Book and DVD Review

#210

Postby Anthony Jacquin » Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:58 pm

elvio_junior wrote:Hi Ant,
Here in Brazil is very difficult to find Hypnotists and also hard to find books about it.
I took a course with a very good guy named Fabio Puentes , he's a good hypnotherapist but not a good teacher, he knows it for himself but to teach others.
So I am not totally confident to start hypnotherapy and also I guess I got more confident after reality is plastic, which I consider the best book ever for initiate in hypnoses.
Ant I would like you recommend me a good book to initiate clinical hypnosis, I 'd like to start with some kind of hypnotherapy focussed on the problem, a brief, aimed and fast way to solve the client's problem immediately.

It's like a EM in a hospital the hypnotist gives him or her their pain/stress relieve immediately fast, aimed and focussed .


thanks in advanced


Hi Elvio,

one of my main missions in life is to spend time in Brazil so you may see me there for training in the next year.

Until then three books you should buy are
Training Trances by Overdurf. Hypnotherapy Scripts a neo ericksonian approach by Havens and Human Givens an approach to emotional health by Griffin and Tyrell. Yapko's work on depression is very good too.
Anthony Jacquin
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2951
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:05 am
Likes Received: 6


#211

Postby elvio_junior » Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:23 pm

Cool !!! What a great news , Ant.

Let me now in advance it would be amazing to meet you in person and learn a bit more. I am your fan.

By the way I ve been participating in a hypnoses group that work in a University Hospital, Next Wednesday will be my second meeting but I am gonna tell them that you may come to Brazil next year.

Additionally you're gonna love Brazil there are beautiful places, nice people,hot girls and very good hospitality. Live and travel here is cheap and safe but is a good idea to have someone as a guide to drive you to the best places and not wast time and money.
If you wish when you have you mind done about it I can send you further information about here.

I appreciated your recommendation I will buy those books. also I 'd like to buy reality is plastic dvd , actually I have just the book.

thanks


elvio
elvio_junior
New Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:40 am
Likes Received: 0

#212

Postby divrom » Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:36 pm

Anthony Jacquin wrote:Until then three books you should buy are
Training Trances by Overdurf. Hypnotherapy Scripts a neo ericksonian approach by Havens and Human Givens an approach to emotional health by Griffin and Tyrell. Yapko's work on depression is very good too.


If I can take the liberty of adding to that list, you might also benefit from reading:

Wordweaving by Trevor Silvester (I love the Havens book, but would now replace it with this)
Ericksonian Approaches by Battino
Hypnotic Realities by Erickson
Solution-Oriented Hypnosis by O'Hanlon
Monsters and Magical Sticks (that would actually be at the top of the list, but quite frankly I get bored of raving on about it!)

You'll be able to tell my preferred style from that list, but I genuinely can't see anyone being disappointed with any of those books.
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#213

Postby elvio_junior » Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:24 am

divrom wrote:
Anthony Jacquin wrote:Until then three books you should buy are
Training Trances by Overdurf. Hypnotherapy Scripts a neo ericksonian approach by Havens and Human Givens an approach to emotional health by Griffin and Tyrell. Yapko's work on depression is very good too.


If I can take the liberty of adding to that list, you might also benefit from reading:

Wordweaving by Trevor Silvester (I love the Havens book, but would now replace it with this)
Ericksonian Approaches by Battino
Hypnotic Realities by Erickson
Solution-Oriented Hypnosis by O'Hanlon
Monsters and Magical Sticks (that would actually be at the top of the list, but quite frankly I get bored of raving on about it!)

You'll be able to tell my preferred style from that list, but I genuinely can't see anyone being disappointed with any of those books.



:D Oh .... thanks guys
I ve bought Training Trances , Hypnotherapy Scripts , Hypnotic Realities and Monsters and Magical Sticks for a while and within few weeks guess I will buy reality is plastic dvd from Ant and trilby connection for fun.

By the way Ant when will trilby connection DVD be available for sale?
elvio_junior
New Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:40 am
Likes Received: 0

#214

Postby Janmoinel » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:50 am

He said September 2010 somewhere :wink:
Janmoinel
Junior Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:20 pm
Likes Received: 0

#215

Postby Anthony Jacquin » Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:18 am

You have a great set of books there. Join the dots and you will have an approach.

Trilby Connection is available for pre-order from headhacking.com and will ship in September. The bouns material that comes with the first edition is I think of real value. It includes additional routines, routines pushed to failure and how that is dealt with as well as Kev and the editor completely hanging me out to dry with some nasty but hilarious out takes.

Anthony
Anthony Jacquin
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2951
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:05 am
Likes Received: 6

#216

Postby kevsheldrake » Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:49 pm

Anthony Jacquin wrote:You have a great set of books there. Join the dots and you will have an approach.

Trilby Connection is available for pre-order from headhacking.com and will ship in September. The bouns material that comes with the first edition is I think of real value. It includes additional routines, routines pushed to failure and how that is dealt with as well as Kev and the editor completely hanging me out to dry with some nasty but hilarious out takes.

Anthony


Factual but hilarious out takes. :) One of the filming days was very hot and we were working under crazy lights; maybe that started to affect concentration. ;)

Kev
kevsheldrake
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Likes Received: 1

#217

Postby kevsheldrake » Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:58 pm

The Nature of Trance by John Cleesattel / wizardoftrance

At USD20, The Nature of Trance is more expensive than Cialdini's Influence (a book I will review soon) but cheaper than Elman's Hypnotherapy (more on this later). I bought a copy because John mentioned parts of his model on this forum and suggested that his whole model was in this ebook.

My first thought is that this ebook struggles to understand its own identity. Is it a journal of a guy exploring hypnosis? Is it a description of the results of his exploration into hypnosis? Is it a training manual for applying the results of his exploration? Or is it an advert for his own hypnotherapy solutions? It reads like a journal in that it is very much in the first person and has a chatty style. It does describe his results, but in the same style as his first person, chatty approach, his 'research' is personal, subjective and is based on assumptions that I, for one, could not accept without some objective justification.

John was a systems analyst for twenty years (according to his preface) and it shows. Much like the many systems analysts I have worked alongside in the past decade, John appears to have the desire to simplify a process into interrelated component parts and then simplify these parts and the overall process. The danger of this approach is over-simplification through a lack of information about the system. As John did not have access to the internals (the structure and use of the brain), he had to treat it as a black box; a black box approach supposes no knowledge of the contents of the system and models it solely through external interaction. Unfortunately, he then postulated some components of the black box (the conscious mind, the subconscious mind and the superconscious mind) which went against his black box approach.

His choice of 'minds model' was based on his training. This appears to be a combination of Elman and neo-Freudism. Unlike Erickson who guessed at the two minds model (conscious and unconscious), John guessed at the three minds model (conscious, subconscious and superconscious). Estabrooks referred to such models as unscientific in his book Hypnotism. Science has to be testable and models of minds are not generally testable, beyond the fact that no evidence exists to support the models. As metaphors they work perfectly to cause dissociation and to provide fresh perspectives on problems. John, however, was more concerned with whether he could find evidence for them.

Starting with the answer (the model or theory, if you like), John set out to find "evidence" to support it. I think John should have set out to disprove it as I think it would have been just as easy (easier some would say) to find evidence to disprove his model as it was to find evidence to support it. One can still find lots of evidence to support the idea of a flat world, but it only takes a small amount of evidence to disprove it.

By setting out to support his model ("prove" it in his language), John got caught in the same trap as those using circular arguments. The description of the minds became the basis of his evidence to support the existence of the minds. His only additions were much subjective thought and self-examination. Of course, if his model of mind was wrong then he had no basis on which to trust his and others' reports of subjective thoughts and therefore no evidence to support his model.

For example, recent experiments by neuroscientists appear to show that the conscious mind is an illusion, that it narrates post-fact as opposed to deciding pre-fact, that our subjective experience of this mind is time-skewed in our brains so that our 'decisions' coincide with or pre-date the output of our 'decisions'. It appears that decisions are not taken consciously (or what we would generally refer to as consciously), yet we appear to consciously narrate the decision making process after the event, with this narration skewed in time so that it appears to be the decision making process rather than simply the narration of it. Weird and complex, but functionally significant if we are to rely upon reports of subjective thoughts as part of our evidence. I am far from convinced that subjective thought is a good way to obtain evidence.

John made the common (post-NLP anyway) connection between mind and computer. Patterns in NLP-speak became 'macros' in John's ebook. While I have some sympathy with this model, we should always remember that computers to mimic brains still appear to be a long way away. Even if this connection does make sense in the future when computer science is sufficiently advanced, we currently do not have the models that permit us to map the information in the brain, let alone the meshing or interconnections required to provide that information to the regions (processes) that require it.

John defines the superconscious as pretty much Elman's critical faculty. He provides two ways to bypass it, confusion/shock and expectation. By this point, other than the addition of the superconscious it was sounding a lot like every other neo-Ericksonian claim of how hypnotism works: A lot of claim and not a lot of evidence. I'll conclude here on the barrage against John's model because all his additional claims are built on the shaky foundations of his minds model and it would be long-winded and unfair to pick apart each and every claim he subsequently made. It is worth bearing in mind that John believes in his model (or at least his words imply that he does - "(This) explains why trance exists in the first place and how the mind works using it").

Next John discusses the practical applications. He takes what appears a reasonable approach to hypnosis (structurally similar to Elman or Estabrooks), from pre-talk to deepening and test, and then strips out the parts he thinks are unnecessary. This is a worthwhile task but I think John's propensity to over-simplification has led him to discard steps that make the process easier, or to discard steps that in isolation do not appear necessary but may appear so in combination. His resultant process is simple and possibly useful but lacks detail and examples that would bring it to life and make it easily understandable. That said, the resultant model is based around expectation, but with all those minds present it was difficult to understand which minds he thought were 'expecting' at different points in the process.

In the middle of this 'fluffless' model, John states:
If you fully grasp how the subconscious responds to what it expects to happen, and how it
adapts the body in the anticipation of an expected event, you can understand that
physiological changes can also take place.
Everything from hypnotically removing warts, to breast enhancement, utilizes
expectancy. And these trance solutions do work!
To me, it raises the question: "what other physiological changes can be made?"
In the Christian Bible, it notes: "as you believe, so shall you be".


This is the point that I started to wonder whether the ebook was simply a reverse-charge advert. The ebook provides no evidence or justification for wart removal or breast enlargement. A quote from the bible in anything other than jest seriously undermines any objectivity an author hoped to convey. So what was the purpose of these statements? Gain customers was one thought, but really? Was that the plan and would it work? Even if he was only selling hypnosis generally as a solution and not specifically his practice, is that reasonable? I don't think so, but I think the real reasons those words were there elude me.

John concludes with the equation:
(E/R) + T = O/R
Expectancy, divided by the resistance to accept input by the watchdog, plus the triggering of the start of the expected event = the body experiencing the expected outcome divided by the same resistance of acceptance by the watchdog.


Given that objective measurements of the inputs to this equation are not possible, the output simply cannot be calculated and the truth of the equation cannot therefore be tested. The letters in the equation could be completely rearranged and the resultant equation would be just as valid as this one. Both would be just as valid as E=15 (which is to say, untestable and not useful).

John's finale is his induction for analytical subjects. After some rhetoric, John presents Elman's 'three things' induction which Ant teaches as three handshakes. Elman used three puffs on a cigarette but (as John confirms) any three things can be used. It's not a bad induction but I don't think it solves the problems that people have with 'analytical subjects'.

In summary, John set out to prove (to himself at least) a model of mind, then prove (again to himself at least) why hypnosis works, then review and refine his hypnotic approach and finally to provide an induction that would work with all analytical subjects. I believe his approach was flawed, leading to a false proof of his model of mind and followed by a false proof of his model of hypnosis. I thought his approach to stripping down the hypnotic approach was good but the results are insufficiently documented to help those that need this kind of shake up. Finally I thought his solution to the 'analytical subjects problem' was nonsense, although he claims it works for him.

My recommendation would be to bypass this ebook and read Elman's Hypnotherapy (if you want a good stripped down approach) or Ratey's A User's Guide to the Brain or Ramachandran's The Emerging Mind (if you want an interesting read on theory).

Kev
kevsheldrake
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Likes Received: 1

#218

Postby Wizard_of_trance » Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:36 pm

kevsheldrake wrote:The Nature of Trance by John Cleesattel / wizardoftrance

At USD20, The Nature of Trance is more expensive than Cialdini's Influence (a book I will review soon) but cheaper than Elman's Hypnotherapy (more on this later). I bought a copy because John mentioned parts of his model on this forum and suggested that his whole model was in this ebook.

My first thought is that this ebook struggles to understand its own identity. Is it a journal of a guy exploring hypnosis? Is it a description of the results of his exploration into hypnosis? Is it a training manual for applying the results of his exploration? Or is it an advert for his own hypnotherapy solutions? It reads like a journal in that it is very much in the first person and has a chatty style. It does describe his results, but in the same style as his first person, chatty approach, his 'research' is personal, subjective and is based on assumptions that I, for one, could not accept without some objective justification.

John was a systems analyst for twenty years (according to his preface) and it shows. Much like the many systems analysts I have worked alongside in the past decade, John appears to have the desire to simplify a process into interrelated component parts and then simplify these parts and the overall process. The danger of this approach is over-simplification through a lack of information about the system. As John did not have access to the internals (the structure and use of the brain), he had to treat it as a black box; a black box approach supposes no knowledge of the contents of the system and models it solely through external interaction. Unfortunately, he then postulated some components of the black box (the conscious mind, the subconscious mind and the superconscious mind) which went against his black box approach.

His choice of 'minds model' was based on his training. This appears to be a combination of Elman and neo-Freudism. Unlike Erickson who guessed at the two minds model (conscious and unconscious), John guessed at the three minds model (conscious, subconscious and superconscious). Estabrooks referred to such models as unscientific in his book Hypnotism. Science has to be testable and models of minds are not generally testable, beyond the fact that no evidence exists to support the models. As metaphors they work perfectly to cause dissociation and to provide fresh perspectives on problems. John, however, was more concerned with whether he could find evidence for them.

Starting with the answer (the model or theory, if you like), John set out to find "evidence" to support it. I think John should have set out to disprove it as I think it would have been just as easy (easier some would say) to find evidence to disprove his model as it was to find evidence to support it. One can still find lots of evidence to support the idea of a flat world, but it only takes a small amount of evidence to disprove it.

By setting out to support his model ("prove" it in his language), John got caught in the same trap as those using circular arguments. The description of the minds became the basis of his evidence to support the existence of the minds. His only additions were much subjective thought and self-examination. Of course, if his model of mind was wrong then he had no basis on which to trust his and others' reports of subjective thoughts and therefore no evidence to support his model.

For example, recent experiments by neuroscientists appear to show that the conscious mind is an illusion, that it narrates post-fact as opposed to deciding pre-fact, that our subjective experience of this mind is time-skewed in our brains so that our 'decisions' coincide with or pre-date the output of our 'decisions'. It appears that decisions are not taken consciously (or what we would generally refer to as consciously), yet we appear to consciously narrate the decision making process after the event, with this narration skewed in time so that it appears to be the decision making process rather than simply the narration of it. Weird and complex, but functionally significant if we are to rely upon reports of subjective thoughts as part of our evidence. I am far from convinced that subjective thought is a good way to obtain evidence.

John made the common (post-NLP anyway) connection between mind and computer. Patterns in NLP-speak became 'macros' in John's ebook. While I have some sympathy with this model, we should always remember that computers to mimic brains still appear to be a long way away. Even if this connection does make sense in the future when computer science is sufficiently advanced, we currently do not have the models that permit us to map the information in the brain, let alone the meshing or interconnections required to provide that information to the regions (processes) that require it.

John defines the superconscious as pretty much Elman's critical faculty. He provides two ways to bypass it, confusion/shock and expectation. By this point, other than the addition of the superconscious it was sounding a lot like every other neo-Ericksonian claim of how hypnotism works: A lot of claim and not a lot of evidence. I'll conclude here on the barrage against John's model because all his additional claims are built on the shaky foundations of his minds model and it would be long-winded and unfair to pick apart each and every claim he subsequently made. It is worth bearing in mind that John believes in his model (or at least his words imply that he does - "(This) explains why trance exists in the first place and how the mind works using it").

Next John discusses the practical applications. He takes what appears a reasonable approach to hypnosis (structurally similar to Elman or Estabrooks), from pre-talk to deepening and test, and then strips out the parts he thinks are unnecessary. This is a worthwhile task but I think John's propensity to over-simplification has led him to discard steps that make the process easier, or to discard steps that in isolation do not appear necessary but may appear so in combination. His resultant process is simple and possibly useful but lacks detail and examples that would bring it to life and make it easily understandable. That said, the resultant model is based around expectation, but with all those minds present it was difficult to understand which minds he thought were 'expecting' at different points in the process.

In the middle of this 'fluffless' model, John states:
If you fully grasp how the subconscious responds to what it expects to happen, and how it
adapts the body in the anticipation of an expected event, you can understand that
physiological changes can also take place.
Everything from hypnotically removing warts, to breast enhancement, utilizes
expectancy. And these trance solutions do work!
To me, it raises the question: "what other physiological changes can be made?"
In the Christian Bible, it notes: "as you believe, so shall you be".


This is the point that I started to wonder whether the ebook was simply a reverse-charge advert. The ebook provides no evidence or justification for wart removal or breast enlargement. A quote from the bible in anything other than jest seriously undermines any objectivity an author hoped to convey. So what was the purpose of these statements? Gain customers was one thought, but really? Was that the plan and would it work? Even if he was only selling hypnosis generally as a solution and not specifically his practice, is that reasonable? I don't think so, but I think the real reasons those words were there elude me.

John concludes with the equation:
(E/R) + T = O/R
Expectancy, divided by the resistance to accept input by the watchdog, plus the triggering of the start of the expected event = the body experiencing the expected outcome divided by the same resistance of acceptance by the watchdog.


Given that objective measurements of the inputs to this equation are not possible, the output simply cannot be calculated and the truth of the equation cannot therefore be tested. The letters in the equation could be completely rearranged and the resultant equation would be just as valid as this one. Both would be just as valid as E=15 (which is to say, untestable and not useful).

John's finale is his induction for analytical subjects. After some rhetoric, John presents Elman's 'three things' induction which Ant teaches as three handshakes. Elman used three puffs on a cigarette but (as John confirms) any three things can be used. It's not a bad induction but I don't think it solves the problems that people have with 'analytical subjects'.

In summary, John set out to prove (to himself at least) a model of mind, then prove (again to himself at least) why hypnosis works, then review and refine his hypnotic approach and finally to provide an induction that would work with all analytical subjects. I believe his approach was flawed, leading to a false proof of his model of mind and followed by a false proof of his model of hypnosis. I thought his approach to stripping down the hypnotic approach was good but the results are insufficiently documented to help those that need this kind of shake up. Finally I thought his solution to the 'analytical subjects problem' was nonsense, although he claims it works for him.

My recommendation would be to bypass this ebook and read Elman's Hypnotherapy (if you want a good stripped down approach) or Ratey's A User's Guide to the Brain or Ramachandran's The Emerging Mind (if you want an interesting read on theory).

Kev


Thank you for posting your opinion about what you believed and what you thought about the information presented in my book.

I accepted when I wrote it that not everyone was going to agree with it, just as others who have read it and use the information very successfully, disagree with you.

However; I respect your right to disagree and present your own opinion and I thank you for posting it.

John :)
Wizard_of_trance
Full Member
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:38 pm
Location: wizardoftrance.com
Likes Received: 0

#219

Postby divrom » Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:50 pm

[quote=kevsheldrake]A quote from the bible in anything other than jest seriously undermines any objectivity an author hoped to convey.[/quote]

Kev, thanks for posting such an in-depth review. I found much that I agreed with and the parts that I disagreed with gave me good food for thought. I was surprised that you weren't more positive towards John's presentation of the expectancy induction. I think it is a nice approach to Elmanesque ideas.

However, your sentence as quoted above strikes me as bizarrely myopic. Perhaps you read different books to me, or perhaps you have a different understanding of what purpose quotes are meant to serve in literature. Either way, I'm surprised to find you writing something like that above.

I recently read an article that included a one-line sentence from a 13th century Muslim mystic. I did not think from that that the author was a Muslim, neither did I think that he necessarily even agreed with the mystic. I simply presumed that he thought the quote summed up what he wanted to say in a rather catchy way.

Some time ago, I read a book by someone who quoted an early Buddhist writer. I thought it was an interesting quote and it served a good purpose. As it turned out, the author was a Buddhist, but I did not think that his quoting of an ancient and beautiful text from within his own community - or the fact that he subscribed to some religion or other - had to question his objectivity (unless of course it was a book on the merits/historicity of that religion).

Finally, just today I read an author who chose to quote a line from John Lennon at one point. I didn't presume that he was an ex-Beatles, a fan of the Beatles, or even particularly keen on the music of Lennon. I certainly didn't assume that he shared Lennon's views on religion, politics or economics. I just think he thought it sounded good.
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#220

Postby elvio_junior » Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:56 pm

Hello Guys

I didin't finish to watch it yet But I am sure it worth . I guess It is most for beginners but there are a lot of good tricks and instructions that serve me a lot.
I ve never hear about Jeffrey but I like his videos and the way he teaches. By the way the set dvd that i like the most is Manchurian Approuch and second Jeffrey because they are simple, they are clear and made it ease for me.
Jeffrey's DVD has 8 modules and shows approuch inductions and some hypnotic treatments

As I said it is most for beginners but I still think could be good to recall some stuffs

:D :D :D
elvio_junior
New Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:40 am
Likes Received: 0

#221

Postby kevsheldrake » Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:01 am

divrom wrote:
kevsheldrake wrote:A quote from the bible in anything other than jest seriously undermines any objectivity an author hoped to convey.


Kev, thanks for posting such an in-depth review. I found much that I agreed with and the parts that I disagreed with gave me good food for thought. I was surprised that you weren't more positive towards John's presentation of the expectancy induction. I think it is a nice approach to Elmanesque ideas.


I think the expectancy model is weak. Many people I have met didn't appear to expect hypnotism to work with them and were then surprised and amazed that it did. In a multi-mind model, one could postulate that it is not 'conscious expectation' that is required but some form of 'unconscious expectation' that cannot be accessed or identified externally or explicitly. I question how evidence of unconscious expectation would be gathered or how we could tell if unconscious expectation had changed.

divrom wrote:However, your sentence as quoted above strikes me as bizarrely myopic. Perhaps you read different books to me, or perhaps you have a different understanding of what purpose quotes are meant to serve in literature. Either way, I'm surprised to find you writing something like that above.


For me, I think a quote needs to have two characteristics: first is a meaning in the original context that is analogous or relevant to the context where it is used; the second is a beauty in the choice and arrangement of words. The idea of a quote 'out of context' does nothing for me, unless its irrelevance is precisely the tool the author was using (for comedy, juxtaposition, etc).

Rather than finding a quote where someone has said, in a different context, a series of words that would seem to fit the current context (ignoring the fact each word might have had a different meaning in the original quote), one could seek a quote by an authority on the current context that appropriately sums up what it is that one wishes to say. Irrelevant quotes feel, to me, like pointless linguistic tricks: attempting to coerce the reader to make a desired link through the presentation of irrelevant information quoted from someone discussing a different topic.

Of course, I'm probably wrong. I went to a rough comprehensive where English was probably taught poorly.

Kev
kevsheldrake
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Likes Received: 1

#222

Postby Wizard_of_trance » Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:44 pm

kevsheldrake wrote:
divrom wrote:
kevsheldrake wrote:
I think the expectancy model is weak. Many people I have met didn't appear to expect hypnotism to work with them and were then surprised and amazed that it did. In a multi-mind model, one could postulate that it is not 'conscious expectation' that is required but some form of 'unconscious expectation' that cannot be accessed or identified externally or explicitly. I question how evidence of unconscious expectation would be gathered or how we could tell if unconscious expectation had changed.

Of course, I'm probably wrong.

Kev


I suggest that you re-read the part about how the different minds handle expectancy differently. This is exactly what you are saying. Where the conscious mind writes the expected event in pencil, because it is familiar with doubt and disappointment and it always looks for options, yet the subconscious automatically reacts anyway.

I have videos on my website and on Youtube showing the expectancy induction working on skeptics with open eye trance, and to their own conscious amazement while their arms levitate. I did this with people who I had not met before, who responded to an ad on craigslist, and it was done in a public restaurant.

Some will check it out and see and understand, and some won't, its okay. All I ask is that you do check it out and decide for yourself.

John
Wizard_of_trance
Full Member
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:38 pm
Location: wizardoftrance.com
Likes Received: 0

#223

Postby kevsheldrake » Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:07 pm

Wizard_of_trance wrote:I suggest that you re-read the part about how the different minds handle expectancy differently. This is exactly what you are saying. Where the conscious mind writes the expected event in pencil, because it is familiar with doubt and disappointment and it always looks for options, yet the subconscious automatically reacts anyway.

I have videos on my website and on Youtube showing the expectancy induction working on skeptics with open eye trance, and to their own conscious amazement while their arms levitate. I did this with people who I had not met before, who responded to an ad on craigslist, and it was done in a public restaurant.


How do you know unconscious expectancy was the cause of the hypnotism? i.e. what evidence or other information do you have that leads you to that conclusion? Human Givens offers a different model that is not based on expectancy. How do you know that your model is correct and theirs is wrong, for instance?

I wonder how you know that the subject even has some unconscious expectation. How would you test for it without using hypnotism as the test? Surely that would result in a cyclic argument.

Kev
kevsheldrake
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Likes Received: 1

#224

Postby Wizard_of_trance » Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:41 pm

kevsheldrake wrote:
Wizard_of_trance wrote:I suggest that you re-read the part about how the different minds handle expectancy differently. This is exactly what you are saying. Where the conscious mind writes the expected event in pencil, because it is familiar with doubt and disappointment and it always looks for options, yet the subconscious automatically reacts anyway.

I have videos on my website and on Youtube showing the expectancy induction working on skeptics with open eye trance, and to their own conscious amazement while their arms levitate. I did this with people who I had not met before, who responded to an ad on craigslist, and it was done in a public restaurant.


How do you know unconscious expectancy was the cause of the hypnotism? i.e. what evidence or other information do you have that leads you to that conclusion? Human Givens offers a different model that is not based on expectancy. How do you know that your model is correct and theirs is wrong, for instance?

I wonder how you know that the subject even has some unconscious expectation. How would you test for it without using hypnotism as the test? Surely that would result in a cyclic argument.

Kev


I have started a discussion specifically about my model, where we can discuss it to our hearts content without hi jacking other discussions.

I address your points in my opening entry, as well as with a link to videos demonstrating it.

John
Wizard_of_trance
Full Member
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:38 pm
Location: wizardoftrance.com
Likes Received: 0


PreviousNext

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Hypnosis