Models

#15

Postby Anthony Jacquin » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:06 pm

Sorry Jess. It's just a phrase :)

The model you have described is the model I have used in therapy for years with great results.

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


#16

Postby jess1218 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:16 pm

Anthony Jacquin wrote:Sorry Jess. It's just a phrase :)

The model you have described is the model I have used in therapy for years with great results.

Anthony


yea I know, was just teasing :D

Yes I find it quite effective for therapy as well as teaching. I'm not convinced it carries over into other areas like street hypnosis very well though.

jess
jess1218
Full Member
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:25 am
Location: US
Likes Received: 1

#17

Postby quicknotist » Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:38 pm

Anyone who has seen my training will know that I'm fairly transparent about my non-state, non-depth, sociocognitive/response-expectancy/psychological attribution combo.

However, I also believe this very model dictates (somewhat paradoxically) that outside of the training room it's actually the subject's model which is important.

In entertainment, when I'm not working with individuals, I'm playing the numbers game so tend to present the generic model which gets the most/best subjects.

In the clinic, on the stage or street I have neither the time or inclination to educate subjects in my model so yes, I appear to contradict myself and use state and depth language with them.

I'm even not above going with an "all hypnosis is self-hypnosis" model AS LONG AS I'm still clearly demonstrating on some level that it's happening BECAUSE I'm right there.

Ironically, this still fits my model fine and I'm entirely comfortable with this kind of duality.

This is what I mean when I make bold statements like "Never tell them it's not what they think: On some level, by definition, it's precisely what they think."

And THAT is what I believe being "subject-centered" is all about - not the usual permissive twaddle most practitioners spout.

Reg
quicknotist
Full Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:02 pm
Likes Received: 0

#18

Postby Joe100 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:23 pm

quicknotist wrote:Anyone who has seen my training will know that I'm fairly transparent about my non-state, non-depth, sociocognitive/response-expectancy/psychological attribution combo.

However, I also believe this very model dictates (somewhat paradoxically) that outside of the training room it's actually the subject's model which is important.

In entertainment, when I'm not working with individuals, I'm playing the numbers game so tend to present the generic model which gets the most/best subjects.

In the clinic, on the stage or street I have neither the time or inclination to educate subjects in my model so yes, I appear to contradict myself and use state and depth language with them.

I'm even not above going with an "all hypnosis is self-hypnosis" model AS LONG AS I'm still clearly demonstrating on some level that it's happening BECAUSE I'm right there.

Ironically, this still fits my model fine and I'm entirely comfortable with this kind of duality.

This is what I mean when I make bold statements like "Never tell them it's not what they think: On some level, by definition, it's precisely what they think."

And THAT is what I believe being "subject-centered" is all about - not the usual permissive twaddle most practitioners spout.

Reg


The points you make about respecting the subjects model make a lot of sense.

If we see an induction as a shortcut to responsiveness via triggering the subjects preconceived model, then so long as the subjects model has the component of responsiveness included, triggering that model will get our result.

And so going with the model instead of fighting it will help us get our result quicker and easier.

I tell my clients about subconscious minds, I tell them about all hypnosis is self hypnosis, I tell them about mesmerism, I tell them whatever I need to tell them so that they believe. So long as the what I tell them includes what I need included... which is automatic responsiveness, I get my result.

Joe
Joe100
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:51 pm
Likes Received: 6

#19

Postby error265 » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:31 pm

haha I love that guys list of how many people he has studied from. I guess there's alot of good authors out there.



http://www.vincelynch.com/
error265
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:37 pm
Likes Received: 0

#20

Postby quicknotist » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:05 pm

Joe100 wrote:
quicknotist wrote:Anyone who has seen my training will know that I'm fairly transparent about my non-state, non-depth, sociocognitive/response-expectancy/psychological attribution combo.

However, I also believe this very model dictates (somewhat paradoxically) that outside of the training room it's actually the subject's model which is important.

In entertainment, when I'm not working with individuals, I'm playing the numbers game so tend to present the generic model which gets the most/best subjects.

In the clinic, on the stage or street I have neither the time or inclination to educate subjects in my model so yes, I appear to contradict myself and use state and depth language with them.

I'm even not above going with an "all hypnosis is self-hypnosis" model AS LONG AS I'm still clearly demonstrating on some level that it's happening BECAUSE I'm right there.

Ironically, this still fits my model fine and I'm entirely comfortable with this kind of duality.

This is what I mean when I make bold statements like "Never tell them it's not what they think: On some level, by definition, it's precisely what they think."

And THAT is what I believe being "subject-centered" is all about - not the usual permissive twaddle most practitioners spout.

Reg


The points you make about respecting the subjects model make a lot of sense.

If we see an induction as a shortcut to responsiveness via triggering the subjects preconceived model, then so long as the subjects model has the component of responsiveness included, triggering that model will get our result.

And so going with the model instead of fighting it will help us get our result quicker and easier.

I tell my clients about subconscious minds, I tell them about all hypnosis is self hypnosis, I tell them about mesmerism, I tell them whatever I need to tell them so that they believe. So long as the what I tell them includes what I need included... which is automatic responsiveness, I get my result.

Joe


Absolutely Joe. I've always been a vocal proponent of bilexicality ;)

There's:

1) What we believe, know and observe to be correct and then there's

2) What we tell'em.

Training in a model which focuses only on the latter produces practitioners who end up actually believing it and who are therefore less effective.

Training which is too absorbed in the former requires the extra (largely unnecessary) step of getting the subject's buy-in to that.

Reg
quicknotist
Full Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:02 pm
Likes Received: 0

#21

Postby Makata » Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:36 am

error265 wrote:haha I love that guys list of how many people he has studied from. I guess there's alot of good authors out there.


Maaan, that friggin' list was the consequence of WAAAAY TOO MUCH COFFEE. :shock: :? Yikes, how embarrassing! :oops: Ah, well--so be it! Such is my mind on massive quantities of caffeine...

Cheers,
Lester
Makata
Junior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:29 pm
Likes Received: 0

#22

Postby RoryZ » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:14 am

Ben1987 wrote:Think of a model as a map - a simplified representation of the world.


Yes, I understand the concept of models and the way in which they are used to define hypnosis... But, I already know how to hypnotise people in various ways using various methods and I know how I explain hypnosis to my clients/volunteers. And what I know is working for me quite well.

I would rather read about methods than models. Practical methods as opposed to personal theoretical conjecture.

Ben1987 wrote: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.


So what practical differences are there, now that you have dropped your trance model? How has this changed your approach?

Ben1987 wrote: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?


My answers to the above questions:
What is trance? - Trance is the commonly accepted term used to describe the state of mind induced by the application of hypnosis
Does it even exist? - That's the same as asking whether Hypnosis exists.
Is the idea of a trance state as a prerequisite for doing hypnosis a helpful one? - Only if you want to alter the perceived reality of the subject.

Instead of using the word "trance" (because that's all it is, a word that means: the state of being hypnotised) you could equally substitute it for mesmerise, hypnotise, enthrall, captivate.. Whatever you like, as long as it gets the job done.
RoryZ
Junior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Likes Received: 0

#23

Postby kevsheldrake » Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:50 pm

RoryZ wrote:My answers to the above questions:
What is trance? - Trance is the commonly accepted term used to describe the state of mind induced by the application of hypnosis
Does it even exist? - That's the same as asking whether Hypnosis exists.


What if hypnosis can be shown to exist as a phenomenon but the existence of a state has not?

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

#24

Postby RoryZ » Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:36 am

kevsheldrake wrote:What if hypnosis can be shown to exist as a phenomenon but the existence of a state has not?

Kev


Then I would quite simply go with what works regardless of what has been proven to exist or not exist because if it works, it works. Anything further is just semantics. Even if said state is proven to exist it would have neither a positive nor detrimental effect on what I am doing already, because what I am doing already is successful.

Without the scientifically proven existence of a state, how would you describe the (let's say) "mindset" of a hypnotised subject?
RoryZ
Junior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Likes Received: 0

#25

Postby divrom » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:22 am

Wildcard wrote: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.


I find the question of models frustratingly difficult to answer. I think that's because I probably hold different models at different times. At the very least, I'd guess that we all have 2 different models:

1) Scientific Model

That is, what we think is actually happening in the brain.

2) Working Model

The approach we take, or How we interpret and use the above when doing hypnosis with someone.

There may also be:

3) Explanatory model


As for number 1, despite the apparent certainty of the different researches on different sides, I'm not convinced by the evidence for either position. That is, I don't any side has yet demonstrated sufficient evidence to win the debate. Sarbin and co (the role-taking and also socio-cognitive models) seem to be winning at the moment, but I don't think they sufficiently incorporate all of the evidence.

Then, at the other end of the spectrum, the altered states view still hold some merit. Especially, if 'state' is defined loosely. New evidence and research is cropping-up all of the time to support different models.

So, I tend to put my scientific model on the shelf and concentrate on a working model. I guess I've intentionally developed one that tries to include a wide spectrum of the scientific models, almost as if one progresses chronologically through them as the hypnosis occurs. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwKWWGlqyXs&fmt=6

When it comes to 'explaining' hypnosis, I use words like 'trance' and the subconscious. In fact, I often speak of communicating with the subconscious mind, which doesn't bother anyone other than hypnotists! I define trance as simply "selective awareness" (Erickson), "focused attention" (Braid) or just like day-dreaming or being "in the zone" like athletes.

However, I prefer to use actions rather than words. So, I go through Magnetic Hands and say that hypnosis is like that. I talk about imagining something so effectively that it becomes reality, like enjoying being in a day-dream.

I don't know what that makes me? :D I guess I'm neo-Ericksonian, recognising that Erickson was less Ericksonian than many "Ericksonians".
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#26

Postby kevsheldrake » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:36 am

RoryZ wrote:
kevsheldrake wrote:What if hypnosis can be shown to exist as a phenomenon but the existence of a state has not?


Then I would quite simply go with what works regardless of what has been proven to exist or not exist because if it works, it works. Anything further is just semantics. Even if said state is proven to exist it would have neither a positive nor detrimental effect on what I am doing already, because what I am doing already is successful.


So, can you hypnotise 100% of the people 100% of the time? If not, then your "it works" doesn't in all cases. While you may be happy to define something that doesn't always work as "it works", some of us may not.

RoryZ wrote:Without the scientifically proven existence of a state, how would you describe the (let's say) "mindset" of a hypnotised subject?


I'm not sure what a "mindset" is. What do you think is different?

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

#27

Postby Anthony Jacquin » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:53 am

divrom wrote: That is, I don't any side has yet demonstrated sufficient evidence to win the debate. Sarbin and co (the role-taking and also socio-cognitive models) seem to be winning at the moment, but I don't think they sufficiently incorporate all of the evidence.


Hi Divrom,

can I ask what evidence you think their model does not incorporate sufficiently?

Many thanks.

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

#28

Postby RoryZ » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:01 pm

kevsheldrake wrote:So, can you hypnotise 100% of the people 100% of the time? If not, then your "it works" doesn't in all cases. While you may be happy to define something that doesn't always work as "it works", some of us may not.


I'm happy that I am able to hypotise a high percentage of those individuals that volunteer, and if I can't, which is unusual, then there are always more willing volunteers.

kevsheldrake wrote:
RoryZ wrote:Without the scientifically proven existence of a state, how would you describe the (let's say) "mindset" of a hypnotised subject?


I'm not sure what a "mindset" is. What do you think is different?

Kev


I'm not sure, but tell me, what do you think is different? (a snidey remark and another question doesn't usually constitute a good answer... I'm not being rude, just trying to further my knowledge is all.)
:?
RoryZ
Junior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Likes Received: 0

#29

Postby Wildcard » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:04 pm

@all

Oh...I forgot to add something.

The model Im trying to put together describes suggestibility and learning as a process...it doesnt try to describe hypnosis per se.

So that would make suggestibility a phenomenon, but...this process is based on emotional states.

So I really dont know if it is a state based model or not....could be both.

Back to topic....

I think most of us are like that and we use what works...if not all of us.

After all...it doesnt matter what model we believe in we´re all doing the same thing anyway. We use the same patter, set-pieces, deepeners, the same inductions, the same therapeutic techniques.

Seriously...if we do something as simple as magnetic hands does it matter if we believe in trance or not...or if hypnosis is a state or not a state? No...not really...lol

I see a big advatange though for "better" models. Not only in describing or explaining what is happening...but also with a better model you can find more efficient ways to intervene.

Not only where and how to intervene but also in developing better techniques in order to intervene.
Wildcard
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:25 pm
Likes Received: 22


PreviousNext

Return to Hypnosis