hypnosis any one?

[SOLDIER]

what is ur view of hypnosis . am not sure what to think of it...
isnt it like invading the soul ?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

what is ur view of hypnosis . am not sure what to think of it...
isnt it like invading the soul ?

I think you may be misunderstanding the proces and purpose of modern day clinical hypnosis.

 

[LovinPsych]

I'm an undergrad still, a freshman to be exact but I really don't see an issue with clinical hypnosis? Especially with the research and results that's been recorded of it's benefits. If I am not mistaken it's not psychotherapy even though psychologists can perform this. I just want to know how do you view it if you feel that way? I mean I am unsure if you have a misconception of what it is,or you feel that no matter what?

Stephy

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This isn't my area, so I'll defer to anyone who has studied in-depth, but below is my general understanding.....

If you think of different types of hypnosis along a continuum. Far on the one side is meditation/mindfulness, while far on the other side is the guy with the pocket watch telling you to concentrate on the watch as you fall deeper and deeper into a trance. "Modern" hypnosis would be much closer to the meditation/mindfulness side, and much farther away from the guy with the watch.

I general don't believe in "hypnosis" as it is known to the general public, and I think attempts are unethical....but I think there are valid approaches, similar to what I described above.

 

[LovinPsych]

This isn't my area, so I'll defer to anyone who has studied in-depth, but below is my general understanding.....

If you think of different types of hypnosis along a continuum. Far on the one side is meditation/mindfulness, while far on the other side is the guy with the pocket watch telling you to concentrate on the watch as you fall deeper and deeper into a trance. "Modern" hypnosis would be much closer to the meditation/mindfulness side, and much farther away from the guy with the watch.

I general don't believe in "hypnosis" as it is known to the general public, and I think attempts are unethical....but I think there are valid approaches, similar to what I described above.

May I ask why do you feel it's unethical?

 

[erg923]

May I ask why do you feel it's unethical?

I think a better intellectual excercise for you would be to tell me why you believe it might not be unethical.

 

[karenprosen]

i think hypnosis is very powerful, and shouldn't be looked down on so much. i'll make an analogy with electroconvulsive therapy.... works wonders for OCD patients. not good for everyone! when i was young a friend of mine was in a terrible car accident and was having night terrors every night after for almost two weeks. he went to one hypnosis session and never had them again! a quick, natural healing process. i think it's fascinating. just another state of consciousness, similar to day dreaming or meditation.

 

[erg923]

ihe went to one hypnosis session and never had them again! a quick, natural healing process.

He have drawn a casual connection here, no? Besides the timeline, what is the evidence for the causal connection betwen the therapy and the symptom remission? This is why we have randomized clinical trials......

I know it tempting, but many factors could be responsible for this. Including expactancey and/or placebo effects.................

 

[karenprosen]

Very true, I feel that even if the cause of the symptom remission was merely expectancy or a placebo effect... wouldn't that make the process of hypnosis all the more valuable? That a simple session of relaxation and suggestion can do the same thing that medication or something like CBT can do? Ok not the SAME thing per say... medication may involve physiological/neurological changes and CBT involves cognitive chances but these are all just different routes to the same destination- symptom remission

 

[erg923]

Well no, because any "treatment" by definition can have expectancey or placebo effects. Thats kinda the point. There is no evidence that the treatment itself is effective over placebo in your case, becaudse there is no control group. The goal of a treatment, is perfom better than placebo. Thats why we have control groups in studies. By your argument, we should just be giving eveyone with depression sugar pills instead of antidepressants. Suagr pills work about 30 % of the time, that not too bad. But the reason we use antidepressants is because they have been shown to work better than sugar pill (more often than 30%)

 

[karenprosen]

ok, you got me there but i do know that there is evidence of hypnosis being more effective than a placebo and therefore useful as a treatment for some in certain scenarios

 

[Ollie123]

For me, it depends on what you are talking about. Hypnosis can mean a lot of different things. Though Soldier, I have NO idea what you mean by "invading the soul" - can you elaborate?

As T4C mentioned, there is some heterogeneity to what people mean when they say hypnosis. I use progressive muscle relaxation, guided imagery and other techniques all the time...I think of these as closer to "meditation" then to classic hypnosis. There's pretty strong evidence behind them, though obviously they are one component of a treatment and not something that could or should stand on their own.

I acutally think there is some (limited) evidence that it is effective for certain sleep issues, and for pain management for a slightly more "classic" hypnosis approach. Its not perfect, its not crystal clear, but I think there has been some legit work done on it.

The people who promise to hypnotize you and make you quit smoking/drinking have VERY little evidence to support them. Some are well-intentioned but ignorant, I think others are probably just scam artists. If everything else has been tried and the patient is aware its a long-shot I think that is acceptable, but as a psychologist, if someone walks into your office and "hypnosis" is the first thing you try, I find that hugely unethical.

Then there is the "I'm going to hypnotize you so we can recover past memories". This is getting into the "Should be tarred and feathered" category.

 

[LovinPsych]

Unethical for me would mean it's done to cause harm,scam,promise unrealistic or untrue results,and/or do so to get information to turn against a person. Ethical in this manner would be doing it to help the person on "certain" issues that has been researched and known to help be effective. I do believe it can help depending on what you are using it for. Substance abuse I do not believe it will help. Just like there's a book out called " the Cure for Alcoholism" I absolutely despise cause there's no such thing. Somethings just are not true. I don't believe hypnosis does so much that it can be named as an effective method to a solution rather it can help some solutions for some people.I also disagree with that being a primary or first choice method to treating a patient. I'm dead set against that.

 

[futureapppsy2]

i'll make an analogy with electroconvulsive therapy.... works wonders for OCD patients.

Huh? I've never heard of ECT used for OCD, only severe depression, depression with psychotic features, catatonia, and back in the day, paranoid schizophrenia.

 

[numbereight]

Then there is the "I'm going to hypnotize you so we can recover past memories". This is getting into the "Should be tarred and feathered" category.

i have two friends who have seen a hypnotist who's done some regression hypnosis. both individuals have experienced what I can best describe as catharsis from recalling old memories, along with a subjective experience of insight and mastery over the emotions surrounding the memory - leading to a self-reported better quality of life and decrease of their symptomatology.

the memory each person saw appeared to them as the original, historical cause of an issue that they were presently dealing with. wheater the memory is real or a confabulation, i dunno. i guess it doesnt matter.

some very short sessions of hypnosis allowed both these people some relief from their problems. one who has anger issues, feels more relaxed and less angry. the other who has social anxiety has experienced improved social functioning. sure these cases are anecdotal and the data is subjective, but they both had similar experiences and positive outcomes. not too shabby.

 

[Ollie123]

Fair enough, but I'm not sure two instances of positive experiences from recalling what might be real memories outweigh the enormous personal and societal harm that has come from therapists attempting memory recovery using this and other techniques.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that it worked for them. Unless they tried everything else under the sun and nothing worked, I'm still not convinced it was appropriate care, and even if it was I stand by my statement that until we know more about it (and specifically, how to avoid doing it wrong), it is HUGELY unethical to do.

 

[numbereight]

word up ollie

 

[Aker]

This is quite funny –and rather unscientific in fact!

even if it was [if hypnosis was an appropriate care] I stand by my statement that until we know more about it [about hypnosis] (and specifically, how to avoid doing it wrong), it is HUGELY unethical to do.

Now, the quoted argument is a good expression of most of the unsubstantiated bias against hypnosis, from a pretended scientific point of view.

Hypnosis is basically a communication tool, by which a psychologist can facilitate a (let us call it) particular conscious state, characterized by heightened concentration and some degree of dissociation between conscious cognitive control and subject’s actual perceptions, feelings and behaviour. This allows for quite an interesting therapeutic setting from where to introduce or initiate a psychological work with the patient (say cognitive-behavioural therapy or else).

And so, understanding hypnosis as a communication tool, it is interesting to re-read Ollie’s last comment:

(…) until we know more about communication (and specifically, how to avoid communicating in a wrong way), it is HUGELY unethical to communicate.

Which is basically a true statement –and particularly so for health care professionals!-, although an obvious nonsense.

There is nothing intrinsically dangerous in hypnosis nor there is anything magical about it, even though it can be misused, say by some unscrupulous tricksters. But I guess that is not the point; whenever we meet, my neighbour insists in offering me his own pills (I probably look very sick!), just everything from pain killers or antibiotics, to steroids or anticoagulants, which should not mean there is anything wrong with any of those pills, except for the ridiculous –and inadequate- use of them that my neighbour intends...


Just a very short list of interesting data:
- Neural Mechanisms of Antinociceptive Effects of Hypnosis
- The additive benefit of hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral therapy in treating acute stress disorder
- Hypnosis decouples cognitive control from conflict monitoring processes of the frontal lobe

 

[affectiveH3art]

Hypnosis is just like other treatments, it's not a good fit for all individually, especially those that are not hypnotizable. In regards to other posts referring to expectancy and placebo- research has established hypnosis to be quite effective aside from expectancy and more so than placebo. However, one must be effectively trained just as other treatment interventions.

Hypnosis is a pretty effective intervention for pain (think Jensen, Patterson) and for PTSD (A. Barabasz) and even eating disorder, more so bulimia (M. Barabasz). Plus there's some pretty remarkable neuroscience research in hypnosis.




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Ollie123]

Hrmmm.

1. New poster
2. Handful of posts, most at least peripherally related to a specific topic.
3. Bumped a thread from almost a decade ago.
4. Quotes posts out of context to fit own agenda without reading thread.
5. Selectively cites literature to support point because any science about something proves everything about it.



So...How much do you charge for your hypnosis trainings?

 

[psych.meout]

Hrmmm.

1. New poster
2. Handful of posts, most at least peripherally related to a specific topic.
3. Bumped a thread from almost a decade ago.
4. Quotes posts out of context to fit own agenda without reading thread.
5. Selectively cites literature to support point because any science about something proves everything about it.



So...How much do you charge for your hypnosis trainings?

These two comments do basically resume the general professional attitude towards disrupting behaviour at the ER, no matter its cause; either confront the patient (with very little success) or "Jedi" him -the "magical" stressed.

Now, my own take on this is to assume first my own responsibility on patient communication at the ER. And second to train in dealing (with) and leading patient-doctor communication -so that to "Jedi" the patient becomes a professional tool/technique much more than a wish-set of actions/attitudes.

There are many useful communication tools for the ER professional. I mostly use Ericksonian (hypnotic) techniques to rapidly de-activate disruptive behaviour, build up rapport and basically transform an aggressive patient into a collaborative one (obviously enough the process, which includes an ongoing evaluation of patient psychological/psychiatric problems, is more complex -and interesting- than what can be described here). But there are many other psychological tools just as useful -and not hard to learn and practice. For example, you can take a look at the Verbal De-escalation of the Agitated Patient, a Consensus Statement of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry Project BETA De-escalation Workgroup (Q1).



I particularly dislike most agitation rule-of-action charts, specially because of their naive and many times counterproductive psychological recommendations (here you have an example). And yet I understand one should be familiar with some rule of thumb for restraint use (chemical/physical) at the ER (this is an interesting approximation -in Spanish though).

Anyhow, from a pragmatical point of view -even above basic ethical considerations- I believe psychological [Jedi/"restraint"] techniques should almost always be considered first in most cases of disruptive behavior at the ER.

 

[Aker]

So...How much do you charge for your hypnosis trainings?

Quite funny again!
But you are mostly right anyway; I am a newbie in this forum and I am professionally interested in clinical hypnosis.

I am sorry for the perceived out-of-context quote; no personal offense intended, though. I am well aware of all the concerns around a psychological tool like hypnosis and I felt it would be interesting to reopen this old thread as there was not a single formal defence of the technique -other than anecdotal references. And so, yes, I did read the whole thread -with interest- and I was in fact tempted to answer it all, starting with Soldier's OP question, which reminded me of Santiago Ramón y Cajal's own expressed fears back at the beginning of the XXth century. As for the non-quoted previous comment of yours, I am aware that it conveys the most well balanced opinion on the matter in this thread -other than recent affectiveH3art's-, even though you relate progressive muscle relaxation and guided imagery with meditation rather than with hypnosis (which is quite interesting, by the way, as the techniques are clearly related to a hypnotic “classical” induction while its effects are probably somewhere in between meditation and hypnosis –depending also on what do you do with those), and even though you only mention that you think there is “some legit work done on it [hypnosis]”, getting then into the legitimate critic of non-adequate uses of hypnotic techniques. As further info, there is actually a rather interesting report by the British Psychological Society (2001), worth reading it.

No matter what, I am sorry again for my clumsy comments and partial quotations; hope these do not prove counterproductive in stimulating some curiosity on an otherwise rather interesting psychological tool! And sorry Ollie for any non-intended offense; let us charge it to myself, to being a newbie and to my poor English rather than to my hypnotic training

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Occam's Razor (a.k.a the principle of parsimony) + theoretical internal consistency lead me to adopt and implement a cognitive-behavioral approach to address just about any presenting clinical problem/diagnosis in lieu of 'clinical hypnosis.' I also feel like our society is already awash in pop psychological pseudoscience that tends to argue for less and less personal agency and responsibility in recovery from mental health issues--e.g., "I'm sure I could quit smoking if I could just find a doctor to 'put me under,' reprogram my brain or otherwise invade my very soul (for my own good, of course)."

 

[Aker]

Occam's Razor (a.k.a the principle of parsimony) + theoretical internal consistency lead me to adopt and implement a cognitive-behavioral approach to address just about any presenting clinical problem/diagnosis in lieu of 'clinical hypnosis.'

I think that is perfectly reasonable. And yet, just for clarification, I do not think any psychologist would ever recommend 'clinical hypnosis' in lieu of a cognitive-behavioural approach. Clinical hypnosis is just a tool and not a psychological approach; clinical hypnosis does only refer (or should only refer) to the use of hypnosis, as a tool, in a clinical context. Hypnosis can, and in fact it is commonly used -when used by psychologists-, within a cognitive-behavioural approach.

I do understand, though, the concern that the utilisation of hypnosis in a clinical context might help the pop-modern cultural trait of do-for-me what I do not want to do-for-myself, as "exercise-free weight loss" or the like. Maybe as psychologists we should be the first ones to understand hypnosis not as something used to 'put stuff into someone's brain' but just as a (maybe) useful psychological tool to help the patient find and develop his own capabilities, just to (maybe) facilitate the treatment process, within a cognitive-behavioural approach, or other. [Obviously enough -and fortunately enough- psychologists do have more tools than just 'hypnosis'. And definitely 'hypnosis', no matter how interesting and helpful, can be substituted or simply obviated in any treatment, just like (almost) any other psychological tool.]

 

[singasongofjoy]

i have two friends who have seen a hypnotist who's done some regression hypnosis. both individuals have experienced what I can best describe as catharsis from recalling old memories, along with a subjective experience of insight and mastery over the emotions surrounding the memory - leading to a self-reported better quality of life and decrease of their symptomatology.

the memory each person saw appeared to them as the original, historical cause of an issue that they were presently dealing with. wheater the memory is real or a confabulation, i dunno. i guess it doesnt matter.

some very short sessions of hypnosis allowed both these people some relief from their problems. one who has anger issues, feels more relaxed and less angry. the other who has social anxiety has experienced improved social functioning. sure these cases are anecdotal and the data is subjective, but they both had similar experiences and positive outcomes. not too shabby.

...but it CAN matter... a LOT. Like when people start confabulating that their family members committed some heinous crime against them when they were 5. Matters a whole lot when your family member ends up in court and your family is broken apart. That's why it matters. There's lots of research on this if you want more on that topic.

Edit: just noticed how old this original thread is. Oh well.

 

[Aker]

...but it CAN matter... a LOT

You are absolutely right; whether the memory is real or just a confabulation CAN matter a lot. As you suggest, it is well known that, even though hypnotic techniques could facilitate remembrance, it does facilitate the production of false memories as well; false memories that can be perceived by the subject as "positively true" -even though objectively false.

As you say, it can matter a lot. For example, this is the reason why some legislations -rightly enough- specifically distrust witness statements when they have used hypnosis after the event. The aforementioned report of the British Psychological Society [The Nature of Hypnosis] explicitly talks about this matter.

In a clinical context though, when both the patient and the clinician understand clearly enough that (re)produced memories under hypnosis do not need being objectively real -no matter how "real" are those "memories" felt to be-, those (real or confabulated) "memories" can be utilised in a therapeutic way -which is most probably what numbereight was trying to convey.

 

[Jake0006]

...but it CAN matter... a LOT. Like when people start confabulating that their family members committed some heinous crime against them when they were 5. Matters a whole lot when your family member ends up in court and your family is broken apart. That's why it matters. There's lots of research on this if you want more on that topic.

While the clinician should be pretty careful not to "make too much" of such a case and head down that road, it isn't likely to come up. I've done a good bit of work with the sexually abused, treating their PTSD with TF-CBT, and also dealing with cases when a disclosure comes up. Also, back in the day before I was licensed to provide psychotherapy I did hypnosis stuff, within the realm of mindfulness. With a pretty healthy background in meditation, 18 yrs or so, I felt comfortable taking a client through a facilitated lucid dream, and often heard that the sessions were "healing." I probably did 30 or so clients. I've never used hypnosis, presenting myself as a mental health professional, however. I haven't figured out a way to merge those two worlds.[/QUOTE]

 

[singasongofjoy]

While the clinician should be pretty careful not to "make too much" of such a case and head down that road, it isn't likely to come up. I've done a good bit of work with the sexually abused, treating their PTSD with TF-CBT, and also dealing with cases when a disclosure comes up. Also, back in the day before I was licensed to provide psychotherapy I did hypnosis stuff, within the realm of mindfulness. With a pretty healthy background in meditation, 18 yrs or so, I felt comfortable taking a client through a facilitated lucid dream, and often heard that the sessions were "healing." I probably did 30 or so clients. I've never used hypnosis, presenting myself as a mental health professional, however. I haven't figured out a way to merge those two worlds.

[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that hypnosis doesn't have it's place, just that folks wanting to integrate it should be well trained and think very critically about the contexts and boundaries and how they present the option to clients and how you define hypnosis -- generally akin to meditation/progressive relaxation more than what most people, especially the general population's idea of hypnosis. I think if you look at the resaerch you will find that there are places for it, within certain contexts. Could start by looking at pain literature.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Mindfulness has little in common with hypnosis. Hypnosis is an altered, dissociated state, while mindfulness is not altered and not dissociated. Some deeper forms of meditation may concentrated, single pointed states, but they're unlike the hypnotic states.

This isn't my area, so I'll defer to anyone who has studied in-depth, but below is my general understanding.....

If you think of different types of hypnosis along a continuum. Far on the one side is meditation/mindfulness, while far on the other side is the guy with the pocket watch telling you to concentrate on the watch as you fall deeper and deeper into a trance. "Modern" hypnosis would be much closer to the meditation/mindfulness side, and much farther away from the guy with the watch.

I general don't believe in "hypnosis" as it is known to the general public, and I think attempts are unethical....but I think there are valid approaches, similar to what I described above.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Mindfulness has little in common with hypnosis. Hypnosis is an altered, dissociated state, while mindfulness is not altered and not dissociated. Some deeper forms of meditation may concentrated, single pointed states, but they're unlike the hypnotic states.

"Dissociated state" would be on the far side of a continuum of awareness of yourself ...though I'd argue the validity of "disassociation" as it relates to hypnosis.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Regardless, they are not similar, near or far.

"Dissociated state" would be on the far side of a continuum of awareness of yourself ...though I'd argue the validity of "disassociation" as it relates to hypnosis.

 

[psych.meout]

Mindfulness has little in common with hypnosis. Hypnosis is an altered, dissociated state, while mindfulness is not altered and not dissociated. Some deeper forms of meditation may concentrated, single pointed states, but they're unlike the hypnotic states.

How are you operationalizing the term "dissociation?"

Much like Therapist4Chnge's conceptualization of hypnosis, dissociation is on a continuum.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

It is on a continuum. R. Davidson conceptualists that mindfulness meditation has no significant elements of dissociation, while the hypnotic state has a range of dissociative elements. That's really my only point.

How are you operationalizing the term "dissociation?"

Much like Therapist4Chnge's conceptualization of hypnosis, dissociation is on a continuum.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Mindfulness has little in common with hypnosis. Hypnosis is an altered, dissociated state, while mindfulness is not altered and not dissociated. Some deeper forms of meditation may concentrated, single pointed states, but they're unlike the hypnotic states.

I'm curious what you would define as an 'altered state'. Research has consistently shown substantive changes cognition, autonomic arousal, cerebral blood flow, attentional allocation, etc resulting from mindfulness.

 

[Jake0006]

I'm not understanding the 'altered state' reference either... that sound like inebriation or something. I'm only aware of 4 main states of brain activity, with a newly discovered 5th not too terribly long ago. Beta state is normal awareness/consciousness, Alpha state akin to 'daydream' type of state, Theta is the dream state, still semi-conscious but just ever so slightly, and Delta which is 'black sleep.' Researchers found a new state, Gamma state, in monks who were meditating... it's a state of relaxed awareness and increased perception, unlike the other consciousnesses. Important to note that if the hypnotist doesn't use hypnotic suggestion, all the states of consciousness are wholly organic and natural states, and there is little danger. Of course, though erstwhile members of the public WANT the hypnotist to use hypnotic suggestion to make them not want to overeat, compulsively watch Sex in the City, or what-have-you, essentially to rescue them from their wonton desires, this is where the danger lies and the practitioner can just take another tact. I would guide them into the theta state, and let them experience a dream in which these compulsions come up so that they can discuss, lucidly, what is going on with all that... what drives the impulses. They can either seize the opportunity, and gain insight, or succumb to a fear of knowing, and need to retreat... and either way, they either come up eventually into Alpha (daydream), and then back up to Beta (awake) or they go down into Delta (sleep). They're all just natural states.

 

[LAPsyGuy]

AN ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHIC STUDY ON THE ZEN MEDITATION (ZAZEN)

 

[Justanothergrad]

why did you post an article from 1966? I'm confused what that has to do with your definition of meditation as not producing an altered state... although I'm not sure what you define as an altered state.