Question: Self-hypnosis in deep states

#75

Postby jimmyh » Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:36 am

I didn’t want to look back in the thread, because I didn’t want to “break” the fascinating experience. I’ve looked back now and “trance-lite” has diluted further, to “this guy is definitely worth listening to”. Which is good, because it’s more appropriate for what’s becoming my little pet n=1 study. (Experiential, qualitative research with no empirical validity whatsoever, and conflict of interest on the part of the author.)


Right, ”worth listening to” is all that’s needed and called for. When I said “I wonder what’s going to happen next time?”, the idea wasn’t to hint “it’s gonna be hypnosis!”, but just to point you to the question of what happens next time because you’re going to have the explicit question to answer of “is this worth ‘defending’ against, or should I actually listen and take it for what it’s worth?” (and the question of "what *is* it worth?"_. It seemed to me that the answer was likely going to be the latter, and that by pointing it out now you’d be more likely to change that response *now* and not have to rely and remembering the connection next time.

Also, it’s worth pointing out that “worth listening to” can be *very* hypnotic, if followed far enough. It depends entirely on how foreign the suggestion is to you, and how much the person communicates that they expect it to not immediately ring true yet be true and useful anyway. For example, if you’re into sci-fi and I say “you should read this sci-fi book”, it doesn’t really take anything special (“okay, cool. I might check it out”). If you *hate* sci-fi, and you know I know you hate sci-fi, and I lean on it and emphasize “you should really read this sci-fi book” *anyway*, it calls for a very different kind of response. Now you need to actually suspend disbelief in order to find the meaning.

Taking it to an extreme, it is true that you don’t have to feel pain. When people get caught up in pain it’s usually not a well thought out decision to do so, and more just an effect of losing touch with the idea that they don’t have to. If you’re in excruciating pain and I come up and say “you don’t have to feel pain”, *actually listening* to that requires taking it in as very hypnotic, because it requires you to shift gears hard and do what is normally considered a “hypnotic phenomenon”.

(Don’t try this at home, folks; it’s stupid to let yourself get hypnotized by a random person on the internet. It wasn't my specific intention, so it sneaked up on me, but with my mind so conditioned by an hour’s worth of deeper self-hypnosis every day, what did I expect??? And I went into the discussion open-eyed, with a conscious decision to be receptive to your ideas, to learn something and to see what would happen.)


Heh. I normally find myself on the side of “it is stupid to let yourself get hypnotized by a random person on the internet”, but I find it amusing to take that stance on something like this. Of all instances of “getting hypnotized by a random person on the internet”, I don’t think it gets much more innocuous than “on a public forum, over the period of weeks and with hours or days between reading posts and responding, by someone who isn’t even trying to hypnotize you and who keeps nudging at the point that you can look at what’s going on without worrying about breaking it”. I guess “who isn’t even trying to hypnotize you” is sorta private knowledge and can be faked to some degree, but it’s not like that doesn’t leak through to some extent too.

When I said “partly that it’s weak in a particular way that doesn’t matter here”, I was referring to the part where only an associative trance is called for. You might have to put aside your disbelief that you could like sci-fi for long enough to consider what I might be meaning with it, but you don’t have to *keep* it away. The way I see it, the stuff about hypnosis that makes it so prone to abuse is that people take it as a reason to accept *dissociative* suggestions, thus masking bad intent and giving the hypnotist more freedom to tweak your mind than you would trust him to use, and relying simply on trust that he *wouldn’t* (or worse, the mistaken and perhaps unseen assumption that he “couldn’t”). For example, stuff like “your conscious mind is drifting away..”/”anything I say becomes your absolute reality without doubt or hesitation” both mean accepting that you let go of your ability to do something about it when the hypnotist gives bad suggestions. Even without that, if you’re suggesting stuff like “your hand is stuck to the table” implies that you’re willing to accept suggestions for things that are 1) literally false, and 2) constrain your behavior beyond what you might want to do.

These kinds of suggestions are all unnecessary, as I see it, and work to make things harder because people *do* recognize (at least to some degree, some of the time) that there is something to be concerned about here. You may have pulled in some aspects of hypnosis that you didn’t need to at first, but I guess I’d still be surprised if you opened up much vulnerabilities in doing so.

Do you really think you gave me any openings to abuse by responding in a hypnotic way here, above and beyond the way you’d open yourself just by virtue of taking convincing ideas seriously?

(to be clear, tone is to be read as “curious” not “suggesting that you shouldn’t”. “Yes” would be surprising/interesting to me, and if the answer is “yes” I certainly want to know)
jimmyh
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:17 pm
Likes Received: 19


#76

Postby jimmyh » Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:47 am

Earlier you mentioned it was either implied or obvious that hypnosis is not just about the act, but the community.

When I said that hypnosis alone wasn’t enough, I didn’t mean that it requires “community” as well, but that you actually have to do something with it. In her recent post, Moonlighttress has been talking about how her response to realizing “this guy is definitely worth listening to” has been calling on her experience being hypnotized. There are differences due to the contexts being different, but at the core hypnosis is all about the focus of attention. My point there was that you have to have something to say. If you have nothing to say, then the act of getting their attention (i.e. “hypnosis”) will be of no use.

In other words, a significant part of the value of the act of hypnosis is only realized through the support of the institution of hypnosis. If not for the institution, the behavior would be seen odd or irrelevant at best and some sort of mental disorder at worst. It is the institution of hypnosis that helps prove the value, that helps legitimize the behavior.

The above is where I am curious what parallels you might acknowledge with the institution, not just the act of prayer. ‘


Okay, I think I see a bit better what you’re talking about now. Maybe.

Yes, without the context of “hypnosis”, a lot of the stuff would come off very very badly. “Everything I say now becomes your absolute reality” — what? Hold on dude, no way. What the hell are you trying to do? If by “institution” you mean less “the group of people and their relationships” and more “the belief structure surrounding and supporting the idea that hypnosis can change things in the way hypnotists say it can”, then yes, that’s definitely part of it. An extreme example of this is that sometimes you can get people over mental blocks simply by hinting that you might have already hypnotized them and fixed that problem. In those cases it is *entirely* the meta level stuff doing the work. In other cases, like the one I mentioned earlier in the thread, the concept of “hypnosis” never comes up at all and therefore can’t factor into what’s happening, yet you still get very focused attention and a freedom from the need to actively disbelieve.

In my personal opinion, it’s a part of the picture I think a lot of hypnotists rely on too heavily, in general. It’s riding on the coattails of previous hypnotists and either diluting the value of the term “hypnosis” if they’re not competent enough to do it justice, or else limiting themselves by tying themselves to the term as commonly understood.


In both cases hypnosis and prayer, the value of the act can be diminished when viewed through the empiricist lens.

This can definitely be true, but it doesn’t have to be. You don’t have to place credit where it’s not due to get the desired effect. Once upon a time my wife had a mental block and couldn’t pee when she was in the ocean. It was clearly just a mental block with nothing of substance behind it, but even though she agreed with that she found herself unable to do it. My response was to play around and say “How about I do a little rain dance? Would that be good enough justification?” and then did a silly little dance and poked her in the forehead, and said “You’re cured. Go pee”. She was laughing because she saw the humor in it, and yet it worked. It wasn’t my rain dance itself, it was the idea that she needed a justification and that I was giving her one.

At the same time though, the whole reason it was funny was that it clearly wasn’t the rain dance itself and it was silly to think she’d need such a blatantly transparent excuse in the first place. There was never any false value placed on the ritual in the first place to get stripped away — or rather, the humor itself was the stripping away, yet doing it in such a way that you still achieve the results, and just no longer need the rain dance anymore.

My argument, is the scratch or flaw in that lens is that it only looks at the value of the act, not the value of the institution.[...]What is not taken into account is the larger systemic benefits of the institution as a whole.



Hypnotists, as a group, are pretty aware of the effects that come from expectancy due to the belief structure surrounding “hypnosis”. “Expectancy” is kinda one of our main hammers, and if you look at what people use for their “pre talks”, utilizing their beliefs about hypnosis and preempting problems that might arise from their beliefs about hypnosis is a very large part of it.

In other words, empiricist use controlled studies to demonstrate at best the act might have a placebo effect. [...]
I’m not trying to make the case that hypnosis = prayer. Instead, I’m simply drawing a comparison that in both cases the benefits of the act cannot be validated/replicated using controlled experiments, i.e. using the tools of the empiricist. The argument then becomes, in my opinion, that it is not necessarily the act that has the most value, but the institution.


It’s hard to do good science on anything that has so many different factors involved that are hard to measure and disentangle, but it’s pretty easy to do small scale personal empiricism. You just have to pay attention to your results, tweak things, and note the differences. Just from playing around with it a bit you can pretty easily get a feel for what kinds of things work and what kinds of things do not. You do have to be careful to distinguish between what you’ve actually observed and what you’re inferring and whether your observations actually support your inferences, of course, but it pretty quickly becomes clear that the way you go about things makes a huge difference. And if the "institution" is unchanged, then it must be due to differences in the "act".

Studying it formally and scientifically is a bit harder, but it's doable all the same. You just have to be a bit more careful with how you select the questions to study and have to accept that you're not going to get the answer to everything in one study. For example, if you wanted to study the effects of hypnotic techniques separate from the "institution" of hypnosis, you could train a random sample of CBT therapists in conversational hypnosis techniques and compare their results to a control group of CBT therapists without such training. You could even make it double blind if you teach conversational hypnosis under some other name (e.g. "communication skills").
jimmyh
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:17 pm
Likes Received: 19

#77

Postby moonlightress » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:29 pm

jimmyh wrote: Right, ”worth listening to” is all that’s needed and called for. When I said “I wonder what’s going to happen next time?”, the idea wasn’t to hint “it’s gonna be hypnosis!”, but just to point you to the question of what happens next time because you’re going to have the explicit question to answer of “is this worth ‘defending’ against, or should I actually listen and take it for what it’s worth?” (and the question of "what *is* it worth?"_. It seemed to me that the answer was likely going to be the latter, and that by pointing it out now you’d be more likely to change that response *now* and not have to rely and remembering the connection next time.

Haha, my mind totally perceived it as “It’s gonna be hypnosis” :D But if you think back, I’m sure you can see why? I’m still amused by how little it took.

Freud’s theory was that ‘defending against’ is the immediate, reflexive response, because it’s an instinctive, basic survival mechanism, which we only give less power to, once we learn to rest more in ourselves. We’re not born with that. Influenced by our experiences in life, we become less, or more defensive and use functional or dysfunctional defense mechanisms. (That’s another area I found fascinating when I was studying psychology). Humour is my favorite, (sublimation into art, my second-favorite) which I’ve cultivated very deliberately since learning about it; it gets me through many perceived-as-threatening situations. I lean too far towards finding threats in areas that some may consider “relatively benign issues” and I throw up dysfunctional defence mechanisms as an immediate, instinctual response. (Ha, spot the intellectualizing...) When I’m not hangry, I will own them; sometimes I can even watch them happening. That’s when I chuck humour at them as a second response. That generally works, at least temporarily and outwardly.

But if I perceive it as an arrow, it penetrates nonetheless, because my inner shield is broken. Then I lick my woulds and make art out of it (and already have an image in mind now). And that does help heal them to some extent. But you know, scar tissue aches in bad weather. And I think this is likely at the root of the issue that the Acknowledgement brought up, and is probably why not getting the process right plus the fast-ensuing arrows, made it so rough. (But fruitful, no regrets.)

I’ll let the response to *next time* happen as it happens and reply with a stream-of-consciousness; and you’re likely to see defending first. Then I’ll slowly (or quickly, since you already suggested it?) get around to your way of thinking. :D :D And when do, there’ll be less of that. That'd be nice.
Taking it to an extreme, it is true that you don’t have to feel pain. When people get caught up in pain it’s usually not a well thought out decision to do so, and more just an effect of losing touch with the idea that they don’t have to. If you’re in excruciating pain and I come up and say “you don’t have to feel pain”, *actually listening* to that requires taking it in as very hypnotic, because it requires you to shift gears hard and do what is normally considered a “hypnotic phenomenon”.

I’m so going to try this, when next I wake with a dull headache (which is almost always from a wrong sleeping position and not a warning of anything). The ones I get in the evening, when I’m tired and just want to sleep, will more than likely still get Advil, if they’re keeping me awake. (Or maybe I shouldn’t say that!)
Heh. I normally find myself on the side of “it is stupid to let yourself get hypnotized by a random person on the internet”, but I find it amusing to take that stance on something like this.

The forum software wouldn’t let me add “Edit <date><time> ”It is stupid to let yourself get hypnotized what some random person on the internet writes” which was what I meant. I’m mindful of the (direct, deliberate and evil, if you look at it through our lens) hypnosis that the internet facilitates politically, where unhappy, alienated people get radicalized by what some random person writes on the internet. They go into permanosis to the extent they’re prepared to blow themselves up. That’s why I added it, as an afterthought.
Of all instances of “getting hypnotized by a random person on the internet”, I don’t think it gets much more innocuous than “on a public forum, over the period of weeks and with hours or days between reading posts and responding, by someone who isn’t even trying to hypnotize you and who keeps nudging at the point that you can look at what’s going on without worrying about breaking it”.

No, it doesn’t get more innocuous than what’s happening here. :D Plus we even have our own security guard on the premises! ;) That’s probably why the trancey not-trance took me by surprise. I couldn’t pinpoint when it became intentional, because there wasn’t such a point, plus it was fun so I didn’t want to “break” it by looking back. Like you said, just the way it’s delivered can induce it, if there’s already permanosis. It could even happen again, without intention on either part. :lol: That would also be fun, and I’ll let you know if it happens.
You may have pulled in some aspects of hypnosis that you didn’t need to at first, but I guess I’d still be surprised if you opened up much vulnerabilities in doing so.

Yes, because it was all I knew. And no, I didn’t think or feel like I did. Perhaps I opened up the willingness to look at some things that could potentially be uncomfortable to look at. That might get scoffed at, because it was happening in public. But it was with very open eyes and there was no obligation to put any of that out here. (Ha. 'open eyes', 'waking hypnosis'.) :lol:
Do you really think you gave me any openings to abuse by responding in a hypnotic way here, above and beyond the way you’d open yourself just by virtue of taking convincing ideas seriously?

Not at all. For all the reasons concerning the innocuity, which was also my assessment prior to it.
moonlightress
Full Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:03 am
Likes Received: 7

#78

Postby moonlightress » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:43 pm

jimmyh wrote:That wasn’t really the objection I anticipated though. “They might be angry with me!” is generally only a concern when you think you might be doing something wrong. Because hey, if you’re clearly doing nothing all wrong and they’re getting angry *they’re* the one with a problem.

Ahhhh, no, but you see, I tend to take on *all* the responsibility for how my actions make them feel, and if they feel angry, or hurt or uncomfortable that’s my doing and I’m the one who feels like a douche. It’s not very often I can look at a situation and think: that’s not ok and the person needs to be called on their behaviour. And when I do feel strongly about it, and work up the courage to do it, I still feel like a douche, even though the problem is theirs. I guess it’s because they goaded me into feelings that I’m really uncomfortable with, so I’m unhappy and they’re unhappy and had I just kept my mouth shut all would have fine, right?

When it’s anger: I don’t think many people like someone coming at them with anger, it provokes them into anger too. Then if it *doesn’t* get resolved, if you don’t both calm down and things really are fine again because you talked them out (the single-point disagreement you talked about way back) it might grow quiet and seem to have stopped, but sometimes it smoulders. And smoulders. And things aren’t the same after that, between you.

The embers die down, and you sweep them under the bed, because they look like they’re dead. Take that very incident I mentioned. I thought we’d sorted it out. I gave her a very sincere apology. Several, in fact. She said, “OK, it’s all fine now” then a whole year later, something happens which makes it abundantly clear it wasn’t all fine. And she’ll never admit it, so it can’t get cleared. And she’s very good at grudges. If it wasn’t an in-law I’d be less concerned, but she isn’t going anywhere.

So the embers you thought were dead are under your bed. You can guess what comes next: you never know when the flames might jump up again because, to mix metaphors horribly, that’s how monsters grow fat under your bed. And how can you sleep when your bed is burning?
:wink:

And I know, what I need to do is douse the embers good and proper, throw them in the bin outside, not my circus, not my monkeys.... that's all I *can* do.
--
The defences *have* to come first. Little messengers have a job to do and won’t go away until you’ve heard them out. Hey, this time, you’re getting both the defences and the considerations in the *same* post.

At the same time though, you are never obligated to protect someone from the consequences of their own actions...
… People will get to you if you feel obligated to see them and respond to them as if they deserve respect, even when they’re not earning it. The moment you let go of that, you can respond to people for what they’re giving you with as much kindness as you want.

I do see it, I do. It's true. It makes total sense. It does. It’d be so nice if cognition was all it took, because I fully agree. I’ll write it on my mirror or something!

Funny enough, put me in a situation where someone close to me is defenceless and under attack, and a Mother Wolf comes out of me. It always catches me by surprise since it’s not at all characteristic of an otherwise very meek me. She’s not vicious, which *is* in keeping with my nature, but she *will* bare her fangs and growl and stand up to the attacker. It’s a very strong emotion and I’ll use it if I have to, but it takes it out of me, and makes me very uneasy. So I push her down, too far down. And then she doesn’t come out until I get pushed too far again, she roars out, I get uneasy again and so the cycle continues. sh**, just talking about her now, and recalling how I felt yesterday, I can feel her rumbling in my chest, ugh.

Clarissa Pinkola Estes tells a story about the mother wolf, in her book “Women who run with the Wolves”. How women are socialized to be “nice” and “polite” and not to bare their fangs or make others uncomfortable. How it makes us mentally and physically ill because we push a part of ourselves into our unconscious, and of course it doesn’t go away. Stories as medicine, to heal our illness and reclaim the wild woman.
How beautifully I intellectualize. Sigh.

Can you look into their eyes and let their soul be crushed by your honest opinion,, or would you flinch and hide your view? Because I think that’s at the crux of your issue here.

The latter, of course. And yes, I think that’s accurate.

But do we have to crush their souls? I *know* it’s only an example you’re using to make a point, and I know what you mean, but my mind is wincing at the image and I need this the Kaizen way. If that could be toned down to “can you look into their eyes and let them be hurt by your honest opinion because the situation calls for it to be said?” - then yes, I need to, and want to do that, but I would really prefer it to only go as far as “can you look into their eyes and let them be hurt by your honest opinion because the situation calls for it to be said, while only feeling manageable discomfort?”. I *want* to be able to do it when called for, and without flinching, but I’d be concerned about losing the empathy if I don’t feel at least a manageable, minor discomfort. Just the first step. I could start entertaining that idea.

----

Something’s just occurred to me. If I were to run the first step of the Acknowledgement with the person, along with looking them in the eye, <Honest opinion> <i know that not what you want to hear and it probably makes you feel xxx and that's understandable> but <honest opinion> -- that would kill 2 birds with one stone. Evoke the empathy, for them *and* ease the flinching, for me.
That image works for me. Feels much more manageable.

Why didn’t I think of that before.... It’s what I used to do with my children. “No, you can’t have ice cream an hour before dinner. Yes, I know you really want it and you’re angry with me that you can’t have it. But we’ll have it *after* dinner.” Okay, it’s easier with children, but still, the idea would work for me. Soften the blow. Harder to be angry with someone who’s listening to you, like you said earlier. I could see myself being able to do that.

Wait. Am I busy realizing my way out of the problem?


What are you doing to me??????????? :P
moonlightress
Full Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:03 am
Likes Received: 7

#79

Postby moonlightress » Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:11 pm

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:Yep. The pointer is that you close the books and you put your feet on the floor.

Children learn there is no monster by doing, not by thinking their way out of the ‘monster under the bed’ dilemma. Children take a quick look, they jump out of bed so the monster can’t get them, they run to flip the light on. Children don’t try to intellectualize about the monster.

Adults forget how to be children, so they try to read their way out of an issue that is resolved by doing.

So let me practice this:

Richard, that was uncalled for. I was in a shitty and vulnerable place emotionally, doing the diametrical opposite of intellectualizing or reading, and asking for some help with how to work the Acknowledgement process. I think the metaphor made that clear.

Yes it’s a public forum and, we all have freedom of speech. Yes, you have as much right to be here as anyone else and you’re always free to give your opinion whenever you want to. But that doesn’t mean you can't at least treat me with a modicum of decency. Kicking someone when they’re down is unkind and it was out of line.

I know you may not see it that way and of course you’re free to defend yourself, if you think I'm being unfair.
moonlightress
Full Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:03 am
Likes Received: 7

#80

Postby Joe100 » Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:32 pm

moonlightress wrote:Back to the acknowledgment.
I'm stuck again and need some help with this, is that ok?

I picked up where I left off yesterday and wrote a whole essay, explaining Carl Jung's take on this issue, which was all pure intellectualizing to avoid looking at it. 8) Knowing about how it works doesn't mean you can avoid doing the work.

I don't want to post personal stuff, so to just boil it down to the example I used in my essay when I was talking about a general archetypal human problem a la Carl Jung, which children put words to because they are more in touch with their feelings:

"Why does that make me feel insecure?
- because there is a monster under my bed and I’m scared it will eat me if I go to sleep."

Lots of difficult emotion with my own version of this– where do I go from here?

"Why is there a monster under my bed?", doesn’t seem to fit.
"Why am I scared it will eat me?" – I really have no f.. clue. This is where I get impatient with myself and flip to “there is no monster under your bed, now go to sleep”.
If I go to ‘can you think of a time when it did eat you?’ it isn't acknowledgement anymore, which is the whole point of doing this here, then it just becomes psychoanalytic and this isn’t a therapy room ffs, plus there are people listening.

Can you give me a pointer, so I can get unstuck from my third time round in this horrible place with my feet up off the floor 'cause of the monster under my bed?


Yep. Why am I scared it will eat me?

If that gets impatience, there is a good chance there's good stuff there!

So now it's time to go meta.
I wish I knew why I was scared...
Or
I wish I wasn't being so irrational
Or
I wish I wasn't stuck

Or preferably all of them. Then you back to "why am I scared it will eat me?" And see what happens. You might get static again and need to meta again. So do that and then come back to it again.

Run a few rounds and let us know what happens.

In essence, whenever you get stuck or static, acknowledge that, then get back to where you were.
Joe100
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:51 pm
Likes Received: 5

#81

Postby moonlightress » Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:08 pm

jimmyh wrote:... There’s actually a blog post I’ve been sitting on for a while that relates to this. I got off my donkey and published it this morning so you could read it.

https://cognitiveengineer.blogspot.com/2018/09/on-magic-of-actually-looking-and.html

I hadn't forgotten this.

I woke up in the middle of the night, the other night and this thought came into my mind, "do I *really* turn my handlebars to the left first, before I turn right? It sounds wrong...." -- Stay outta my sleep, willya? :lol:

It's been open in a tab on my browser since you posted it and I've probably read it around 7 times. Every time I think, "right, I must get to it, and give you some feedback" and go read it again, I come away feeling very dense because even after all those times through, I still don't understand what you're saying. :?
moonlightress
Full Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:03 am
Likes Received: 7

#82

Postby moonlightress » Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:17 pm

Joe100 wrote:Run a few rounds and let us know what happens.

In essence, whenever you get stuck or static, acknowledge that, then get back to where you were.

Awesome, thank you. I'll do that. :)
By "static" - do you mean the opposite of dynamic or do you mean interference?
moonlightress
Full Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:03 am
Likes Received: 7

#83

Postby jimmyh » Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:18 am

Taking it to an extreme, it is true that you don’t have to feel pain. When people get caught up in pain it’s usually not a well thought out decision to do so, and more just an effect of losing touch with the idea that they don’t have to. If you’re in excruciating pain and I come up and say “you don’t have to feel pain”, *actually listening* to that requires taking it in as very hypnotic, because it requires you to shift gears hard and do what is normally considered a “hypnotic phenomenon”.


I’m so going to try this, when next I wake with a dull headache (which is almost always from a wrong sleeping position and not a warning of anything). The ones I get in the evening, when I’m tired and just want to sleep, will more than likely still get Advil, if they’re keeping me awake. (Or maybe I shouldn’t say that!)


It's generally a good idea to listen to pain. Not only does it make you less likely to hurt yourself, it keeps it nice and easy to put pain aside when you know you can trust yourself to listen when it's important. Even your morning headaches seem like a warning to not sleep like that again. My general response to headaches is to say "okay, I get it", stop what I'm trying to do and rest. I don't think I've had that fail to relieve the pain yet.
jimmyh
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:17 pm
Likes Received: 19

#84

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:26 am

moonlightress wrote:So let me practice this:


Terrific!

Again, just my opinion, if the level of discourse that has taken place thus far is so disconcerting to you, then I would suggest that this is a safe place for you to practice.

If a person believes they are in a shitty or emotionally vulnerable place, then they probably are not doing themselves any favors by going to the town square, standing on the steps and laying out their perceived issues to the public. I think the Internet with the anonymity it can provide sometimes gives the illusion that it is a more personal conversation. It’s not.

In my opinion nothing that has been said in this thread by any person has even come close to being “uncalled for”. This is what I find most interesting. I admittedly struggle, because it is difficult for me to imagine the egg shells people must navigate to meet your expectations as to not offend. It is for this reason I do believe that it is good practice.

What about this response do you now find offensive? If it strikes you the wrong way, is it again my fault?
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 996

#85

Postby moonlightress » Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:14 pm

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:What about this response do you now find offensive? If it strikes you the wrong way, is it again my fault?
Actually, this is the nicest reply I've ever read from you. It’s not offensive. It's the modicum of decency I asked for. That’s clearly what I should have written, instead of “That’s enough, Richard,” which was a shooting-from-the-hurt-hip response.

The way I read it, you’ve given your honest opinion and explained the difficulty you have with my actions. We don’t agree with each other, but your opinion is not offensive. (If I may give you a little feedback? It's generally not your opinions that are offensive, it's the way they're offered up.)

What I do agree with, is this advice you give (and I’ll explain why I did what I did):
If a person believes they are in a shitty or emotionally vulnerable place, then they probably are not doing themselves any favors by going to the town square, standing on the steps and laying out their perceived issues to the public. I think the Internet with the anonymity it can provide sometimes gives the illusion that it is a more personal conversation. It’s not.

This is good general advice. What you’re doing is telling the weeping woman on the steps in the town square, “this isn’t the best place or the best way to go about it…” and explaining why it isn’t. Even if you do nothing else, it’s helpful and it's even worded kindly here. I do think though, that this was more a case of the somewhat distressed woman standing on the steps, asking “Please can someone tell me how to help myself, because I’m in a hole here?”

The territory of this wee corner of the Internet has these street signs: Uncommon Knowledge Forum: Mental health, Personal development, Community support, and where we are now: Self Help > Hypnosis. I don’t think this little town square is an entirely inappropriate place to ask for self help tips from hypnotists, about a recommended process they're trying out for themselves, and stuck with?

Lastly, though it might appear that way at a cursory glance, this thread isn’t actually about me or my issues. It’s first and foremost about Jimmy explaining how he thinks and works and my being a student and “demo guinea pig”. My issues *have* to come up, otherwise it’d be a purely academic discussion. The theory is fascinating, but don’t you think it’s kinda cool to see it unfold in practice, at the same time? It’s certainly intriguing for me to experience, first-hand.

And you’re contributing to the academic discussion, with questions that enable Jimmy to explain his thinking. You have a role to play here.
moonlightress
Full Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:03 am
Likes Received: 7

#86

Postby jimmyh » Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:56 pm

Ahhhh, no, but you see, I tend to take on *all* the responsibility for how my actions make them feel, and if they feel angry, or hurt or uncomfortable that’s my doing and I’m the one who feels like a douche.


Anger isn’t necessarily a bad thing though. It’s a bad thing to give people things to be rightfully angry about. If you’ve given them nothing to be angry about and they’re angry anyway, that’s *fine*. Point them at the question of whether you deserve their anger and see what happens.




I gave her a very sincere apology. Several, in fact.

There’s your first hint. If you can’t accept your own apology, you’re telling her that she shouldn’t accept it either. No wonder she’s still pissy at you.

She said, “OK, it’s all fine now” then a whole year later, something happens which makes it abundantly clear it wasn’t all fine. And she’ll never admit it, so it can’t get cleared. And she’s very good at grudges. If it wasn’t an in-law I’d be less concerned, but she isn’t going anywhere.


She doesn’t have to admit it to get it cleared. If she doesn’t want to talk about it, let her not do the talking. If she wants to pretend she’s over it, let her pretend. “Man, I’m glad you forgive me because honestly I don’t know if I’d be able to if I were in your shoes. I’d just feel like <exactly what you think she feels like, and why>”. She either has to agree that it’s worth being mad (in which case she’s back to admitting it and you can work from there) or she has to start to accept that maybe those aren’t good reasons to continue being mad at you.


The defences *have* to come first. Little messengers have a job to do and won’t go away until you’ve heard them out. Hey, this time, you’re getting both the defences and the considerations in the *same* post.

Hi messenger. I’m definitely want to hear you out if it’s important to you, but before you get started… is it really about the things you’re saying, or are you just trying to say *anything* that might get you some more space and safety? Because if it’s about space and safety I absolutely respect that, and you don’t have to make up excuses in order for me to respect your space and safety.

I think I’ve been pretty clear that there’s no pressure to accept or look into anything you’re not comfortable accepting or looking into, but I’ll say it again just to make sure. It’s always okay to not engage with things you’re not ready to engage with, and you don’t need to justify it to anyone.

Do you still feel like you have to say the defensive things right now?

But do we have to crush their souls? I *know* it’s only an example you’re using to make a point, and I know what you mean, but my mind is wincing at the image and I need this the Kaizen way. If that could be toned down to “can you look into their eyes and let them be hurt by your honest opinion because the situation calls for it to be said?” - then yes, I need to, and want to do that, but I would really prefer it to only go as far as “can you look into their eyes and let them be hurt by your honest opinion because the situation calls for it to be said, while only feeling manageable discomfort?”.


Sometimes, yes. The milder it is, the easier it is. However, there is a reason I chose that example in particular rather than one where the person felt only mild discomfort. Live enough, and there are always going to be cases that involve larger and larger pains. At the point where you say “no more, not looking at it”, that’s the point where you can no longer respond with empathy or be effective.

Regardless of what I did or said, it was always going to be the case that the guy had been a douche. The question is only whether I act to distract him from the reality or if I point him towards it — and if I point him towards it, do I help him make it more manageable. Because I had a hundred more people to spend my limited time with who came to celebrate with us, and because he was such a blatant douche about it, helping him manage his emotions that being a douche to me had caused him was not a favor I inclined to do.

I *want* to be able to do it when called for, and without flinching, but I’d be concerned about losing the empathy if I don’t feel at least a manageable, minor discomfort. Just the first step. I could start entertaining that idea.


Right. Keep the empathy, see the pain. And if it’s called for, do it anyway. If it’s going to crush his soul, it just means you have to be able to manage the discomfort of seeing him in that pain. I didn’t do it recklessly. It’s not like I was pretending that it wouldn’t hurt or that “I’m justified, therefore I don’t have to look at it”. I looked at it, saw how much it would hurt if he saw himself the way I saw him, and I did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.


Something’s just occurred to me. If I were to run the first step of the Acknowledgement with the person, along with looking them in the eye, <Honest opinion> <i know that not what you want to hear and it probably makes you feel xxx and that's understandable> but <honest opinion> -- that would kill 2 birds with one stone. Evoke the empathy, for them *and* ease the flinching, for me.
That image works for me. Feels much more manageable.


Sure. That’ll work well in any case where you feel like person is worth addressing like that. In the cases where they aren’t, that’s when that approach is going to start to build resentment in you because now they’re “making” you do things that you don’t want to do.


Wait. Am I busy realizing my way out of the problem?


Impossible! Insight is always disconnected from action, right? :P
jimmyh
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:17 pm
Likes Received: 19

#87

Postby jimmyh » Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:57 pm

I woke up in the middle of the night, the other night and this thought came into my mind, "do I *really* turn my handlebars to the left first, before I turn right? It sounds wrong...." -- Stay outta my sleep, willya?


Get on a bike. Try it, and watch what your hands do. Watch what happens when you don’t let them turn the wheel left first and try to turn right simply by turning right.

Or better yet… close your eyes, let go of your expectations about what “should” happen just like you do in a formal trance, and watch what *does* happen when you wiggle the handlebars as you ride that simulated bike.

It's been open in a tab on my browser since you posted it and I've probably read it around 7 times. Every time I think, "right, I must get to it, and give you some feedback" and go read it again, I come away feeling very dense because even after all those times through, I still don't understand what you're saying.


Huh. oh well. Let me know if you have any questions that could help clarify it for ya.
jimmyh
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:17 pm
Likes Received: 19

#88

Postby moonlightress » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:25 pm

jimmyh wrote:Get on a bike. Try it, and watch what your hands do. Watch what happens when you don’t let them turn the wheel left first and try to turn right simply by turning right.

I did. :) Had to run some errands, and at every turn, I noticed it. But funny, you don't think of it being that way if you try to think about it.

Huh. oh well. Let me know if you have any questions that could help clarify it for ya.

I'm still trying to parse it, so yeah, I'll do that. Feels like if the penny would drop for me, it'll be a useful insight.
moonlightress
Full Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:03 am
Likes Received: 7

#89

Postby jimmyh » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:23 pm

And then the bit about “and with a keen eye you can spot them”… I thought, if that isn’t an indirect suggestion, I don’t know what is! .

“Can”. Not “need to”, or I would have pointed them out, as I’ve been pointing out the things that I find important :P
But I don't understand what you mean here. I would say that what I’ve learned about responding to suggestions in formal hypnosis, is to accept them? Bypassing the critical factor and all that? Isn’t the point that in hypnosis you accept and don’t contemplate suggestions? [...]
I must've misunderstood the definition of permanosis; is it not that there was NON-contemplative suggestibility and acceptance of suggestions?



When I mentioned “permanosis”, I qualified it with “bears some resemblance to (a partial and consciously mediated)” because it definitely is not the exact same thing as discussed in that thread. You’re correctly picking up on the big difference.

When you’re handed a piece of information, what do you do with it? In hypnosis mode, you’ll accept it at face value, not even bothering to check for consistency with the rest of your worldview. In defensive mode, you reject it with any excuse you can. In defensive mode, you don’t check your rejection justifications for consistency, and you could almost say you’re “hypnotized to reject”. In hypnosis, people are often disallowing (or trying to disallow) checking for consistency the *lack* of consistency checking. “It doesn’t matter if it makes sense, this is hypnosis and I get to believe what I want”.

What I’m doing is going meta and pointing your awareness at the question of how much you *should* be critical and looking to reject what I say vs how much you want to really dive into it and explore the idea as something that is potentially real and true, the way you would in hypnosis. Your impulse is to react defensively in order to protect yourself. Do you need to do that? Here? With me, in this context?

Ideally, if I’m doing my job right, the answer will be “no”. If I’m doing my job right, it’ll be the kind of “no” that’s *just true*, and when you find yourself seeing this, the need to defend yourself just melting away, because your perception of the danger has just melted away before it. If you just *want* to say “no”, but it comes out in a defensive “no, but I can’t help it” sort of way, then that would mean “yes, I do still feel like I need it” — and it would mean that this is the sticking point to be resolved first before I can communicate what I expect to be helpful to you.

To continue with the explanation, the idea is that once you can look at the situation and realize that you don’t *have to* defend yourself, you can start looking at the question of whether this information is expected to be true and useful, and how strongly. Sometimes the answer will be “this person doesn’t know what they’re talking about, so I’m not gonna try too hard to make sense of what they’re saying”, but when you *know* the person wouldn’t be saying things unless they’re both true and useful, then when they say something surprising you get that “drop” feeling. For example, if a five year old says “2+2=5”, you just think “silly kid, it’s four”. If God himself came down and said it, it would be a very different kind of feeling. Like “woah, this is profound.. I don’t even know which way is up anymore”. It’s not that you’re “hypnotized” in the sense that you’re deliberately not checking things for consistently because you’re supposed to accept them, it’s just that inconsistency with your worldview is expected and therefore not interesting. You’re still going to want to bring it into coherence with your worldview *eventually*, since that’s how you make sense of things and get to use the information most fully. When you do though, it’s going to be with the focus of “understanding your suggestion so that I can accept it” rather than “rejecting it”.

It’s a matter of degree. Once you feel like you can afford to engage with my ideas fully and without holding back, how likely are they to be true and useful? What I say isn’t going to jive perfectly with your current way of seeing things, or it wouldn’t be new. How strongly does it need to contradict before you start to doubt what I’m saying? If “not very strongly”, then yes, it has little to do with hypnosis, and it’s good you’re not allowing yourself to be hypnotized because then you’d be believing things that you likely would find good reasons to reject. If “very strongly, I expect that this guy knows what he’s talking about”, then what’s the difference? Other than eventually getting back to bringing your old perspective in line so that you can have a broader base of support for your worldview, and so that there’s a sanity check in case I miss something?


So what are the things to take from the formal hypnosis and apply on the spot? Because it doesn't sound like you mean "accept them"...


The thing to take from formal hypnosis is the ability to discard your critical impulses when you can see them to be irrelevant. Someone with no experience with hypnosis might not even know what it looks like to not be critical of things. When you say “how much does it make sense to focus on finding reasons I might be wrong, vs finding out what it would mean to you if I were to be right?”, most people would have to figure out what the latter even looks like on the spot.

You, with your experience with hypnosis, can just be like “here comes the drop”, because you recognize that there’s nothing there to reject or be overly critical of. You still have to make the decision of whether to respond in hypnosis mode or critical mode or defensive mode or what, but you can make that decision beforehand and the path has already been seen and carved for you to actually accept things when you can see that they’re worth accepting.

Does that make any more sense?
jimmyh
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:17 pm
Likes Received: 19


PreviousNext

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Hypnosis