Models

[Wildcard]

Since we discuss models alot on this forum...the pros and cons...I thought it would be nice to start a thread to see what models the different forum members use and why they particulary like that specific model.

So my question is... "what model do you use?"

Or maybe you use a combination of more than one model...or it could be you dont use a model at all and "just do it!"...

Another question would be..."if you use a specific model...or not...how do you get a suggestion to stick and be carried out?"...

I´ve seen questions like this be asked quite alot here...for example when it comes to the "CF"...but when asked "how" to bypass the CF the answers become sort of ....i dont know...as if noone really knows.

So...contribute people...all answers are welcome...there are no right or wrong answers and what works for you is fine.

[Anthony Jacquin]

I use an extension of the Cognitive-Behavioural Model. The extension was discovered by myself and Kev on a road trip. For want of a better name we call it the 'Imagination Model'. It might also be called Neo Cognitive-Behavioural Model.

The model does not involve 'sleep', 'trance' or 'increased suggestibility'. Mind is not referenced, conscious, unconscious or otherwise, neither is the Critical Factor or depth. Inductions are not required.

Everything I have learnt about hypnosis (and I have ran with a few models in my time) and every hypnotic utterance I have ever made in the last 16 years (direct or indirect) can be comfortably accomodated by this model. The advantages it has over other models IMO is that it is effective at taking a poor subject and making them good. It has good scientific research to back it up. It is easy to learn and apply whether your aim is therapeutic or performance related.

Anthony

[Ben1987]

Great idea to start such a thread, Wildcard, since it holds promise for
some fruitful exchange of ideas.

My understanding of hypnosis is continuously evolving, therefore I'm anytime open
to change or alter my model of hypnosis.


I'm heavily influenced by James Tripp and his Hypnosis Without Trance approach.
I have adopted his model of hypnosis as well. In short it explains
hypnosis as the alteration of a person's subjective reality, by addressing
their beliefs and imagination. The fundamental mechanism explainng hypnosis
in this model is what James calls the hypnotic loop (the 'BIPE' how like to call it).
A circular mental process, composed of the four elements Belief, Imagination, Physiology,
Experience (in that exact order), whereby any element affects the successive one.

The main practical ramifications of this model are that it highlights how to
enter the hypnotic process at any of these four points. As well as, the lack
of necessity to induce a form of altered state, getting to the nitty-gritty
right away.

(When it comes to the CF, I think hypnosis to be more the bypass of the c-facutlty,
but it's nonetheless a prerequisite to the hypnotic process. For most subjects,
it's sufficient to establish a good relationship to you and the process and then
get them really focused, in my practical experience.)



However I feel currently more and more compelled to a pure socialdynamic interpretation
of hypnosis. The reason for this is, that up to the point I haven't been convinced of the genuine
nature of hypnotic phenomena but could see how a subject's behaviour is a
mere reaction to the drama and demand of the hypnotic situation.



@Anthony
You appear to have found the hypnotic grail with your model, I talked to Joe
yesterday during the webinar and it got me excited to learn more.


-Ben

[Makata]

I use an extension of the Cognitive-Behavioural Model. The extension was discovered by myself and Kev on a road trip. For want of a better name we call it the 'Imagination Model'. It might also be called Neo Cognitive-Behavioural Model.

The model does not involve 'sleep', 'trance' or 'increased suggestibility'. Mind is not referenced, conscious, unconscious or otherwise, neither is the Critical Factor or depth. Inductions are not required.

Everything I have learnt about hypnosis (and I have ran with a few models in my time) and every hypnotic utterance I have ever made in the last 16 years (direct or indirect) can be comfortably accomodated by this model. The advantages it has over other models IMO is that it is effective at taking a poor subject and making them good. It has good scientific research to back it up. It is easy to learn and apply whether your aim is therapeutic or performance related.

Anthony

I'd love to learn more about this!

Lester

[Anthony Jacquin]

Thanks Ben.

Come on boys show us your model? At least the model you find most useful to work with?

Anthony

[Makata]

My hypnotic paradigms are currently/perpetually forming--and frankly, it's not so much that I have one ruling/guiding paradigm, as I have a number of things I consider and keep in mind, and seek to utlilize in order to gain my desired effect. In my world, one map of reality doesn't necessarily negate another--and functionality is my primary concern.

I can let you in on some of my personal influences, though...

1. Buddhist meditation/Buddhist psychology

2. Taoist meditation (Qi Gong) and philosophy

3. my martial arts training, and some of the more esoteric meditative practices found therein (this is a deep influence on my POV)

4. whatever I picked up as a stage performer (acting, spoken word, occasionally screaming into a microphone at punk rock shows)

4. the influence of the following authors and trainers (some of whom I've met/trained with, some of whom I've only read/studied on DVD, CD, misc. electronic media--in no particular order of importance):

--Miyamoto Musashi
--Takuan Soho
--Yagyu Munenori
--Jelaluddin Rumi
--Arthur Rimbaud
--Friedrich Nietzsche
--Ranier Maria Rilke
--C.J. Jung
--Austin Osman Spare
--Henry Miller
--Milton Erickson
--Andre Breton
--Dave Elman
--George Estabrooks
--Paul Eluard
--Bruce Lee
--William Burroughs
--Raoul Vaneigem
--Harlan Ellison
--Taisen Deshimaru
--Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche
--Richard Bandler/John Grinder
--Robert Anton Wilson
--Carlos Castaneda
--Kenneth Rexroth
--Steve Heller
--Jim Morrison
--Iggy Pop
--Jim Channon
--Col. John Alexander
--John Overdurf/Julie Silverthorn
--Stephen Wolinsky
--"Tatang" Antonio Ilustrisimo
--Willam Ewart Fairbarn
--Col. Rex Applegate
--Tony Blauer
--Marc MacYoung
--Geoff Thompson
--Carl Cestari
--Doug O'Brien
--Igor Ledochowski
--Noah Levine/Stephen Levine
--Marcus Wynne
--Anthony Jacquin
--Mark Cunningham
--Tom Vizzini/Kim McFarland
--Jeff Stephens
--Jack Elias
--Alan Moore
--Henry Rollins
--Richard Strozzi Heckler
--Nick Cave
--Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles" series (Brilliant Stuff!)

5. A bunch of more off-beat/off-color stuff I'd rather not discuss on a public forum!

My various influences may alternately support and/or contradict each other, and I'm okay with that. Frankly, I don't view all of this entirely "scientifically"--rather, I view the entire suchness of "hypnosis" like an artist: like a musician, a writer, a martial artist and a poet--I'm constantly learning, and I'm enjoying the journey as I go.

If I had to state what particular stuff I most currently rely upon: I'd say I default towards Buddhist psychology, the insights, strategies and tactics I've picked up from my martial/combatives training, whatever I've gathered from performing onstage/watching performers onstage/street performances, and anything I've studied that supports/confirms those various realizations.

Cheers,
Lester

[Joe100]

Here is one of my models

Enjoy!

http://wikihyp.com/?p=139

Joe

[RoryZ]

All this talk of models just seems to leave me with a strange distaste in my mouth.

My model is: Get the subject into a trance state using words/actions/tools combined with n. amount of ingenuity. Deepen in similar manner. Voila.

Perhaps this is just me being a cop out at research or maybe it suggests that theory often tends to ruin practical subjects for me.

Or maybe I just like a little variation in my life.

[Anthony Jacquin]

Hi Rory,

I understand the get on and do approach.

Your post clarifies your model - it is a trance based model based on depth of trance.

Anthony

[RoryZ]

Your post clarifies your model - it is a trance based model based on depth of trance.

And there I was thinking I was being a smartarse and getting out of having a model.

I woulda got away with it too if it wasn't for you pesky hypnotists.

[Wildcard]

Well...since Im the one that opened the thread I guess I should contribute a little myself.

I use a suggestibility model based on attention, expectation, emotions, and beliefs. In this model you dont raise or lower suggestibility per se.

Its a state based model where depth is of no concern.

It also doesnt use concepts such as consciousness, subsconscious, or mind.

Oh...forgot to add the most important part...its not finished yet but its the coolest model yet. No..really...Im serious!!!

[Joe100]

Automatic reaction squared

Automatic reaction = any action/thought/feeling/sensation that the subject believes he didn't directly create.

Emotions are good examples of automatic reactions. So are reflexes. So is processing language. So is automatically keeping balance when you walk. So is 99.999% of what we do at any given moment.

When then subject automatically reacts and accepts the suggestion 'automatically' that he automatically reacts to the hypnotist, you can do anything.

No conscious, no subconscious, no trance, no state, no mind, no imagination, nothing

Is that hypnosis? Who cares. Maybe thats lollypop. What I do know is that when you have that you can create any hypnotic effect.

Have a listen to the audio... http://wikihyp.com/?p=139 it's fully explained there.



Joe

[Ben1987]

@RoryZ

Perhaps this is just me being a cop out at research or maybe it suggests that theory often tends to ruin practical subjects for me.

Does it?

First of all a bit of over-enthusiasm never killed somebody, still
you might reevaluate the importance of models in hypnosis for yourself.


Models do have a high practical impact, since they provide us with an idea
of how to understand hypnosis, as well as what to do actually as hypnotists.

We are not a club of dirty old men here , engaging in mere theoretical hypnosis
fantasizing about potential explanations of this phenomenon.

Most hypnotists in this forum actively perform hypnosis and therefore require
answers to the questions above.



Think of a model as a map - a simplified representation of the world.

A map is build upon observation. Where does this mountain lie in relation
to the river? Where does the desert start? Where does it end?

The practical implication of a map is self-evident - it allows us to navigate
in the world. How to come from my village to the next town?

While it might be possible to simply travel small distances without
a map*, no problem here, you'd better buy a map if you want to become
a true world-traveller.
(* even then you've got a internal map in your head)

Well the point is there are actually different maps of the world
and while some might be of lesser quality, therefore less helpful to guide
you through the world, there might be others that you might find more suited
to accompany you on your adventures. (Or don't limit yourself to just one version
but pick several maps that you find useful and use them in parallel.)

For example if you'd travel long distances and suddenly you find yourself
in the middle of a jungle, while there's non noted on your map -
the map might be something missing.


From my own personal experience I can clearly tell you that my abilities
as a hypnotists skyrocketed once I changed my understanding of hypnosis:
Namely dropping the trance model.


You might consider the following questions:
What is trance? Does it even exist? And most important: Is the idea of a
trance state as a prerequisite for doing hypnosis a helpful one?

I suggest you listen to Joe's excellent seminar it might help you as well.



@Simon
Yeah, would love to learn more about your model.
Just post it once it's presentable.



-Ben

[Craig34]

Hey guys

Only just saw the thread so here goes,

For me, I am much the same as many on here, having been on joes Skype conference the other night ( Fanastic joe, by the way, and thanks ). It occured to me that this is kind of what I already do.

I started off doing long winded inductions, and trying to go for A " depth " which I would find useful per se, but with all the practice hours I had put in there was one thing I was missing and did not see at the time.

People were already responding to certain suggestions i made outside of " trance ". it would then literally be, once I had built their expectation and imagination to the right point i could say virtually anything or just nod and people would go into that state.

Once they were there, they ARE suggestible, I no longer go for depth of trance, as once they are responding to me, why bother? they are already doing as required.

I have used miltons techniques, ( not for me ) at this time, but an area I keep working on to always try and improve, I currently use a combination of James Tripps HWT, dave elman, and anything else which comes into play at the time, but they are my main two. unless people want to see what is all over tv programs and then ill use some of Ants inductions and set pieces, but those are mainly for when I am having fun and someone wants to take part with their friends as it looks a little more dramatic.

So in a nutshell, waking suggestion, HWT, and dave elman for me, however, knowing me, this may change next week lol.

PS Ant,

Very interesting model, and im still waiting for the explanation mate, as you seriously have me intrigued. go figure lol.

All the best

Craig

[jess1218]

Come on boys show us your model? At least the model you find most useful to work with?

Anthony

And girls.....

I tend to stick with an ericksonian type model. The conscious and unconscious mind are like a flash light in a dark room. Where ever the light is concentrated is where the conscious mind (or awareness ) is. and every where that awareness is not, is the unconscious.

I do maintain a trance based orientation however I don't really concern myself with issues like depth and levels of trance.

cheers,

jess