A Question of Hypnotizability
Art by Eddi 07
One of the discussions on this blog from the past week was about the idea of hypnosis susceptibility (sorry, Michael). This is the idea that one can tell if another person can be hypnotized and to what level before even beginning trance work. We looked at Speigel’s eye roll method for testing hypnotizability. This has lead to several questions, which I think should be asked here. Rather than having one Sunday Question, I have two.
The first question for hypnotists is: what is your personal philosophy about hypnotizability or a person’s susceptibility to hypnosis?
Now on to another question: do you do any testing before inducing hypnosis to see how a person will react to your form of hypnosis?
November 24th, 2008 at 9:17 am
1: ARRRGH! ;^) My personal philosophy is that nobody is “susceptible to hypnosis” because that phrase makes no sense. Nobody talks about people being susceptible to cooking or writing or fixing things, all of which are skills we all have to one degree or another; why use that language about the skill of entering hypnosis?
2: I don’t usually do tests beforehand unless it seems as if doing them will help to relax the person in question. Instead I watch carefully during the induction process, observing the reactions and adjusting my approach based on their physical feedback. I’ll often test then, both to gauge the person’s state and so I can reference that later as “proof” that they were hypnotized.
<MR>
November 24th, 2008 at 11:38 am
1. My personal philosophy is pretty much the same as Michael’s. I believe hypnotizability is a skill; that formally induced trance is something normally-functioning individuals have access to and that the learning curve to competence in this skill is quite shallow.
2. I view the traditional tests as largeky unnecessary in one-on-one sessions. Trance is best ratified by utilizing what the client readily presents to you, rather than having to “paint a picture” for the client of a standard test scenario. In group sessions and demonstrations, it’s a slightly different story, as a common test (like the hand clasp or baloon arm levitation) provides a common, visible, external experience that can be leveraged as social proof to overcome objections and to arouse interest.
In fact, I believe that many of the tests taught in the widely-used clinical hypnosis canon are exactly that: social proof. In an experimental context, the tests are used typically as benchmarks for levels of suggestibility. In a teaching context, it provides a touchstone and buy-in for the student’s innate ability to hypnotize.
A better model, in my opinion, would be to teach the budding hypnotist to calibrate to the client’s experience, rather than rely on the tests as a crutch. In many of the NLP-style Ericksonian hypnosis trainings, the “That’s Right” exercise is used as a launchpad for this approach. In the exercise, the only verbal induction the hypnotist uses is to mark out the client’s behavior leading into trance by saying, “that’s right.” (See Overdurf & Silverthorn’s Training Trances for more information.)
–Jaime
November 28th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Thank you both for your perspectives and my apologies for not responding sooner. I do agree with you both and am so happy that you both explained your concepts about testing and such. Though there are certain words that seem less advantageous to use in our profession, the fact remains that in some circles they are still very much in practice and are being taught (such as the eye roll). I suppose it is all a matter of perspective.
January 8th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Read was interesting, stay in touch…
[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]…