Formal Definition in Hypnosis

roberts wrote:Hi,

I am searching for formal definitions of commonly used words in hypnosis, such as "trance","permanosis","suggestions", "induction" and so on. I find formal definition useful to define limits and differentiate terms (know what it is and what is not) and it helps me to understand more deeply some concepts.
Does anyone know where I can find it?

Yeah, I know what you mean. I am very 'theoretician oriented'. I want to explicitly understand what is so often implicit.

I think you have a right approach: caution. And, I mean by that, this stuff often remains poorly explained. So, you probably found some definitions online already, but felt these were not adequate. Hence, you have right minded caution.

Over the decades, I have had to come to my own explanations on matters, so I will provide that, here. But, first, some solid sources for 'what you should look for, if you are serious', 'out there:

**Note, for ease of reading, I have separated the 'external sources' section from my own definitions section, by bold lettering**

External, Hard Sources

Milton H Erickson is the godfather of modern hypnosis. That is the **purest** source, and the best, by far. Countless modern systems have his work as a bedrock, but being watered down, often even the authors are only dimly aware of where they get their stuff. The man is discovered, now, to a degree, but remains obscure outside of the extreme niche of serious hypnosis study, research, practice.

Like often in science, mainstream - even highly effective mainstream - misses ""a" or even "the" major person. For decades, sometimes for centuries, and worse.

There are additional problems, I understand are factors here: much of hypnosis work has been crap. So there is an ocean of disinformation. Two, specifically to this area: it is actually really difficult to study, not just because of the intellectual density of the material - very common in the sciences - but, much worse. You are going to have to train your self to be conscious when studying the material. Because it has a strong tendency to put you into a trance. No joke.

So, great sources:
Havens, the Wisdom of Milton Erickson series. Vol I and Vol II.
Tranceformations & Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H Erickson -- Bandler Grinder

The later two are "NLP", and NLP waters down a lot of this stuff. But, these three books are incredible at breaking down and teaching you automatically about Ericksonian methods. I would avoid the vast ocean of NLP works, but stick to these, study Erickson first.

Zeig's Seminar -- a teaching seminar with milton h erickson -->> This book, too, is a great introduction. As it is transcripts where Erickson knew he was being recorded, he puts the information into your mind automatically. And, again, what I mean by that... you won't find it undirected and stumbling into this or that trance while reading.

Those are the main 'starter's'.

Havens anthology is an encyclopedia.

Erickson has other works, some extremely dense, many which you can find free, in pdf form, online. Which, I believe, is reasonable to do because, outrageously, a lot of the work is out of print.

The Rossi series is very good, but anything you can get on Erickson is good.

A main book everyone loves is 'My Voice Will Go With You'.

There is also another major book that is a good intro, relevance engines will bring up. Believe it is by Zeig. Zeig & Munion. 1999. Just titled Milton H Erickson. This, I do not believe I have read, but the author and ratings and the inside I have read persuades me it is probably a very good introduction.

...

From there, you can expand out. Many do not, and they can do working hypnosis, but in terms of actually consciously understanding 'what they do', it is poor. Erickson is continuing to grow in prestige, but even in cutting edge behavioral science and neuroscience studies I am seeing many appalling points of key wrong information. For instance, a number of popular studies assume that hypnosis is not as subjective as it is. So, they approach it from the rigid angle as one can approach many hard sciences. And therefore come to wrong conclusions like "not everyone is hypnotizable". Very incorrect.

More like 98% and better are "hypnotizable". And this is because we all go into trances everyday, in many ways. Whenever you are in a state of extraordinary focus? That is "hypnosis", a "trance" state.

Who can not really go there? People with significant brain damage, especially to their frontal lobe. Psychotics are very limited in capacities, as well.

Regardless, there are some studies that can be well applied of late, including many cognitive behavioral studies, and a number of key neuroscience studies. Of the later, the most important is the one which has proved the existence of unconscious thought processes:

GRR, apologies, I can not yet post uris, so search indicators...

The Beautiful Powers of Unconscious Thought
first neural evidence for the unconscious thought process
The Unconscious Mind at Work Bursley

Another key study:

The Stroop Effect Not As Automatic as once was thought

...


These studies confirm practical science studies. Erickson did this, and his experiments may be the most valuable. You can find details of that work in the complete volumes of Erickson. But, I strongly advise to check out the other material first.

The references I gave, especially the Havens books, well cite and organize that wealth of material.

Erickson focused a lot in the first two decades in experimental studies. But, by the end of his life, he was extremely experiential.

...

Brief Definitions of the Terms, My Own

Note: Ericksonian approach is very much 'everyone has their own language'. And very "dynamic". So, practically anything may be said to be literal, without quotes. And practically anything might actually be best understood - ultimately - as having quotes. Eg, "hypnosis" or hypnosis. Unconscious or "unconscious". And so on. This is because we understand that what we are describing can be described many ways, and should be understood by many different definitions. There are semantic issues. I may use the word "hypnosis" in one way, and someone else may use it in another way, yet we mean the same thing.

Like, for eskimos, the word "snow" may have fifty different meanings situation. For me, just a handful.

These are ultimately very deep, rich terms, so truly simple explanations will not do them justice.

So, from your post: hypnosis, such as "trance","permanosis","suggestions", "induction"

First, "hypnosis" its' self:

Hypnosis is the process of going into a trance state. It is getting people into focus and reducing foci from the 'external' or 'conscious mind'.

It is all about focus, attention.

"Trance"

So, tied in with the above definition, the more the points of focus are reduced, into a singular point of focus? The more deep a person is in a trance.

So, in a very deep trance, one might have little to no conscious threads. You see this in sleep, except with sleep there is not the singular thread of attention still present to the conscious. Typically, this is the hypnotist's voice and person.

Trance is common, everyday behavior for people. Wherever you are very engaged, such as in watching sports, working on a matter, watching a very engaging movie or television show, a book, writing a book, on and on -- that is trance. Our own unconscious regularly puts ourselves into trances for deep 'maintanence'. For instance, in moments of reflection where the outside world 'unfocuses', and we contemplate a deep thought. What happens there is your unconscious is making conscious a matter which is taken as 'deeply true'. So conscious and unconscious reordering may take place to give place to that realization.

With art... typically what goes on is the artist (say writer of fiction) is in a deep state of focus their own self. As like the reader will be. So, that tends to be very unconscious to unconscious communication. The conscious is kept occupied with various details of the novel... while the unconscious takes away deeper meanings. Often meanings in a language of symbols, scenarios, and interactions.

"Suggestions"

Suggestions are thought structures given designed to provoke change. The reason why a deeper trance is often useful is because there, the person is much more open to new ideas.

However, a lighter trance can be used (eg, just gaining enough focus to read something), and if it has deeper implications, then a person may put their self into a necessary deeper trance at their will.

This is why I pointed to the "stroop" test, above. It well explains how the varieties of deepness of focus effect suggestion. However, there are mistakes in the language, such as a misunderstanding of the utter subjectivity of hypnosis, and so a misunderstanding of the capacity for just about anyone to find a deep trance state.

Suggestions often have to be given implicitly, indirectly. The person is implicit in their dealings, and so they require that/. This is true even when they are in a deep trance state. Suggestions have to be carved, created, formulated... in such a way that it provokes permanent change.

That requires considerable art and is a subject too vast to go into here. I will only note that, obviously, one must make a suggestion in such a way that their unconscious agrees to it, for permanent change. But, not so obviously, it has to be given to take into account future realities which could dampen or even destroy it.

"permanosis"

Not part of my direct language set. I, unfortunately, do not have time right now to look it up and find my own equivalent meaning, which there probably is.

From the apparent etymology, at a glance, this may be what I like to talk about a lot, which is getting people more removed from the conscious framework they come in with -- to distance themselves from their old conscious framework, to a far more flexible one.

I often like to speak of it in terms of 'always being in a relatively deep trance'.

The specifics of what that means is that one has far more control over one's framework of perceptions in the conscious, then otherwise. In Ericksonian language it is about replacing very rigid conscious sets with far more dynamic conscious sets.


"Induction"

Is, really, the definition of "hypnosis", and the words are often used interchangeably. But, more specific of a term, "induction" refers to the process of leading someone - some people - or one's own self into a trance.

Focus is taken, deep rapport established and maintained, and a process of unfocusing from external conscious sets is performed. Many ways to do that.

At some juncture suggestions are given. Some rely mostly on explicit suggestions, but pretty much all rely on implicit. Some rely mostly on implicit, some just a little. I believe that the best way is most implicit -- but that does require priming the unconscious towards the goals of working with the implicit communication. Which requires homework.

If you are seasoned, you can induce by even non-verbal, and that naturally "automatically". Because you yourself can easily go into a relatively deep trance, one can easily bring others there. Rapport is natural. In explicit terms, there is "pacing" and "leading". However, I would caution that such 'set in stone' methodology can be dangerous in terms of weakening effect and purpose.

The main thing is to be able to go into a very deep state one's own self, and also to be able to communicate that to others. Eg, a 'absent minded professor' or very focused artists who 'doesn't live in the world much', or even 'religious guru' might be so alien people naturally try and get into "their world". But, for a hypnotist, one learns how to really pull people into that world, and is much more surgical about it all.

Should add, just ran across a much quicker version of a definition I gave elsewhere for 'trance':

There is external reality and internal reality. When you move further away from external reality and more into internal reality, that is a trance state. It can make you feel a little woozy. External reality becomes - often imperceptibly 'less real' - and internal reality becomes more 'real'.

...

Note: so "external reality" is "conscious", equitable terms. "Internal reality" is "unconscious", equitable terms.

And, it might be noted: therein is where the real metaphors - words - get very dense in potential meaning. Because the conscious and unconscious are themselves but linguistic constructs we use, they work well, but they are just words to explain matters which are very massive and complex.

You really need to dig into the material to get a good grasp, with confidence, of the meaning of these terms in regards to serious, explicit, understanding of the terms used in hypnosis.

Not at all required to do the work, but required to do more difficult work, more unusual work, where the objectives are beyond ordinary hypnotic objectives.

@Richard
Thank you. I went to the site and it has a good content

@HypnoMorpheusDreamer
Yes, most of the material available is not helpful. I might be wrong, but I feel that even professionals in this area treat hypnosis much more as an art than a science, not giving proper attention to the neurosciences and missing opportunities to improve in hypnosis.
And I'm already looking at the work of Erickson!
Thank you for your suggestions, I appreciate.

roberts wrote:@Richard
Thank you. I went to the site and it has a good content

@HypnoMorpheusDreamer
Yes, most of the material available is not helpful. I might be wrong, but I feel that even professionals in this area treat hypnosis much more as an art than a science, not giving proper attention to the neurosciences and missing opportunities to improve in hypnosis.
And I'm already looking at the work of Erickson!
Thank you for your suggestions, I appreciate.

Awesome....

BTW, I would also recommend checking out Jeffrey Zeig's conference material on youtube. He has matured some very interesting models over the years.

On the comments...

I would just keep in mind a lot of cognitive behavioral folks and neuroscientists are often not well read in Erickson. So, I will pick up some books by them, and even though it thoroughly attempts to discuss the unconscious, it does not mention Erickson in the bibliography. That is a severe gap.

I also see "only % of the population is highly hypnotizable" where %X often is very high, like 20%. Untrue. I will right off assert. This other figure is repeated in studies because it is what is seen in rigid studies. But, studies are designed around objective expectations. And hypnosis is all about subjective expectations. It is... by default... subjective in nature.

And that is where you see a lot of folks who practice hypnosis are. They are not well studied in Erickson. You do not need Erickson to learn how to get people in trance states or give suggestions that work. You need Erickson to increase the number of ways you can get people into the deeper trance. To increase the power of the suggestions given. To increase, really potentially 'very, very much' the options you have.

And, there is another issue about 'why hypnotists often do not have a solid theoretical model'. Because that area is very subjective too. Almost ironically, hypnotists learn to speak 'unconscious' to 'unconscious' very well, with conscious understanding. So, they have explicit training in communication which all humans normally communicate in, but usually have very limited explicit, conscious model sets to work from.

Those models are fuzzy, and to a degree, they need to be. Much of Ericksonian therapy is all about the conscious getting in the way. People having much too rigid of conscious sets, conscious models. There are strong difficulties in their unconscious talking to their conscious, and that at often a personal level that is self-destructive for them.

As a "for instance", just finished pointing out on another forum my own model for consciousness. I can not do that without also pointing out I use seemingly contradictory models for communication at the very same time.

For instance, some models:

conscious--- unconscious
conscious (place) <---- awareness ----> unconscious (place)

The first model is what is typically used with hypnotists. Explicitly. Yet, if you dissect inductions, it is the second model which is used. So, inductions are very often about moving from one place to another. Various metaphors are used. Ladders, elevators, airplanes, spaceships, inner and outer rooms, movement simply by counting down implying moving from conscious to unconscious, and so on.

We talk to the unconscious, explicitly. That is we are conscious of doing so. Usually people are unconscious of that. We have a tendency to speak of the conscious as "our self" and the unconscious as "it". But, we also will speak of the unconscious as such terms as "that deeper part of your self"...

So, even the second model is limited. While people will natively understand either model in either the above, explicit terms, they also understand them when no explicit definitions are given. That is, in pure metaphoric terms.

One could point out that we are both in our conscious and our unconscious at the very same time. So, in the 'inner room' and 'outer room' model... we are the cashier taking orders at the outer room where customers come in. And we are the cook in the back at the very same time.

Switching our roles by going into trance can help us become much more aware of the "cook" part of our self. And so there is much more explicit conscious to unconscious communication.

Explicit model wise, one might do even better to replace the term "place" with "uniform" or even "skin". Where consciousness is a tube, like a rubber tube, and awareness is a ball in that tube. It moves from one side to the other.

So, what we are attempting to describe here might well be said to be 'formless'. It is a substance that defies substance, yet it is a substance which can take many forms. It works up a primary form for external interactions, especially "socialization"... but that is not who we really are. We are all of the parts, and more then the observable sum of all the parts.

None of this means explicit theoretical models of some degree of rigidity can not be created. They surely can and do. Just, they will tend to be complex, and very dynamic, with many variables that are open. The sets often have upper and lower boundaries, but also some do not.

Some have infinite upper and lower boundaries.

Which, while one sees that in cosmology, we should not be surprised to see that in our own cosmology. What are the formulas to describe the imagination? And this way not only allows us to peer into the deeper parts of our own universe, but also to change what we see by modifying our expectations while we do so...

BTW, about to go out of town here, but two great studies to bear in mind:

the stroop mri hypnosis test and this test.... where they are able to study rare neurological diseases via mri by replicating, temporarily, these diseases via hypnosis... key phrase for the main study: " "Moreover, they indicate that hypnotic suggestion can create informative analogues of clinical conditions that may be useful for understanding these conditions and their treatments."

I would have to write a book to put down my models, so apologies for the length of my posts. The models are relative, subjective, dynamic, as noted in my above post. So, they are not easy models to describe.

My brief blurb responses ('brief' in relative terms), was designed to hit at some of the more fascinating areas that should be at least considered to be possibilities while studying the material. I believe these would be very intriguing possibilities, questions more then answers, to potentially keep in mind while proceeding.

It would be very interesting if you make a video explaining your models and wander on theory.
You sound like a very intelligent man and hearing you would be gold.

Thanks again. I reread now your posts with a different look and things are beginning to make sense. =)

u can define hypnosis in may ways
In the process of hypnotism, there is a subject and the hypnotist. The first requirement of hypnotism is willingness of the subject, and his/her faith on the hypnotist. The subject is asked to concentrate on certain things and follow the hypnotist’s instructions. With the aid of music, shining objects such as crystal ball, or moving instruments such as pendulum, the subject is taken into the trance. Through hypnotism, unconscious mind of the subject can be unraveled. Hypnotism is generally practiced by psychiatrists for psychoanalysis, and to cure mental patients.

From the new APA Definition of Hypnosis (2014):

Hypnosis: “A state of consciousness involving focused attention and reduced peripheral awareness characterized by an enhanced capacity for response to suggestion.”

Hypnotizability: “An individual’s ability to experience suggested alterations in physiology, sensations, emotions, thoughts, or behavior during hypnosis.”

Hypnotic induction: “A procedure designed to induce hypnosis.”

It's a vague definition, intentionally, to allow for a range of interactions -- procedures of self-hypnosis, procedures between therapist and client, and future procedures yet to be identified.

I prefer Kirsch's definition of Hypnotic Inductions: “hypnotic inductions can best be understood as expectancy modification procedures.”

**Reference: Kirsch, I. (1991). The social learning theory of hypnosis. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.). Theoriesofhypnosis: Currentmodelsandperspectives(pp.439-465).NewYork: Guilford.

The Biological Concept of Trance is defined as the process of developing plasticity within the human system for adaptive, shifting autonomic states and Hypnosis as the skill set "that perturbs or influences the entranced system in a given direction." Think Orienting Response. The paper is free access at Tandfonline and is beyond my understanding to simplify adequately.

**Reference: Anna E. Hope, Laurence I. Sugarman. Orienting Hypnosis. In American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Vol. 57, Iss. 3, 2015

Suggestions organize mental contents and occur within three primary categories: sensory, ideational, and motor suggestion -- Bedouin defined motor suggestion as "the automatic activation of an idea." Suggestions vary in terms of generality and specificity, as well as impetus. There's autosuggestion (self imposed) and heterosuggestion (imposed outside self).

A few examples are: Imaginative suggestions -- requests to experience an imaginary state of affairs as real; the misinformation effect -- a distortion of memory due to leading or misleading information; and the placebo effect -- learning/expectation/reward response.

**One of my favorite podcasts on Placebo Effects can be found at the Brain Science podcast, #122. It's an interview with Fabrizio Benedetti, MD, PhD, Author of Placebo Effects and The Patient’s Brain. He has studied its effects beyond subjective reporting and discusses its success with both conscious and unconscious physiological processes.

And "permanosis"... I got nothin' but assumption on that one.

You can go through Facebook or social media to connect with groups. Many of them are well knowledgable. Cheers!

Part of hypnosis is to use words for the effect those words produce instead of using words by their definitions. It's not about creating models of reality that are objectively accurate. It's rather about creating models that are conductive to change.

Futhermore words like trance and hypnosis are quite old. A lot of people use them slightly differently. If you focus too much on the definitions you will only see trees but not the forest.

roberts wrote:Hi,

I am searching for formal definitions of commonly used words in hypnosis, such as "trance","permanosis","suggestions", "induction" and so on. I find formal definition useful to define limits and differentiate terms (know what it is and what is not) and it helps me to understand more deeply some concepts.
Does anyone know where I can find it?

You should also read John G. Watkins' "Hypnosis: Seventy Years Amazement, and Still Don't Know What it Is!" at http://www.asch.net/portals/0/journallibrary/articles/ajch-52/52-2/watkins52-2.pdf. Not just for its non-definition of hypnosis, but for the stories it tells. John G. Watkins invented affect-bridge age regression, ego-state therapy, wrote Hypnotherapy of War Neuroses about his work during WWII, and was a professor of psychology for decades, but never felt he understood what hypnosis is, exactly, just how to use it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Robert