Models

#30

Postby Wildcard » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:25 pm

Anthony Jacquin wrote:
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


I dont know if this is what you guys are talking about...so correct me if Im wrong....

Shouldnt they have problems in explaining hallucinations?

I cant remember where I read it, but wasnt there a study that showed there is a difference in brain activity when using imagination and actually seeing something? And when hallucinating that the same areas are active as if the person actually sees what he is hallucinating and not the area responsible for imagination?

Or something like that....
Wildcard
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:25 pm
Likes Received: 22


#31

Postby Joe100 » Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:57 pm

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


How would you describe the mindset of a comedianized subject? The one who is 45 minutes into the show, will laugh at anything the comic does including blowing his nose, and no longer has any control over his laughter response (besides for walking out).

What 'state' is he in? Comedianosis? Is it deep? Was there an induction? What would the fMRI show? Are DVD's that show instant comedianosis inductions? Are there secrets to creating comedianosis? Would KevenergyTM help for that?

Now just extend that a wee bit farther...

Thats what I'm talking about.

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

#32

Postby Joe100 » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:46 pm

The next 2 clips from the call are up.

"Context and Expectation" and "How Inductions Work"

Go grab them and comment.

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

Enjoy.

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

#33

Postby divrom » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:51 pm

Anthony Jacquin wrote:can I ask what evidence you think their model does not incorporate sufficiently?


Hi Ant,

Yeah, I'm mainly thinking of some of brain imaging done around colour perception and aural hallucination. I don't find their explanations completely adequate.

Although we have clearly seen a steady growth in adherents to the socio-cognitive model for a few decades now, I'm inclined to think that the Altered States view will start to regain some ground in the coming years. I also think that it's time neo-dissociation was given a fresh look.

Finally, I find Spanos' explanation for why some people feel that they were in a different State to be interesting, but ultimately insulting.
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#34

Postby RoryZ » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:33 am

Joe100 wrote:How would you describe the mindset of a comedianized subject? The one who is 45 minutes into the show, will laugh at anything the comic does including blowing his nose, and no longer has any control over his laughter response (besides for walking out).


Not a bad analogy at all.
The subject is looking to show his support with laughter/hypnosis.
His expectation is that he is there to laugh/be hypnotised.
The social pressure is for him to laugh/go into hypnosis.
He has little or no conscious control over his laughter/actions once the ball is rolling.
He can exit at any time, but probably wont.

One could even go so far as to say he is entranced by the comedian... :wink:
RoryZ
Junior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Likes Received: 0

#35

Postby Joe100 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:42 am

RoryZ wrote:One could even go so far as to say he is entranced by the comedian... :wink:


Nonono!

The point was to demystify hypnosis. Not to trancify comedy.

My lord. I guess its the little wise subconscious guide inside the persons head that makes them laugh...

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

#36

Postby RoryZ » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:57 am

Joe100 wrote:
RoryZ wrote:One could even go so far as to say he is entranced by the comedian... :wink:


Nonono!

The point was to demystify hypnosis. Not to trancify comedy.


I know, I know. I'm just pulling your leg, Joe. :D

I completely understand what you are saying. In my opinion though, a little mystery isn't such a bad thing, especially when confronting the public with something as esoteric as hypnotism.
RoryZ
Junior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Likes Received: 0

#37

Postby kevsheldrake » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:39 am

Wildcard wrote: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.


No, I don't think we do. Even those that have studied the exact same patter tend to deliver it differently. I think a big reason for the differences is in how the hypnotist imagines the process working; i.e. the model of what they think is happening.

Of course, there are many sets of patter, many approaches to hypnotism and many therapeutic techniques. Regardless of whether we are all doing the same thing *in general*, we are certainly doing different things *in detail*.

Cheers

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

#38

Postby kevsheldrake » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:55 am

RoryZ wrote: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.


I'm sure that you also understand why others aren't completely satisfied with this approach and are attempting to refine models so that they can develop techniques that could hypnotise everyone.

RoryZ wrote:
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.)
:?


You don't want to be rude but you do want to define my question as 'snidey'. Sweet.

Seriously, what is a "mindset"?

I think the only difference between a hypnotised subject and someone who isn't hypnotised is that the hypnotised subject experiences a sense of involuntariness over some of their actions (potentially including thoughts and hallucinations).

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

#39

Postby Ben1987 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:59 pm

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


It's never the method where the true power lies. A famous hypnotist once said: "The power lies behind the technique."
Many budding hypnotists make the mistake to just learn techniques and then get stuck at that level, because they never
sufficiently deal with the principles that make techniques work. If a technique fail, they try another if that fails,
they don't know what to do...

Think of it like the difference between a technician and an engineer. While both may work in the same
domain, and there work might be similiar on a superficial level there are great difference between both.
While a technician might know how to repair a car by applying different techniques, e.g. using a thumb-screw,
he won't be able to construct a car on it's own, because he hasn't studied the principles of what makes a car function.
While an engineer might do this.

Did this get my point across?


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


It changed a lot. No fancy inductions anymore, no deepening, not looking for 30 different stages of depth.
Getting straight to the point. Eliciting profound phenomena much quicker with much more subjects.
Becoming much more flexible in my approach. When a subject struggles to experience a certain phenomena I now,
have other options than just deepening the trance and hope this might magically change the situation.


quote="RoryZ"]

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.[/quote]

1] What is a state of mind then? How do you differentiate between states of mind? Can you measure
this state of mind? Is it somehow related to a 'state of brain'? If 'yes' where is the research supporting
this? If 'no' what then is the nature of this state?

2] -> see Kev's eloquent reply.

3] 'Only if you want to alter the perceived reality of the subject': Your point isn't clear to me.
'Only' presupposes that there might be occasions when you don't want to alter someones p. reality.
What exactly enables the trance state then to alter the p. reality?

4] Then why not simply use the word captivate? Why do you need to perform an induction on somebody
to grab someone's attention? Why not simply ask the subject to focus?


I acknowledge that there are times when you present a different model to the subject
than you hold for yourself - but this isn't what the thread is about, it's about
our own understanding of hypnosis.


-Ben
Ben1987
Junior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:27 am
Likes Received: 0

#40

Postby Joe100 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:08 pm

RoryZ wrote: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.


As a therapist, that doesn't work for me.

And so I keep working for the magic 100%

Actually now that I think about it, I'm quite lucky I don't have your excuses.

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

#41

Postby Wildcard » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:09 pm

Im not a hypnotherapist, but...

It wouldnt phase me how many % I can hypnotize...but rather how many % I can help while someone is hypnotized.

Wildcard
Wildcard
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:25 pm
Likes Received: 22

#42

Postby divrom » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:56 pm

Joe100 wrote:
RoryZ wrote:One could even go so far as to say he is entranced by the comedian... :wink:


Nonono!

The point was to demystify hypnosis. Not to trancify comedy.

My lord. I guess its the little wise subconscious guide inside the persons head that makes them laugh...

Joe


I know that RoryZ was only being sarcastic, but can someone tell me what's meant to be wrong with his statement?

Or, do hypnotists have to be so wooden in their use of language that they stop talking about "the mind" or "trance" or "part of me feels like..." or "hypnosis", or "Sunsets" or "family dynamics" or "tension in the air"?

I'm no mesmerist, but unless you're writing a research paper, what's wrong with a bit of magic?
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#43

Postby Wildcard » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:03 pm

I love lamp
Wildcard
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:25 pm
Likes Received: 22

#44

Postby Ben1987 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:29 pm

divrom wrote:
Joe100 wrote:
RoryZ wrote:One could even go so far as to say he is entranced by the comedian... :wink:


Nonono!

The point was to demystify hypnosis. Not to trancify comedy.

My lord. I guess its the little wise subconscious guide inside the persons head that makes them laugh...

Joe


I know that RoryZ was only being sarcastic, but can someone tell me what's meant to be wrong with his statement?

Or, do hypnotists have to be so wooden in their use of language that they stop talking about "the mind" or "trance" or "part of me feels like..." or "hypnosis", or "Sunsets" or "family dynamics" or "tension in the air"?

I'm no mesmerist, but unless you're writing a research paper, what's wrong with a bit of magic?


Allow myself to answer here, since I've discussed a similiar point above already.

I understand your point, Graham - indeed a bit of mystery can be quite heplful to engage a subject in the process, reating a more vivid scenerary, raising expectations. However we're discussing our models understanding of hypnosis here not the one we present to the subject.


-Ben
Ben1987
Junior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:27 am
Likes Received: 0


PreviousNext

Return to Hypnosis