Hypnosis still misunderstood

" HYPNOSIS DOESN'T IMPROVE PAIN RELIEF STRATEGIES"

I thought the title alone was a bit "black and white" thinking......


I personally have found the few people I have helped with pain
management would wholeheartedly disagree with that.

As far as I can see they have some definition of hypnosis that involved something other than the techniques they used.

Myself, I would call the techniques they used hypnosis. Semantics really, but the danger is it may put people off trying hypnosis for pain control, when it can often be the only thing that really works.

Well, they do admit in the article that the results may be limited


I think the major difference here is the critical faculty. By their own admission, they say that the patients only felt significant pain relief when they expected it. As hypnosis bypasses the critical faculty, it makes it more likely that the client will accept the suggestions of pain relief.

Having said this, I do not necessarily agree that hypnosis is needed for pain relief. Meditation, relaxation and suggestion therapy have also worked extremely well.

However, hypnosis has a profound effect where pain relief is concerned and I would recommend it wholeheartedly.

This is something I've been curious about for sometime. What is the difference between hypnosis and meditation?

Meditation involves a narrowing of attention - perhaps to a particular part of the breath.

Meditation involves the observing self - not getting carried away with, and standing back from, thoughts.

Meditation uses the body scan.

In fact whenever I meditate I'm never sure whether I'm really doing self-hypnosis. I agree with Roger that there appears to be very little difference if you regard hypnosis for pain relief as a narrowing of attention for change.

It seems the only difference is if you believe hypnosis can make people do things against their will - is this what you mean by 'bypassing the critical faculty' Mark?

Hi Andy,

It seems the only difference is if you believe hypnosis can make people do things against their will - is this what you mean by 'bypassing the critical faculty' Mark?

No, this is not what I meant at all.

By bypassing the "critical faculty" I meant that during the hypnotic state, the logical or questioning part of the conscious mind is usually bypassed, making it easier for the client to accept the suggestion.

You have to acheive a certain amount of belief or trust in the client that the therapy is going to work. If the client has any niggling doubts, they are normally created by the conscious mind, the part that operates within the "comfort zone" and doesn't want to change.

However, during hypnosis, that conscious part of the mind is bypassed, therefore allowing the suggestion to pass through into the subconscious without interference from the "critical faculty" that questions the validity of the said suggestion.

Referring to the current thread, it is difficult for a client in a great deal of pain to accept that the pain can be reduced by the power of the mind. The client says "yes, it can", the conscious mind says "no, it can't". However, during hypnosis, that suggestion is normally not questioned. It, therefore, gets through to the subconscious and takes affect without the "critical faculty" getting chance to question it.

I hope that makes it a little clearer.

Hi all

I wouldn't necessarily say that hypnosis involves a 'removal' of the critical faculty, I am more inclined to think of it in terms of focus.

When someone's attention is focused strongly, and when they are relaxed, they are less inclined to be critical.

For those unfamiliar with hypnosis, the idea that it removes the critical faculty may sound threatening, and I don't think it is quite accurate.

After all, we know that if someone is asked to do something they don't want to in hypnosis, they can quite happily refuse. They can also get up and walk away if they don't like what you are saying.

This 'not liking' is brought about by the critical faculty kicking in if something 'untoward' is perceived.

So I would tend to say that the person is disinclined to be critical, but able to be if they so wish. The skill of the practitioner is in phrasing and delivering suggestions in such a way that they are acceptable, and therefore do not arouse the attention of the critical faculty.

That's my take on it, anyway

Regarding meditation, I don't see any difference apart from aims, but then I don't meditate, I do self hypnosis

Roger

Hi Roger

When someone's attention is focused strongly, and when they are relaxed, they are less inclined to be critical.

That's what I meant, I obviously didn't phrase it correctly. I'd had a long day yesterday.

For those unfamiliar with hypnosis, the idea that it removes the critical faculty may sound threatening, and I don't think it is quite accurate.

That isn't quite what I said, I said that it "bypasses the critical faculty". This is totally different from having the critical faculty removed.

I wholeheatedly agree that you cannot make anyone do anything in hypnosis that would be against their wishes. If my post inferred this, then I apologise.

My actual meaning was, more or less, as you state in your post. If the client is in a highly relaxed and focussed state and IF the suggestions are phrased correctly, they BYPASS any doubts that the client may have about what is possible for them.

Hope that makes sense this time.

Absolutely right Mark, I should read more carefully!

Interesting discussion and I think we have reached concensus.

All the best

Roger

I completely agree with all said about hypnosis.

Regarding the article I'd need to hear exactly what was said in this experiment in order to see if the relaxation techniques and hypnosis differed in any way.. If hypnosis is considered a human given that is in every day life it's easy to say when it is being used, but hard to say when it's not.

I agree with Andy - hypnotic influence is being exercised by all of us, all the time, with greater or lesser awareness. I suppose that one of the things that distinguishes those of us who are actively seeking to use hypnotic influence is that we try to increase our level of awareness of what we are doing.

For my own part, I notice that I am still capable of bringing about an "influence" on my client without being really aware of how I did it!

Further, I wonder whether the distinction between self-hypnosis and meditation is useful. Some people might argue that it depends on the ends, and distinguish between self-hypnosis to improve one's exam performance (or public speaking nerves or control pain or whatever) and meditation to enhance one's spiritual life, where there is no such clear cut outcome. However, both of those presuppose SOME kind of purpose for the activity, and it's arguable whether a spiritual purpose is any different from a non-spiritual one.

Sticking my head above the parapet, I will say that the un-useful part of the distinction is the part that separates the spiritual from the rest. Spirituality is an ASPECT of our complex totality, not a separate PART of it. It can't be isolated.

What do others think?

Kathleen

Thread Locked: continued over at http://www.uncommonforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=179#179