotist who has studied for years: Hypnotist.
public.
What do they call a hypnotist who has read a book and never practiced: Hypnotist

I know of several schools offering a PHd in hypnosis (or hypnotherapy if you prefer the title). One school has the same classes for undergrad degree, up through Master's and PHd. Same IDENTICAL classes.
Is the Master's less than the PHd? They are the same.

Last I heard, Skip does not have a "DCH". Is he less good because of it?
Is this person better, or skilled at all because he writes books or has a DCH? I doubt it.

Since there is no single accrediting body for Hypnotherapists or DCH How can you know?
I remember a few years back someone asking whether they should see the one with the DCH or the other woman with many years experience but no wallpaper.
Said person chose the DCH and was disappointed.

If you had cancer, would you reject Stephen Parkhill (Author of Answer Cancer) because he had no DCH? In fact, he is *only* a hypnotist, not a hypnotherapist.

>Where can I find unbiased information about this individual

You really can't

>and about the training of hypnotherapists in general?

You really can't

>Is a simple DCH enough?

There are excellent people without Titles

>What do I look for when I visit this person?

How much experience do they have with *your issue*?

>What kinds of questions should I ask?

Ask about specific experience for your issue
Ask for references

>And suppose the therapist is perfectly competent but ineffective for me--how can I tell?

Only by the results, just like any MD or dentist, or auto mechanic for that matter.

As has been said: Trust, but verify

[Terry (existing)]

Het guys, is it OK for me to get angry too? After all, I replied to our annonymous poster that when I worked pro bono, I gave just as good service as when I charged, and the reply I got was," I don't expect to get the best " etc.....Now damn it, I am the best, so who is this poster who choosed to demean my abilities (EG)....Good job I feel generous today or I might hunt him (or her?) down and kill them for that insult....

[Merlin]

Jack,

The specific situation is older and has been corrected.

The point is that paper *alone* is not a good indicator
The NGH is a Union, like the trucker's union.
Their purpose is to support the hypnotist, not protect the public.

They do have a minimum standard. It's not much, but they do have one.

[Don]

You can damn well feel angry any time you damn well please.

:)

[Jack]

Merlin, I couldn't agree more. The problem comes when a client tries to verify. There is no real verification apart from positive results. A charlatan may string a client along for several sessions before the light dawns that nothing is happening. The client may then try to access some redress through a professional organisation and if that organisation has no requirements for entry it's unlikely that they will get any joy. The only thing left is a civil suit and only lawyers benefit from that.

Stephen Parkhill, Skip and many other excellent therapist may not have a DCH but until we all have the same one, and it is earned not bought, hypnotherapy will continue to be seen as an exotic form of entertainment and not as the powerful instrument of change that it surely is. Hypnotherapists will also continue to be seen as amateurs dabbling in psychology rather than the dedicated destroyers of life-limiting problems that we know we are.

Reality always intrudes on the free expression of talent.

Jack

[Unregistered]

Stephen Parkhill, Skip and many other excellent therapist may not have a DCH but until we all have the same one, and it is earned not bought, hypnotherapy will continue to be seen as an exotic form of entertainment and not as the powerful instrument of change that it surely is. Hypnotherapists will also continue to be seen as amateurs dabbling in psychology rather than the dedicated destroyers of life-limiting problems that we know we are. Yes! My point exactly.

[Unregistered]

[S]o who is this poster who choosed to demean my abilities (EG)....Good job I feel generous today or I might hunt him (or her?) down and kill them for that insult.... Gadzooks--hell hath no fury like a homicidal hypnotist! Dear compassionate, benevolent, gracious, sweet, merciful Master, I kiss thee on thy bootstraps! (And now that I'm on the floor, would you be so kind as to help me back into my wheelchair? :p :D :D)

Terry, I know exactly what you mean. My father is a criminal-defense attorney; the clients he usually represents are of sufficiently low income to qualify for a court-appointed attorney. But the defendants are often suspicious of their "free" help, and those who can afford the expense may hire others to defend them. Perhaps it's ironic, then, that many of the hired hands are frequently not as highly reputed as the people who wouldn't cost a cent.

Merlin offers good suggestions. I know from a short lifetime of personal experience with physical therapists that quality varies dramatically, even within a single provider. I've had people right out of PT school who are simply brilliant, while enduring one with thirty years experience who offered little more than a superficial competence. Yet I've found that people of true excellence almost always have the credentials to match.

[Unregistered]

A last post before bed.

It disturbs me greatly that I may cause offense or annoyance to anyone, yet, in looking at recent posts especially on other threads, it appears to be what I've done. Yes, I truly am registered, so if you've got a bone to pick by all means PM me!

And by now, my identity--or at least my screenname--should be fairly apparent to frequent visitors.

Tomorrow the hypnotherapist. . . .

[Unregistered]

Dear Don and others:

From the comments I've read here, it is clear some of you got the point of my "cat credentialing project" and some of you did not.

It has now been well over 2 years since the Dr. Zoe D. Katze story "hit" the media. What I find disturbing is that since then NOT ONE of the organizations I "targeted" has approached me directly to discuss this matter, NOT ONE has admitted that mistakes can be and are made, and as far as I can tell NOT ONE has indicated that real reforms have been instituted or may even be worth studying. (I believe the NGH now requires a photocopy of the applicant's driver's license, but that's it. If I am incorrect about any of this, please bring me up to date!)

The comments I have received can be roughly divided into two categories: (1) those who saw my project as a warning and responded rationally, and (2) those who basically took the "shoot the messenger" approach.

I know of at least one NGH member who stated that he confronted the NGH leadership about their certification procedures, but I am not aware of any significant changes as a result. I was heartened to read some of the posts on this forum that struck me as rational and even-handed.

However....

You are wrong, Don, in stating that "someone who is dishonest, if he or she really put their mind to it, can deceive just about anyone." Having served on several credentialing boards, I find that it is relatively easy to pick out the frauds, if you really intend to do so. Why wasn't Zoe (my cat) asked for a university transcript? Or for verifiable references? Why no test results? Why no proof of professional training beyond the applicant's word? It was ridiculously easy for me to get my cat certified. The hypnosis and therapy certifying organizations I targeted accepted money but required little or no real proof of competence or professional background.

The truth is that we can NOT just rely on peoples' good intentions and honesty. Taking an individual's "word for it" isn't even good enough to buy a pack of cigarettes. Certifying associations and state licensing boards exist in part to provide an independent, object verification of one's professional claims, not just parrot the individual's claims back to the public. They exist precisely for the purpose of cullling the frauds and fakes from the legitimate professionals. That is one of the primary services they provide to the public and the profession.

It is actually quite difficult to fool a state psychology licensing board, Don. Colleagues of mine who have served on the Pennsylvania State Psychology Board have told me a few stories about people who tried. I do not know of anyone who has succeeded (in Pennsylvania). The application process to become a member of the American Psychological Association makes it almost impossible to be admitted without the proper credentials. To become Board Certified in either medicine (ABMS) or psychology (ABPP), the candidate must verify credentials, submit written and videotaped work samples, and undergo a rigorous in-person oral examination. These are very, very difficult to fake; once again, I am not aware of anyone who has succeeded.

When I served (for 8 years) on the Board of Governors of the Greater Philadelphia Society of Clinical Hypnosis, a component section of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, we occasionally had inappropriate or outright bogus applicants, and they were not at all difficult to pick out. To my knowledge, nobody has ever "slipped through" the GPSCH membership application process in over 40 years.

I suspect there are more than a few "hypnotists" and "psychotherapists" who have cheated and lied their way into being credentialed by a variety of lay hypnosis certifying agencies. (For many years I have wondered how closely these certification applicants and their applications were scrutinized.) I have met several of these individuals myself, which is what motivated my "cat credentialing project" to begin with. When I was appointed as the credentialing officer of a community mental health center back in 1986-88, I wound up discovering (and firing) several "certified hypnotherapists" and/or "psychotherapists" who had made up their graduate degrees (or listed mail-order degrees), falsified their professional and training experiences, claimed nonexistent licenses, etc. The fact that they were hired at all became quite a scandal (and was one of the reasons for maintaining the CMHC's credentialing committee). I reported two or three of these bogus "therapists" to the hypnosis and counseling credentialing associations that issued their certifications. As far as I know, nothing was done. The last time I checked (around 1995 or so), at least one of these individuals was still listed as certified. Another example: over 2 years ago, I reported two individuals whose licenses had been revoked due to malpractice to one of the questionable certifying associations I know. These individuals are still listed as "Board Certified" by this association in their recently published membership directory. Where is the accountability in this?

Neither my cat nor I made any money based on the certifications obtained from the targeted organizations. Clearly members of these associations use their certifications to legitimize their hypnosis and/or therapy practices, and they certainly claim to make an income from their practices. If certifications are going to be used to legitimize a practitioner, then the public deserves to know if, when, and how these credentials may be dubious.

I initially conducted my project to prove something to myself, after having met so many bogus or at least "sketchy" certified members of some of these associations. I didn't initially intend this to hit the media, and when it did it was because a few people read my article on my website and then referred it to others (ah, the power of the internet). It was then picked up by Mark Hansen of the American Bar Association. He was quite interested; most lawyers are VERY interested in real vs. dubious credentials because they have been badly burned by so-called "experts" who were exposed in court. When I agreed to the ABA interview it was because I had decided it would be a good idea to stir up some much-needed trouble, on behalf of the many honest and legitimate professionals I know (some of whom are members of NGH and the other organizations) and on behalf of what I perceived to be a naive public.

Don, you admit to being angry at me; why aren't you angry with the NGH, IMDHA, etc.? I am a trained scientist; I know what a scientific experiment is. What I did was not a "scientific experiment" nor did I ever claim it as such; your anger at me for "mocking science" is misplaced and, if I were to venture a guess, may be a response to some personal agenda, need or insult rather than a response to my actions. Maybe you know somebody who was burned by James Randi, the Skeptical Inquirer, Penn and Teller, or CSICOP. (I am not a member of CSICOP and I don't subscribe to the SI, but I do watch Penn and Teller's show "B**LS**T" on HBO.) I was trying to make a point about how lax the requirements are in some certifying organizations. Do you want to see if you can get YOUR cat into the American Psychological Association or the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis? Or certified by the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP)? Please do try! If you succeed, as a member of APA and ASCH and a Fellow of the ABPP, I would not be angry at you, but instead would be furious with the association(s). I would demand an inquiry into how the APA/ASCH/ABPP allowed this to happen. I would demand a public response. And I am certain that my outrage would be joined by a great many other members'.

I don't know why the NGH, IMDHA, and ABH requirements are (or have been) so utterly lax. Having been involved in the founding of the American Psychotherapy Association (APsyA) I know most of the individuals who founded this certifying association. I have a strong hunch that their agenda may have to do primarily with self-promotion, making money, and being reimbursed for attending conferences and meetings held in luxurious hotels in beautiful settings. I do not see what service the APsyA provides the public or the profession. I don't know if that is true for NGH, IMDHA, et al. If you belong to any of these organizations, perhaps you can enlighten me. Have they made their certification requirements tighter? If not, why not? How then are they serving the public? What is YOUR explanation, Don?

One final note: Don, you made public comments in which you referred to me as "a lying, cheating, fraud" and as a "dishonest, misrepresenting, liar." As far as I know, we have never met each other and you know nothing about me other than what you have read that was written by, or about, me. You are free to attack my tactics and my conclusions, but attacking my character in a public forum like this probably constitutes libel. I must insist that you retract these comments.

- Steve K. D. Eichel, Ph.D.
steve@dreichel.com

[Don]

Dear Don and others:

From the comments I've read here, it is clear some of you got the point of my "cat credentialing project" and some of you did not...

You are wrong, Don, in stating that "someone who is dishonest, if he or she really put their mind to it, can deceive just about anyone." Having served on several credentialing boards, I find that it is relatively easy to pick out the frauds, if you really intend to do so.

I have been a magician for over three decades and a magician member of the Magic Castle in Hollywood, California, a private club for magicians. I have performed for small and large audience. Years ago I taught magic through the experimental college at UCLA.

The easiest people to fool are experts. Thy are so focused in their own belief systems that it is possible to to play with that. In magic, these are sometimes called "sucker" tricks.

If someone tries hard enough, and knows how a board works, it is possible to fool them. The fact is you have shown is that it is possible to fool people.

You have provided no research to indicate that this is a pervasive problem. One person can fool people. I agree.

Why wasn't Zoe (my cat) asked for a university transcript? Or for verifiable references? Why no test results? Why no proof of professional training beyond the applicant's word? It was ridiculously easy for me to get my cat certified.

That's because you misrepresented facts.

The hypnosis and therapy certifying organizations I targeted accepted money but required little or no real proof of competence or professional background.

In other words, how dare they expect honesty! And you have said nothing to show any sort of pervasiveness of this "problem."

The truth is that we can NOT just rely on peoples' good intentions and honesty. Taking an individual's "word for it" isn't even good enough to buy a pack of cigarettes. Certifying associations and state licensing boards exist in part to provide an independent, object verification of one's professional claims, not just parrot the individual's claims back to the public. They exist precisely for the purpose of cullling the frauds and fakes from the legitimate professionals. That is one of the primary services they provide to the public and the profession.

Although all certification organizations and licensing boards claim to be "looking out for the consumer," they're really clubs to protect the image of their profession and the reputations of their members. That this may help consumers is a side benefit.

Why is it that the AMA doesn't publicize lists of disbarred physicians? Why is it easy for someone who loses a medical license in one state to receive one in another?

Has this been a danger to the public? If you had presented information to show that such is the case, I would have been right at your side. But you did not. Instead, your post implies that all such certifications are suspect, as is the reputation and credentials of all people with such certification.


It is actually quite difficult to fool a state psychology licensing board, Don.


I personally know many people licensed by such organizations who are disturbed, addicted, or are more interested in pushing a personal agenda than in helping consumers. I would remind you that it was state-licensed professionals in the state of California who ended up creating hysteria over supposed satanic abuse at the McMartin Preschool. The result of the work of these state-licensed professionals has been the destruction of the school, the ruining of the lives of families and children, and all at a cost to taxpayers of millions of dollars. And some of those licensed professionals are still working.

How does showing that by misrepresenting facts to an organization you are helping consumers to end the practice of really dangerous people? It doesn't. But as I stated, it does imply that anyone with a certification from such organizations is suspect.

Colleagues of mine who have served on the Pennsylvania State Psychology Board have told me a few stories about people who tried. I do not know of anyone who has succeeded (in Pennsylvania). The application process to become a member of the American Psychological Association makes it almost impossible to be admitted without the proper credentials. To become Board Certified in either medicine (ABMS) or psychology (ABPP), the candidate must verify credentials, submit written and videotaped work samples, and undergo a rigorous in-person oral examination. These are very, very difficult to fake; once again, I am not aware of anyone who has succeeded.

Taxpayers fund these boards. Give any board such funding and they can certainly enhance their methodolgy, no?

When I served (for 8 years) on the Board of Governors of the Greater Philadelphia Society of Clinical Hypnosis, a component section of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, we occasionally had inappropriate or outright bogus applicants, and they were not at all difficult to pick out. To my knowledge, nobody has ever "slipped through" the GPSCH membership application process in over 40 years.

"To my knowledge..." yes, but don't know for sure.

However, I also think it is fair to acknowleddge that the ASCH has presented an official point of view which is against those without certain levels of psychological or medical training from functioning as hypnotherapists.

If people were looking for an objective test of non-psychology-oriented hypnotherapy boards, your membership in the ASCH might be seen as requiring your recusal from participation. In fact, because of your affiliation, your entire paper might be seen as nothing more than a way to show why your particular organization and its members are "good" while others are "bad," an attempt at restraint of trade. Of course, I don't think that was your purpose, but it could look that way to an objective observer with all the information, no?

I suspect there are more than a few "hypnotists" and "psychotherapists" who have cheated and lied their way into being credentialed by a variety of lay hypnosis certifying agencies. (For many years I have wondered how closely these certification applicants and their applications were scrutinized.)

And I "suspect" than many licensed psychotherapists are quacks. But without documented evidence, such "suspicions" are meaningless.

You probably don't realize this, but your use of the phrase, "lay hypnosis certification agencies" is considered by many to be a demeaning expression for a responsible profession. Is it not possible that, unconsciously, your motivation to reveal something you consider to be bad is a manifestation of your predilection toward being against such groups and practitioners?

And I would also point out that you still have presented no evidence that this is, in fact, a problem to consumers.

I have met several of these individuals myself, which is what motivated my "cat credentialing project" to begin with. When I was appointed as the credentialing officer of a community mental health center back in 1986-88, I wound up discovering (and firing) several "certified hypnotherapists" and/or "psychotherapists" who had made up their graduate degrees (or listed mail-order degrees), falsified their professional and training experiences, claimed nonexistent licenses, etc.

And yet, by being liars, they had gotten through all of the checks and were working with the center. That's exactly what I said could happen.

And how many consumers were harmed or ill-served by these people vs. the number of people who were helped?

The fact that they were hired at all became quite a scandal (and was one of the reasons for maintaining the CMHC's credentialing committee). I reported two or three of these bogus "therapists" to the hypnosis and counseling credentialing associations that issued their certifications. As far as I know, nothing was done. The last time I checked (around 1995 or so), at least one of these individuals was still listed as certified. Another example: over 2 years ago, I reported two individuals whose licenses had been revoked due to malpractice to one of the questionable certifying associations I know. These individuals are still listed as "Board Certified" by this association in their recently published membership directory. Where is the accountability in this?

People who misrepresent themselves can fool people if they're clever enough. That's what I've said all along.

And you still have not shown how their operating has harmed people. Question: how many people going to psychologists licensed by your organization have had unhappy experiences and failed therapy? What is the percentage compared to that of people certified by hypnotherapy boards?

I would also point out that in science, listing a few cases is not considered evidence establishing a fact. So I repeat, where is your evidence that this is epidemic with certification boards? Where is your evidence that consumers have been harmed by board certification at a percentage that is higher than that of other organizations?

Neither my cat nor I made any money based on the certifications obtained from the targeted organizations.

In other words, nobody was harmed. Nor have you documented that this is a problem for the consumer.

Clearly members of these associations use their certifications to legitimize their hypnosis and/or therapy practices, and they certainly claim to make an income from their practices. If certifications are going to be used to legitimize a practitioner, then the public deserves to know if, when, and how these credentials may be dubious.

In hypnotherapy, this is called "mind reading." The fact is, that although some people probably do use certification for this reason, many people may use it for other reasons. For example, they may use it so they can be in touch with others in their profession and to get notice of training they can get in their area. Others, such as yourself, may never use it at all.

I live in the state of California which, at the present time, requires people practicing complementary medicine to provide consumers with their curriculum vitae. To not do so can result in civil and criminal prosecution.

I agree with this concept. All professionals of any profession, in my opinion, should make available a complete list of their training and experience to consumers.

Even so, in the U.S., the philosophy is still caveat emptor. Until someone actually harms others, or until there is a complaint, it is very rare that a doctor, lawyer, psychologist, or hypnotherapist is pushed enough into the limelight to get public attention and action. In my opinion we should all ask questions about the CV of our health professionals.

I initially conducted my project to prove something to myself, after having met so many bogus or at least "sketchy" certified members of some of these associations. I didn't initially intend this to hit the media, and when it did it was because a few people read my article on my website and then referred it to others (ah, the power of the internet). It was then picked up by Mark Hansen of the American Bar Association. He was quite interested; most lawyers are VERY interested in real vs. dubious credentials because they have been badly burned by so-called "experts" who were exposed in court. When I agreed to the ABA interview it was because I had decided it would be a good idea to stir up some much-needed trouble, on behalf of the many honest and legitimate professionals I know (some of whom are members of NGH and the other organizations) and on behalf of what I perceived to be a naive public.

Respectfully, if you only wanted to prove something to yourself, why did you post it on your website? So nobody would see it? I'm going to assume that you really do mean that you did it for yourself. If so, look at yourself--perhaps there are motivations you are not even aware of in play here.

So the ABA was only interested because they had members too lazy to check the creditials of their experts and were burned? To me, that's rather funny. How many thousands of people have been harmed by lawyers who are still part of the Bar? Remember, the ABA is there to protect lawyers, not consumers. That is merely a side benefit.

Don, you admit to being angry at me; why aren't you angry with the NGH, IMDHA, etc.? I am a trained scientist; I know what a scientific experiment is. What I did was not a "scientific experiment" nor did I ever claim it as such; your anger at me for "mocking science" is misplaced and, if I were to venture a guess, may be a response to some personal agenda, need or insult rather than a response to my actions.

Mad at you because of the bad science. When I attended UCLA, as part of undergrad classes in psych, we were required to participate in experiments being run by grads, profs, etc. In every experiment I participated in, the experimenters lied to me about the purpose. The goal was so that by not knowing the real purpose of the experiment, I would not give prejudiced responses.

After I graduated, UCLA banned such misrepresentation. It mistreated the people volunteer to take the tests, demeaned testing per se, and since the tests were based on lies, the results were dubious. This was, in my opinion, a wise decision by UCLA. Unfortunately, you chose not to follow in this pattern.

But as a trained scientist, I'm sure you recognize that in some instances, the testing does not reveal what was desired, but something entirely different. Is it not possible--coming from your background and affiliation with an organization which opposes hypnotherapy by people not trained to your levels in psychology or medicine--that although your goal was as you stated, the actual test did not accomplish that?

Maybe you know somebody who was burned by James Randi, the Skeptical Inquirer, Penn and Teller, or CSICOP. (I am not a member of CSICOP and I don't subscribe to the SI, but I do watch Penn and Teller's show "B**LS**T" on HBO.) I was trying to make a point about how lax the requirements are in some certifying organizations. Do you want to see if you can get YOUR cat into the American Psychological Association or the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis? Or certified by the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP)? Please do try! If you succeed, as a member of APA and ASCH and a Fellow of the ABPP, I would not be angry at you, but instead would be furious with the association(s). I would demand an inquiry into how the APA/ASCH/ABPP allowed this to happen. I would demand a public response. And I am certain that my outrage would be joined by a great many other members'.

Sorry, but I have no desire to misrepresent myself--and I don't have a cat!

I would be far more interested in getting all of the psychologists who do not help and may actually harm their patients out of practice. Are you doing anything in that area? If so, how can I assist you?

I don't know why the NGH, IMDHA, and ABH requirements are (or have been) so utterly lax. Having been involved in the founding of the American Psychotherapy Association (APsyA) I know most of the individuals who founded this certifying association. I have a strong hunch that their agenda may have to do primarily with self-promotion, making money, and being reimbursed for attending conferences and meetings held in luxurious hotels in beautiful settings. I do not see what service the APsyA provides the public or the profession. I don't know if that is true for NGH, IMDHA, et al. If you belong to any of these organizations, perhaps you can enlighten me. Have they made their certification requirements tighter? If not, why not? How then are they serving the public? What is YOUR explanation, Don?

"Tighter" is such a relative term. Tighter than a few years ago? Tighter how much? This will, of course, be very valuable if it will protect the consumer. Can you show that the consumer has been harmed? In fact can you provide any evidence to show that people improperly receiving hypnotherapy credentials is widespread?

One final note: Don, you made public comments in which you referred to me as "a lying, cheating, fraud" and as a "dishonest, misrepresenting, liar." As far as I know, we have never met each other and you know nothing about me other than what you have read that was written by, or about, me. You are free to attack my tactics and my conclusions, but attacking my character in a public forum like this probably constitutes libel. I must insist that you retract these comments.

- Steve K. D. Eichel, Ph.D.
steve@dreichel.com

Your article stated that you sent in false information to organizations about your cat. That's your own statement. However, I don't want to get into a legal battle with you as this is boring. I hereby retract my claims and apologize for calling you a dishonest, misreprenting, liar and regret any problems that may have caused.

Look, Steve. Here is the real deal. Your post implied that because you could do this, all people with certification should be suspect. Whether or not that was your intention, that is what you have done.

Now, since you claim to be a scientific researcher, I would suggest and request--and I would support you fully on this--that you do some research in answering these two questions which are far more important. To wit:

1) What percentage of people certified by any particular board are legitimate?
Methodology:
A) Obtain from that certification organization the names and addresses of all members in 20 metropolitan areas.
B) Investigate the backgrounds, including claimed training and experience of all those people.
C) Do a statistical analysis showing the percentage of people with claims that do not match the facts
D) For those same metro areas, check on all licensed psychological practitioners
E) Do a stastistical analysis showing the percentage of people with claims that do not match the facts
F) Do a statistical comparison of the two, seeing if they are out of line with each other

2) How many people have been harmed by people incorrectly certified or licensed?
Methodology
This is going to be much tougher as medical professionals--even ones who received licensing fraudulently--do not have to reveal information on patients. Further, the AMA and similar organizations do not simply hand out information on complaints against members it is difficult to tell.
Still, taking out advertising requesting information either good or bad on certain individuals (who fraudulently obtained credentials) should bring some results, although these would have to be adjusted because, as you know, some people will give false reports. Hiring a testing organization familiar with such sociological testing issues may help with this.
In the end, the goal is to have a large enough representative body of evidence showing the percentage of people who were harmed vs. helped by fraudulently certificated or licensed practitioners.

Respectfully, if you are really looking to provide helpful information, such research would give a far more accurate view of what's going on and really aid consumers. I assume that is what we all wish to do.

[Unregistered]

Don,

Thank you for your reply. It is lengthy and detailed and I'm getting ready to head out for a New Years Eve party, so I was only able to skim it for now. I will read your comments in greater depth when I am able to give them the time they deserve, and I will respond accordingly.

I appreciate your retraction of your comments about my character.

From what I can tell by skimming through your reply, these most recent comments seem thoughtful and reasoned, and I appreciate that as well.

For now, I hope you have a great holiday.

Yours,
Steve Eichel

[Don]

And my sincere hope is that you, and all people reading this, have a happy, healthy, and prosperous--mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually, and even financially--new year.

[Terry (existing)]

I doubt any of us are upset, and suggest you misread the posts you have been getting. You suspicion is normal, and has no effect on us though it does perhaps have an effect on you. Mine certainly was said with tongue in cheek, and if I choose to have fun at your expense, and it makes you feel bad instead of finding it fun, my apology....I have no idea who you are and couldn't care less, but I do agree with the others that you harm yourself by your suspicions.

[Guest]

Well, I see my queries culminated into quite a stir! :)

I'm afraid my visits with the hypnotherapist were not especially helpful. It was not until several weeks after my initial phone call to the therapist that I actually met them for a consultation. Further scheduling conflicts ensured I did not have an actual session for many more weeks. I had my second session two weeks after my first; it was my last. I'd intended to do a third visit, but circumstances interfered, and it didn't seem to me or those who know my situation that I showed much improvement.

I am not a professional of any kind, but I've had a great deal of experience with hypnosis in the past. Yet with the thrapist, I believe my sessions consisted of "relaxo-therapy" rather than a true hypnotic state. I certainly understand that people can be hypnotized without any realization of a shift in consciousness, but it seemed to me that any suggestions simply bounced off the surface of my mind, never really digging deep or penetrating my critical factor. The suggestions were only slightly effective, and only for a brief period. Indeed, by my second session they had no effect, nor did any other suggestions the therapist offered.

Perhaps I primed myself to resist? It occurs to me now that I didn't care for several answers the hypnotherapist gave when I quizzed them during the consultation. They attributed hypnosis to relaxation, for example, and referred me to their certification with the "National Association of Transpersonal Hypnotists" as one of their references. Neither remark helped instill in me confidence in their abilities, though I very much enjoyed the therapist's character and apparent sympathy toward my circumstances.

I am still looking, though I seem to have few options. Nevertheless, I truly believe hypnosis can help me; in fact, it could well be the only method that will. I simply need to find the right person.

[Merlin]

>Perhaps I primed myself to resist?
Nahhh
No such thing.
Only hypnotists that lack skill.

If you show up for the appointment, it's proof you're not resistant.

>They attributed hypnosis to relaxation
<sigh> many do.
Hypnosis demo: http://www.mindsci-clinic.com/hypno_demo.htm

>I am still looking

Good

[Guest]

I am out of options.

I've examined every option and pursued all possibilities, but it seems there is nothing out there besides the weekend hypno-dupes. Qualified help simply doesn't exist for people in my situation. It's unfortunate that many of those who most badly need access to such resources can't get them. Still, I'm not surprised.

My thanks to the many who offered advice.

[Shlomo_NLP]

You have to ask around... and also "google" them. I do so with almost every new business association or even individuals I pay to. It's a research, that's all.

[Makani]

All degrees are purchased. All training is purchased with few exceptions. There's no college, school or university I know that's free (except for scholarships). As to earned inside the purchased structure.... I'm with Don's point re: personal honesty entirely. Countless legions of persons buy a term paper, cheat on a test, have someone else take the test, sleep with the professor, etc. etc. be it in psychology, law, medicine, engineering, theology, policitical science ....anything. One can spend so time worrying so much about what others are doing or not doing and trying to judge how they are doing it. And then be either wrong or right. Or both. (Recommend the film "Crash").

I think this thread makes a good case for developing and trusting one's own intuition (if not conscience).

Which meal is better? That prepared by a Cordon Bleu chef or your grandmother? It's entirely up to you, non? Trust yourself, unregistered guest, to know if the person you see can assist you in getting your results and if it's a well-intentioned honest cat, so much the better. As to "the best", you can never know without sampling the world. I would prefer to believe there are many great, good, effective matches out there for you because you sound ready.

When the student is ready the teacher appears.

[Guest]

Be careful--I didn't say that qualified help doesn't exist, only that it doesn't exist "for people in my situation." I am physically disabled and on Medicaid; my only income is a meager monthly stipend. These elements alone disqualify me from all manner of resources.

I used a state-run mental health referral service that possesses a database of all licensed therapists. There were no therapists in my area with any education in hypnosis who accepted Medicaid. The information did not indicate those who employed "sliding-scale" payment structures, but I did my own research and found no well-trained, professional therapist who used such a scale.

I am young, but experience has taught me the difference between those who know and those who simply think they know. I much prefer the former. Yet for me and the many like me, access is denied.

[Guest]

Hello!

I'll be moving soon. It's going to be a gargantuan, earth-shaking challenge, but when I get on my feet (figuratively speaking), I intend to continue the search.

[Unregistered/Unidentified]

Having read this thread because I was referred to it by the person who started it, I felt - even though the thread was long out of date - that I should make this small contribution.

I am an NGH member, but I don't bother telling anyone. My 'training classes' were poor at best. Good thing I was already a skilled hypnotist, just going for the 'paper'. I am a hypnotist. An amazingly good hypnotist. And I consider most of the training to have be an extreme waste of time. And NO ONE was ever impressed by the 'paper'. They actually rarely ever see it. By the time they sit down in my office they are already in trance. And within a few minutes are under hypnosis. I don't do 'therapy'. I simply create the change for them that they are looking for. I am a hypnotist. Hypnosis is all I do for these clients.

And I find the thought of a single national board to certify me a scary thing, indeed. I do what I do better than nearly everyone in my area. But I will not be paying my NGH dues in the future. I have no intention of maintaining any type of membership. I will just keep on helping people.

[Don]

Hello, Guest.

Thanks for your comment. I hope you will register and continue to make posts in the future.

I agree with some of the things you say. In my experience, however, there are some people who feel "safer" knowing that a person is certified, no matter the level of legitimacy of that certification. Also, as a member of NGH (I'm one, too) you do get access to their library, their magazine, and what appears to be information on a lot of legal issues. I'm also a member of the ABH. I have my certificates available.

IMO, some people come to hypnosis as a "last hope." Some even break years of being programmed into believing that hypnosis is for shows but is a scam for helping people. Having proof that you are experienced, certified, trained, and recognized helps put them at ease.

I fully agree that by the time they sit in your office they should be in trance, but unless you have an incredible screening for potential clients, some may either not be in trance or even actively resisting. In my experience the certificates and memberships help, not to mention that they enhance the acceptance of authority suggestions.

The bottom line, I think, is that we should do what works. If not being a member of any certification org works for you, go with it. Paying when you don't want to or don't feel you need to would be stupid, and hypnotherapists ain't stupid! :)

[Jonathan Chase]

Just an observation.

Being certified or licensed means little unless the people doing the certification and or licensing are actually knowledgeable or competent at what they are certifying and licensing. In the case of therapeutic hypnosis, certainly in the UK, that isn't the case in my experience. Over the years many of my clients have been to this or the other certified or qualified person who, judging by their efficacy, were as competent and as useful as a chocolate kettle.

As for the original post that started this whole thing ask the therapist to give you a brief - 5 minutes should do it - appointment during which they are to hypnotise you to the point where you are totally convinced you were hypnotised. If they can't don't bother with them - if you want hypnosis that is - as a great deal of therapists claiming to do hypnosis, don't.

Smiles
JonC
visit the alternative hypnosis FAQ at
www.thehypnotists.com (http://www.thehypnotists.com/)

[Guest]

I am an NGH member, but I don't bother telling anyone. My 'training classes' were poor at best. Good thing I was already a skilled hypnotist, just going for the 'paper'. I am a hypnotist. An amazingly good hypnotist. And I consider most of the training to have be an extreme waste of time. And NO ONE was ever impressed by the 'paper'. They actually rarely ever see it. By the time they sit down in my office they are already in trance. And within a few minutes are under hypnosis. I don't do 'therapy'. I simply create the change for them that they are looking for. I am a hypnotist. Hypnosis is all I do for these clients. Oh, I know. Trust me--trust me, I really do understand. If I didn't, I wouldn't be so persistent.

But I'm pretty sure I've looked into everyone, and in my present situation there simply aren't enough good folks like you who are willing to help people on the fringes. It's unfortunate, since we "vulnerable" ones may need the help most of all.

[Guest]

Over the years many of my clients have been to this or the other certified or qualified person who, judging by their efficacy, were as competent and as useful as a chocolate kettle. Sounds delicious! :D

[A]skthe therapist to give you a brief - 5 minutes should do it - appointment during which they are to hypnotise you to the point where you are totally convinced you were hypnotised. If they can't don't bother with them - if you want hypnosis that is - as a great deal of therapists claiming to do hypnosis, don't.[quote] I'm one step ahead of you. During my initial phone inquiries of each therapist, I asked if they would be hypnotizing me during the intake session. Nearly all said it isn't how they work, and they made various excuses about why it isn't.

There was one person who did say, "Yes, we can certainly do that. It won't take long."

But guess what? That session would have cost more than $150. Medicaid wasn't going to pay, and I simply couldn't afford it.
Smiles
JonC
visit the alternative hypnosis FAQ at
www.thehypnotists.com (http://www.thehypnotists.com/)

[Guest]

[A]sk the therapist to give you a brief - 5 minutes should do it - appointment during which they are to hypnotise you to the point where you are totally convinced you were hypnotised. If they can't don't bother with them - if you want hypnosis that is - as a great deal of therapists claiming to do hypnosis, don't. I'm one step ahead of you. During my initial phone inquiries of each therapist, I asked if they would be hypnotizing me during the intake session. Nearly all said it wasn't how they worked, and they made various excuses why it wasn't.

There was one person who did say, "Yes, we can certainly do that. It won't take long."

But guess what? That session would have cost more than $150. Medicaid wasn't going to pay, and I simply couldn't afford it.