There is so much magic to be found in the ‘ordinary’ and so much magic to be discovered in the results we help create. I just struggle a bit with presenting this field in magical terms from the start. Begin sober, then let the results create the magic and the awe 🙂

Best wishes, Adam.

I love sleight of hand magic – cards, coins, that sort of thing.

As I was growing up I was fascinated at the apparent powers of the magicians. “How do they do that?” I began reading and researching the tricks I would see. I was now learning the mechanics. (Full disclosure: I never learned to be a magician I’m just a fan.)

On learning the mechanics I lost my wonder. “Oh, that’s how it’s done.” The ‘magic’ disappeared for a time.

However, sleight of hand is still magical to me. In the hands of a master magician those tricks retain their magic. I can know 100% what is being done (i.e. the palm here, the swap there) but still be awestruck at the beauty of the performance. And I can still be fooled, left scratching my head. I know that something was done at some point but have no clue what exactly.

My point? I had a similar path in my fascination with hypnosis. It seemed a super power to be wielded over the subject. Over time I learned the mechanics and the ‘magic’ disappeared…for a time.

Now that I am doing a deep dive into the evidence based learning of hypnosis (i.e. I’ve just begun earning a diploma through Adam’s online college course) I am finding that my awe of the process is being rekindled. A big part of this is learning the evidence that suggests how much is capable through self-hypnosis and the choices of the subject in the hetero-hypnosis process.

Hope this added to the conversation. Cheers.

I agree with you Matthew. Sadly, I think the field still lacks clarity and continued proliferation of myth and pseudoscience does prevail. The vast majority of the field still use the notion of an ‘unconscious mind’ to explain hypnosis, think hypnosis guarantees veracity when used with regression, and still conceptualise hypnosis in ways that have been proven to be flawed by most research. The field still thinks that the two most important authors are Erickson and Elman, yet both contribute little to the empirical and research backed understanding of hypnosis, and we still have primetime TV shows depicting hypnosis as something it is quite clearly not….. Hopefully, more people will read blogs like this one, find the right books, and study with the right colleges (I hear the Anglo European College of Therapeutic Hypnosis are excellent!) instead of being lured into recycling the misinformation by the heavily marketed aspects of this field, and we may start to truly progress.

Best wishes to you, Adam.

Thank you Richard, some incredibly valid and thought-provoking points made, greatly appreciated.

Best wishes to you, Adam.

Thank you Linda, some excellent points made, lots to think about here.

Best wishes to you, Adam.

With regards to some hypnotherapists’ claim of ‘gut feelings and instinct’ when working with clients, there is interesting scientific evidence for this.
Diamond (1974,1977) regards therapeutic hypnosis as a “dual phenomenon” occurring within the context of an intense, interpersonal relationship (Diamond 1983)
Kushner (1962) purports ” the hypnotic state is not an anomaly of human behaviour that results from some technical manipulation or suggestion per se but it develops in a naturalistic way of an interpersonal relationship “.

The mirror neuron system is thought to be an essential aspect of the neural basis for empathy. By perceiving the expressions of another individual, the brain is able to create within its own body an internal state that is thought to “resonate” with that of the other. Therapists can perceive and understand not only the inherently social nature of the brain of another but that their own bodily shifts may serve as the gateway toward empathic insights into the state of the other person. Perceptions of another’s affective expressions may alter our own somatic and limbic states through a prefrontal process of interoception, interpretation, and attribution
When we interact with another person our brain and bodies are no longer isolated, but immersed in an environment with the other person. We become a coupled unit through continuous moment-to-moment mutual adaptation of our own actions and the actions of the other (Konvalinka et al 2010) (De Jaegher et al 2010)
This dynamical interactive process has been shown to result in an alignment of behaviour (Richardson et al 2007, Schmidt & Richardson 2008), posture (Shockley et al 2003), autonomic nervous system (Muller & Lindenberger 2011) respiration (McFarland 2001) cardiac rhythms (Konvalinka et al 2011)
Neural rhythms (Dumas et al 2011; Hasson et al 2012)

Tronick et al (1998) points to the enhanced and adaptive potential that is inherent in the collaboration of two minds in the dyadic relationship of therapy. When two minds attend to one another an intersubjective field is created where one is able to collaborate with another mind.

A major challenge for neuroscience is to provide an explanatory framework that accounts for both the subjectivity and neurobiology of hypnosis. Neural correlates of have been uncovered but there remains an explanatory gap in our understanding of how to relate neurobiological and phenomenological features of hypnosis. An adequate conceptual framework is still needed to account for phenomena that have a first person subjective – experiential or phenomenal character that is neuro biologically realised and are describable and reportable.

I think it is a difficult topic for various reasons. One is that there is no general consensus about what hypnosis is and yet people from every approach and no approach can elicit hypnotic phenomena. It is difficult to agree on what would constitute evidence when we cannot agree as a profession what it is that we are using/doing.

Another factor is the disconnect between the academics,the procedures that make sense to them and the lay hypnotherapists who may have no background in psychology and neuroscience and not necessarily accept that hypnosis fits within those contexts. I suspect the disconnect has negative consequences both ways, for example Kirsch has apparently had no success duplicating the alleged success gained by nlp advocates using the ‘fast phobia cure’. It would be interesting to know how an nlp trainer would critique Kirsch’s technical ability with this process (or whoever did it for him).

There is no bar to entry into learning hypnosis other than financial. Of the training courses that I have seen information about the emphasis is mainly on learning some techniques and applications of those techniques, and possibly quite rightly because the people taking those courses want to use those skills to help people and earn an income. I can understand, though not agree with, those associations that have barred hypnosis training to those with prior medical qualifications and who therefore do have the relevant professional background.

Another issue in my opinion is that reflective practice is optional. On the one hand you have people like Gary Turner who seem to be researching and testing everything that stands still long enough to be grabbed, on the other you have people with, perhaps, too much skin in the game, to much of a vested interest / vested disinterest to interfere or re engineer their cash cow.

Another issue is the framework within which evidence based research occurs. Is this a level playing field? Are therapies decided to be more evidence based because there is more research available on a particular therapy, or are therapies judged more evidence based after comparative and equal assessment? I suspect it is the former.

I also wonder about the scope of evidence based research. To what extent does it assume/ assess a particular model in the design of the research. For example, if I test a particular procedure, such as a regression technique aimed at reducing trauma, what am I actually getting data about? Is it only the end result? How do I measure that? Is ‘feeling better’ enough? A six month/one year follow up? Perhaps that tells me about the procedure and studies other other procedures for the same condition could give me comparative effectiveness information. I don’t think they can speak to the validity of the underlying model. Does that matter? I think it does because it gives me information about what works, and if a technique from a model that I think is pants, is effective, then maybe I will look again and see what might be useful to me. I am sorry, this is a long way around saying that getting information/evidence about results is valuable even thought the model the technique come from is less accessible to assessment through an evidence based approach.

So, all in all I think deriding an evidence approach is about as much sense as planning to close the (US) Patents office in the 1800’s was, a mistaken idea based on mistaken beliefs. However, I do not think evidence based research and procedures are without flaw. What they do provide is our best possible guess as a very divided profession, about what (may) work, and thus the foundation for moving forward as an individual therapist and a profession.