View Full Version : So what if I read this.. will it "ruin" anything?
Unregistered
12-02-2004, 09:56 AM
I just randomly picked a page on a hypnotist's website that I am going to see this weekend. It was html-scripth, and in it was a document. It says "induction for hypnotises", and it says it's FOR him. Meaning that's the scripth he uses. I read through the first part, and it was saying something like.. make sure the patient is not folding hands or teaching any of her bodyparts, etc..etc.. should I be reading this?:// I don't think "we" are suppose to read it. Just making sure.
Not if your hypnotist is any good.
Hello Guest,
There are always hypnotists who use scripts. They are either amateurs or beginners. Some good hypnotherapists use scripts as a basis for therapy but none would uses a script for everyone simply read off the page.
Why?
Because everyone is different. It's like a car mechanic treating every car he works on as a Ford, even if it's a Ferrari. The parts just won't fit. And if you force them into place the car won't go.
If they are just 'settling down' instructions, read them and see if he does them. It should keep you entertained and might help you both to have a good session.
Jack
bigdog
12-02-2004, 03:57 PM
I just randomly picked a page on a hypnotist's website that I am going to see this weekend. It was html-scripth, and in it was a document. It says "induction for hypnotises", and it says it's FOR him. Meaning that's the scripth he uses. I read through the first part, and it was saying something like.. make sure the patient is not folding hands or teaching any of her bodyparts, etc..etc.. should I be reading this?:// I don't think "we" are suppose to read it. Just making sure.
I don't think it matter at all. Hypnosis is not based on FAITH, it is not depending on mistry or any super power, it just simply tell youself what to do, to build as a habit, so when you do it you don't even need to THINK about it! so script or not make no difference, if you liston to it and keep it IN YOUR HEAD, then even magician show you how the trick works, the magic will still works!:cool:
kosmic
12-04-2004, 12:11 PM
Do crossed hands or legs really prohibit someone from going into hypnosis? I have read and heard it a number of times, with an explanation of something along the line of your brain's hemispheres get jumbled up. your body's position disallowing hyponisis just seems counter-intuitive to me.
No. They don't prevent hypnosis.
But sit with your legs crossed for an hour. You could end up with circulation to one or both legs being cut off. It could be very uncomfortable.
For the same reason, a person who wears contact lenses should be asked to remove them before a session.
If we are permitted to say ca ca on this board, that is a load.
Merlin
12-04-2004, 04:55 PM
>Do crossed hands or legs really prohibit someone from going into hypnosis?
If the hypnotist is actually doing relaxation-therapy as many do, then it's a problem.
For hypnosis it doesn't effect hypnosis.
It is good to be comfortable if you'll be in 'the chair' a while.
Having crossed legs is a defensive posture. It helps for a client to have them uncrossed, apart from the obvious circulation problems.
Jack
Hi, Jack.
I respectfully partially disagree with you. :)
The original book which studied body posture and meaning was entitled Kinesics in Context by a man named Birdwhistle. In it the author makes clear that no posture, in and of itself, has meaning. Rather, the meaning must be taken in the context of the current situation and the person's past behavior. Although this is mentioned in some of the popularized "Body Language" books (such as that by Fast), it is not stressed, giving people an oversimplified and false understanding of the concept.
For example, if a person always crossed his legs when sitting while growing up, but upon leaving home lived in an unsafe neighborhood where there was little room in a shared apartment, the crossing of legs may have become a physical representation of feelings of safety and openness, not defensiveness.
Of course, the truth is, that if a person has not developed the habit and the conditions are right (such as with repeated, invasive questioning), crossing of the legs may very well be a defensive posture so having a person uncross their legs, in this instance, may indeed break the defensiveness and help them to be more open to both induction and suggestion.
However without observation over time and an interview, it is impossible to tell.
Merlin
12-05-2004, 11:10 AM
In NLP terms
each of us are individuals, so calibrate.
Hello Don,
I understand why you partially disagree and also understand Merlin's post about calibration and find no real fault with either.
If I may quote you : "the author makes clear that no posture, in and of itself, has meaning. Rather, the meaning must be taken in the context of the current situation and the person's past behavior"
In a first session situation, (the current situation) we have no indication of past behaviour but we may have a nervous individual with arms and legs folded. It is not just the folded limbs, but a whole host of other indicators that would make me use the description 'nervous'. I think it was Desmond Morris in his book 'The Naked Ape' who mentioned that the initial meeting of Bonobo monkeys was a 'sort of' rapport building exercise: tolerate, mate or attack. The monkeys would always try to create initial tolerance between same ranking peers, possibly with the idea of either mating or ignoring them later. The exception was alpha males and females who would always mock attack to gauge the strength of the opposition.
I see the first session as a meeting between peers, but, and it is a big but, I am controlling the session. Generally - and I accept that it is general - in Western society folded arms and folded legs are an indication of defensiveness. Three purposes are served by getting both uncrossed. First, I establish that a command I give has to be obeyed. Second, I enable relaxation and good blood flow. And third, trance is almost a given as a result of both; you will understand why. I may then switch to permissive methods or not, it depends on the level of rapport and co-operation established.
Your example whilst true in it's context is, to me an unlikely scenario, not impossible but unlikely. Defensive postures are of themselves 'safe' because this is how the person perceives safety, in the act of unconscious posturing. It is the whole raison d'etre for the posture. I do take your point that there could be a situation in which for instance open legs could be a defensive posture depending on past experience, but again I think it unlikely in Western culture.
I think the only difference between our viewpoints is one of emphasis and interpretation,and could have probably saved myself this long-winded post.
Jack
Hello Don,
...
I think the only difference between our viewpoints is one of emphasis and interpretation,and could have probably saved myself this long-winded post.
Jack
But it was a wondeful, well thought-out, and erudite post!