Models

#45

Postby Joe100 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:17 pm

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


Because magic isn't troubleshootable.

What do you do when the wand stops working?

Thats why I do the whole model game. So I can get to 100%. I think it can be done, and the less magic the better.

On the other hand, for my clients, the more magic the better! Whatever makes em better :)

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


#46

Postby jargan » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:29 pm

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

Magic is all wonderful, but it's very advisable to be aware that it is magic rather than science or "hypnosis theory". One thing that helps there is to crack jokes at the expense of the magic in question. Use the terms, but don't take them seriously all the time. Something like that.
I guess it's mostly for the benefit of the people who have yet to fully realize that it truly is magic, rather than "scientific", but I enjoy doing it no matter what.
jargan
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:56 am
Location: Germany
Likes Received: 34

#47

Postby divrom » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:28 am

Ben1987 wrote: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,

I'm not talking about 'mystery' (though I have no problem with that) and I'm not just talking about how we present things to "the subject".
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#48

Postby divrom » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:32 am

Joe100 wrote:Because magic isn't troubleshootable.


Of course it is! You never seen Harry Potter, man?! :D

The alternative is that we actually think/talk as if our perception of what we're doing is the actual fullest and most accurate explanation possible.

And that just makes us sound like pricks!

However, in context I think it was clear that my use of 'magic' was more around romantic, colourful, symbolic, colloquial use of language. I'm meeting a lot of tight-arsed hypnotists who seem to have lost sight of the magic.
Last edited by divrom on Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#49

Postby divrom » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:39 am

jargan wrote:Magic is all wonderful, but it's very advisable to be aware that it is magic rather than science or "hypnosis theory".


Alternatively, we perhaps need to be aware that our understanding of science or hypnosis theory is transient, incomplete and based on someone's model of the world.

One thing that helps there is to crack jokes at the expense of the magic in question. Use the terms, but don't take them seriously all the time. Something like that.


Agreed. Though, again, I do that with more "correct" understandings of things as well. E.g. might mention to a client how sometimes one "part" of us wants to do one thing whilst another "part" does something else - and then act as if I'm talking nonsense. The client laughs and understands the point.

However, I might just as easily talk about some principle of CBT, raise my eyebrows and say, "...meanwhile, in the real world..."

My point in discussing "magic" was not that I want to paint a fantasy world. Believe it or not, but my personality is pretty academic. What I wanted to get at was that there is nothing wrong with using colourful language and models to explain something. And, in fact, we do it all the time - even in textbooks.

When we lose sight of that, we become wooden, inflexible bores or we lose touch with our research and our clients.
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#50

Postby kevsheldrake » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:53 pm

divrom wrote: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?


What is "wooden" about not discussing "trance"?

Of course, it is perfectly possible to talk entirely in "magic" terms; just don't be surprised if some of us expect you to define them first so that we know what you mean.

And on the contrary, if you talk about a model as if it is real, then at some level, you probably are a Mesmerist.

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

#51

Postby kevsheldrake » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:54 pm

divrom wrote:When we lose sight of that, we become wooden, inflexible bores or we lose touch with our research and our clients.


Do you have any examples to back up that assertion?

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

#52

Postby divrom » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:06 pm

kevsheldrake wrote:
divrom wrote:When we lose sight of that, we become wooden, inflexible bores or we lose touch with our research and our clients.


Do you have any examples to back up that assertion?


Yep, plenty.

But it would be wrong to name name's publicly, wouldn't it? :D
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#53

Postby divrom » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:58 pm

kevsheldrake wrote:What is "wooden" about not discussing "trance"?


Sorry, Kev, I thought it was clear that I was not talking about that specific word. There's a whole list of words there.

I know a psychologist who also happens to be a bit of a Richard Dawkins fan. He takes great delight in telling people, including his wife that he doesn't believe in "Love". He is oh so cleverly explaining that what happens is that we experience movement of chemicals, plus meeting of values and a whole set of other processes. Yet, we sum all of that complexity up under the noun rubric, Love.

No one likes him.

I could agree with the gist of what he's saying, but I'm not gonna say there's no such thing as love, especially to my wife! In fact, I "love" my wife from the "bottom of my heart".

kevsheldrake wrote:Of course, it is perfectly possible to talk entirely in "magic" terms; just don't be surprised if some of us expect you to define them first so that we know what you mean.


That's fine. I've worked in plenty of cross-cultural settings that such gracious dialogue becomes second-nature. In fact, I recommend it.

And on the contrary, if you talk about a model as if it is real, then at some level, you probably are a Mesmerist.


Well, on some level that is then true of all of us.
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#54

Postby kevsheldrake » Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:16 pm

divrom wrote:I know a psychologist ...


You don't appear to like it when people attempt to delve beneath the nominalisation. Your generalisation of "no one likes him" appears to clearly show your dislike for the practice.

Personally, I think exploring what hypnosis is and why it occurs is a good thing. Rather than taking the magic away, I see it as distilling the magic into the actual things that make a difference. The stars in the night sky may look magical when simply gazed upon, but to me the real magic is uncovered when we look more closely at what they are and how they appear to have developed. Simply the distances involved are far more magical than any we can experience on earth.

In opposite to your earlier question, what's wrong with finding out how the magic works?

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

#55

Postby divrom » Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:31 pm

kevsheldrake wrote:You don't appear to like it when people attempt to delve beneath the nominalisation.


No, that would be a wrong presumption on your part, Kev. What makes you think that I don't "delve beneath" as much as you do?

kevsheldrake wrote:Your generalisation of "no one likes him" appears to clearly show your dislike for the practice.


Um, nope. Actually, what it shows is the wide number of people I know who refer to him as a tw*t.

kevsheldrake wrote:Personally, I think exploring what hypnosis is and why it occurs is a good thing.


Yes, I enjoy that exploration as well. But I just seem to hold onto my findings a little less tightly than you. You seem to be giving the impression that you actually believe that you have discovered the 'actual things' that are happening.

There's a reason why this thread is about 'models' and not explanations. That seems far more scientific and honest about the evidence than implying I/you/we/they have discovered the truth.
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#56

Postby kevsheldrake » Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:37 am

divrom wrote:
kevsheldrake wrote:You don't appear to like it when people attempt to delve beneath the nominalisation.


No, that would be a wrong presumption on your part, Kev. What makes you think that I don't "delve beneath" as much as you do?


Okay, to highlight the English, you don't appear to like it. I don't know whether you do or don't. I'm just reporting how you appear, to me at least. If you don't wish to appear that way, then perhaps change what you write or how you write it.

divrom wrote:
kevsheldrake wrote:Your generalisation of "no one likes him" appears to clearly show your dislike for the practice.


Um, nope. Actually, what it shows is the wide number of people I know who refer to him as a tw*t.


So, was it an over-generalisation or not? What was wrong with "most people don't like him" or "most people I've met..."? And again, I simply reported that your statement appears to indicate your dislike through this over-the-top statement.

divrom wrote:
kevsheldrake wrote:Personally, I think exploring what hypnosis is and why it occurs is a good thing.


Yes, I enjoy that exploration as well. But I just seem to hold onto my findings a little less tightly than you. You seem to be giving the impression that you actually believe that you have discovered the 'actual things' that are happening.

There's a reason why this thread is about 'models' and not explanations. That seems far more scientific and honest about the evidence than implying I/you/we/they have discovered the truth.


LOL. I think you misunderstood. I am interested in finding the 'actual things' that make a difference; I can't claim to have found them yet. We have more work to do before we have something worth sharing.

I'll ask again, what's wrong with finding out how the magic works?

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

#57

Postby divrom » Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:00 pm

kevsheldrake wrote:Okay, to highlight the English, you don't appear to like it. I don't know whether you do or don't. I'm just reporting how you appear, to me at least. If you don't wish to appear that way, then perhaps change what you write or how you write it.


I'm glad you highlighted "to me at least", because no one likes to have their deletions pointed out.

kevsheldrake wrote:So, was it an over-generalisation or not? What was wrong with "most people don't like him" or "most people I've met..."? And again, I simply reported that your statement appears to indicate your dislike through this over-the-top statement.


Yes, you're right again. I should have said something like, "most of the people that I know of". I'm sorry for giving the impression that every single person dislikes him; that must have been quite confusing for you. It's a pity as well, because you appear to have missed the whole point of that story.

I fear that some people might think that you're being just a little bit awkward and picky here. You could certainly appear that way, at least, but we all know that appearances can be deceiving, don't we?

kevsheldrake wrote:LOL. I think you misunderstood. I am interested in finding the 'actual things' that make a difference; I can't claim to have found them yet. We have more work to do before we have something worth sharing.


It really is fascinating how when you get the wrong impression of something I'm saying, I need to consider how I write, because I appear a certain way. Yet, when I get the wrong impression of you, it's because I misunderstood.

I must have misunderstood, however, because I'm not sure what you mean by 'the actual things'. It's not clear to me if you mean the things that will work for you (in the same way that John Cleesattel says he tried to whittle down his hypnotic procedure to find the bare essentials), of if you mean you are searching for what is actually happening in the human brain during hypnosis.

kevsheldrake wrote:I'll ask again, what's wrong with finding out how the magic works?


Nothing at all, if you think you can do that. (Incidentally, I'd be interested to know why you got the false impression that I was against finding out how the magic works. Try reading more carefully, perhaps.) In fact, I spend much of my time and money on a similar exploration, as I think I alluded to already. Yet, in the meantime, I need a working model and I need ways to explain things that don't exaggerate the evidence available to one particular model.

Yet, my comments have not actually been about what kind of model one has, as much as the limitations of language around those models (+ a kind of over-confidence in their models) that some seem to impose on another. Hence, the little story about the psychologist I know. I am not at all bothered by his explorations into the nature of 'love'. In fact, I find them quite interesting. What I think is a mistake is when he then goes on to discredit the existence of "Love" and presumes that those who believe in love are somehow more naive than him. I accept his socio-biological explanation and yet still tell my wife I love her, write poetry, buy her roses, etc.

I thought that was obvious. I'm sorry that you appear to have misunderstood. :wink:
divrom
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Northampton
Likes Received: 0

#58

Postby jargan » Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:59 am

Wow... it appears, to me at least, like after this discussion I know twice as much about hypnosis as I did before. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding myself, or I'm just not appearing to myself in the way I seem to think I am. Perhaps I have more work to do before I discover the actual things that are going on in my head. I might have to try psychoanalysis after all. Even though it seems to me like most psychoanalysts that I know appear to be weird most of the time, according to my perceptions and evaluations of the things they appear to be saying.
Then again, given the evidence, the possibility cannot be discounted that I might be wrong to some statistically significant degree. I cannot presume to know what I appear to be talking or thinking about, after all.
jargan
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:56 am
Location: Germany
Likes Received: 34

#59

Postby cyman1964uk » Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:18 am

Lol@jargan! :D I think you should read things more carefully! :shock: Hang on, did I say that? Sorry, I meant "maybe, sometimes, in some circumstances you, I and everyone else on the forum would benefit from occasionally reading certain threads a little more carefully on most (but not all) days".
cyman1964uk
Full Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:55 pm
Location: Derbys, UK
Likes Received: 2


PreviousNext

Return to Hypnosis