Deleting, Distorting and Generalisations to know and love

 The Meta Model falls into 3 categories

Gathering information

Limits of the speaker modal

Senantic ill-formedness

Gathering information to gain a full description of the content being presented, it reconnects the speakers language with his or her experience.

1. Deletion
2. Lack of referential index
3. Unspecified verbs
4. Nominalisations

Meta Model

Deletions

Simple Deletion: Something is left out.

Example: “I am mad.”

Question(s) to recover lost information: “About what?”

Unspecified Referential Index: The person(s) or object to which the statement refers is unspecified or not clear.

Example: “They rejected my business proposal.” or “They rejected it.”

Question(s) to recover lost information: “Who?” or “What?”

Comparative Deletions: A comparison is made and it is unclear as to what is being compared. The sentence will contain words such as: good, bad, better, best, worst, more, less, most, least.

Example: “This approach is better.”

Question(s) to recover lost information: “Compared to what or whom?”

Unspecified Verb: In this case, it is not clear how something was done.

Example: “They rejected my business proposal.” I have used the example for Unspecified Referential Index to illustrate that sometimes there are several things that have been deleted, distorted or generalized and it is up to you to decide which line of questioning will yield the most information.

Question(s) to recover lost information: “How specifically?”

Nominalizations: A process has been turned into a “thing”. Nominalizations are nouns, yet you cannot physically touch them or put them in the trunk of your car. Examples of nominalizations are: communication, relationship, leadership, respect, truth, freedom, depression, love, etc. Our task here is to ask a question so that the process can be rediscovered.

Example: “The communication in our family is poor.”

Question(s) to recover lost information: “How would you like us to communicate?” Notice that there is also a comparative deletion and we could also ask “Poor compared to what?”

Generalisations

Universal Quantifiers: Universal quantifiers are typically words such as: all, every, never, always, only, everyone, everything, no one, etc.

Example: “My boss never gives me credit for what I do.”

Question(s) to recover lost information: We can exaggerate the generalization or use a counter example. “Never?” or “Has there ever been a time when your boss has given you credit?”

Modal Operators of Necessity or Possibility: Modal Operators of Necessity include words such as should, shouldn't, must, must not, have to, need to, it is necessary. Modal Operators of Possibility include words such as can/can't, will/won't, may/may not, possible/impossible.

Example: “I can’t do this now.”

Question(s) to recover lost information: The key is to challenge the limitation. “What would happen if you did?” or “What prevents you?”

Distortions

Mind Reading: In this case, the speaker claims to know what another person believes, feels, or thinks.

Example: “My boss is not pleased with my work.”

Question(s) to recover lost information: For this pattern, we simply ask, how do you know? “How specifically do you know your boss is not pleased with your work?”

Lost Performative: Value judgments are made and it is not clear who has made the judgment.

Example: “This is the right way to get ahead in this company.”

Question(s) to recover lost information: “According to whom?” or “How do you know it is the right way?”

Cause -- Effect: The speaker establishes a cause-effect relationship between two events or actions. Common constructions include: if .., then, because, makes, compels, causes.

Example: “When you look at me that way, I feel unimportant.”

Question(s) to recover lost information: “How does the way I look at you cause you to choose to feel unimportant?” You could also use a counter example.

Complex Equivalence: In this situation two experiences are interpreted as being synonymous. These two experiences could be joined by words such as: therefore, means, implies.

Example: “My boss walked into his office without saying ‘good morning’, therefore he is not pleased with my work.”

Question(s) to recover lost information: "How does not saying ‘good morning’ mean that your boss is not pleased with your work?” or “Have you ever been preoccupied by family or business pressures and forgot to say ‘good morning’ to your co-workers?”

Presuppositions: Some part of the sentence presupposes or implies the existence (or non-existence) of something, person, etc. while not explicitly stating it.

Example: “When will you demonstrate leadership for your team?” This sentence presupposes that you do not demonstrate leadership. If you try to answer this question directly, you will be digging an even deeper hole for yourself.

Question(s) to recover lost information: “What leads you to believe that I do not demonstrate leadership?” or “How is it that I do not demonstrate leadership?”

Metaquestioning made easy (kind of!)

The Happy Hypnotist,

Metaquestioning made easy!

Last time we looked at the origins of the meta model and introduced how we all delete, distort and generalise the information we process. Let’s now take it a bit further and get a bit more structured.

The meta model is designed to teach the listener how to hear and respond to the form of the speaker’s communication. This model allows you to respond in a way to obtain the fullest meaning from the communication. Using the meta model you can discover the richness and limits of the information as well as the modelling processes the speaker is using.

Deep Structure and Surface Structure

At a deep level of thought, a speaker has complete knowledge of what he wishes to communicate to someone else. This is called the deep structure and operates at an unconscious level. In order to be efficient in his verbal or written communication, we unconsciously delete, generalise or distort our inner thoughts based on beliefs and values, memories, decisions (limiting), strategies, what we want you to hear, etc. What is finally said or written (surface structure) is only a small subset of the original thought and may be ambiguous or confusing and lead to miscommunication and very often does.

Why is this all useful to know you ask? For me, it is absolutely fascinating to know I do this! Of course, like you, I did not think I really did this to a great degree, though it was easy to notice it in others. Are we really this bad at communicating? Actually we are really good at communicating what we think we would like to communicate, though not necessarily what the truth of our experience is. This is why reading someone else’s diary is so fascinating, naughty and forbidden, because to know, to really know what is at the deep structure level of another human being is all consuming.

To illustrate deep structure and surface structure and why it is important to be aware of the distinction, let’s assume you are my therapist. Before saying or writing a word and often in a blink of an eye, my inner thoughts (deep structure) are unconsciously filtered through my model of the world (beliefs and values, etc.) without my conscious appreciation, of course.

I might say to you something like, “My family doesn’t appreciate what I do.” Which is the offering of the surface structure of my communication. You, as my friend and therapist take in my words and at a deep level of thought (your deep structure), filter what I have said through your beliefs and values, memories, decisions and then you may say (surface structure) something such as “I know exactly what you are saying and here is what you should do.”

Really, however, you do not. I have not said what I really mean and you are doing your best to help me, though that advice is purely based on your own map of the world. With the best of intentions, you have no idea how to help me, because I have not given you enough information. I have not told you the truth.

This is not to say that anybody is purposely lying. It is just that we throw away words so flippantly and others are so wanting to be helpful, it all gets very confusing, very quickly and nobody feels understood.

Worse still, this may result in an argument because I feel you do not understand me and are always telling me what to do and I may become more entrenched in continuing with my limiting beliefs and behaviours as you adamantly stick to your own views too. What a shame. I am (kind of) asking for help and you are doing what you think is your utmost to help and we are at loggerheads.

What do you do? Well, a good approach is to realise I am not communicating very well and have a little empathy, knowing that emotional states blur communication and it is really how I feel that I need support with. You could be well advised just to get very curious about what I have said and to ask questions for both of us to gain a better appreciation of my deep structure.

Of course only do this by invitation, as you feel your way asking one or two questions and if you get the ‘back off’ face as I call it, when you intuitively know you have overstepped the mark, outstayed your welcome or the like, stop.

If I really want help (and, by the way, many times we do not, we just want a sympathetic ear or someone to validate that we are in the right and the rest of the world is of course entirely wrong because you are my friend after all) then I will accept and perhaps encourage your further delving into my private world.

Once we have this clarity, you are in a better position to provide advice. What often happens is that when I, as the client, get clarity on the issue and what needs to be done, I do not need your advice, but simply your continued support and curiosity. You, in essence, merely help me discover the path from my surface structure to my deep structure of language through questioning, sounds easy doesn’t it?

This is why I tell my students that this really is an easy job. The tricky bit is to lay off! The tricky bit is to hold back when you want to gush out all your advice. The clever bit is to worm your way around to the client, or friend, discovering the solution that you think you knew from the start. When I have my penny dropping moment and offer the solution you have crafted a path for me to discover by your clever questioning, we are cooking with gas.

The Meta Model provides us (as coaches, bosses, therapists, family members, friends, …) with a set of questions to assist the person we are helping (client) to move from the surface structure of his communication to an understanding of his deep structure -- unconscious beliefs, values, decisions. This is not about finding the right answers but having a better understanding of your client’s model of the world.

Avoid asking ‘Why’

The questions in the Meta Model do not have any ‘why’ questions. When you ask someone a ‘why’ question, often they feel they have to defend what they have said or done, make excuses or rationalize their behaviour. On the other hand, if you expressed the question as a ‘how’ question, then you get a better understanding of the process used by your client and thus more information and understanding.

Deleting

Recognise when deletions have occurred and assisting in recovering the information restores a fuller representation of the experience.

Ask questions such as:-

About whom

About what

How specifically

I am afraid

What or whom are you afraid of?

I don’t like him

What don’t you like about him?

I don’t understand

What don’t you understand?

I don’t get any recognition

How would you like to be recognised?

How will you know when you have been recognised?

What would let you know?

How would you feel if you were recognised?

Limits of the speakers model

They identify limits by challenging limits you can allow the speaker to expand his/her model of the world

1. Universal quantifiers
2. Model operators (primarily operators of necessity)

Universal quantifiers

Challenge and exaggerate the quantifier or insert additional quantifiers

All

Every

Always

Never

Nobody

I never do anything right

Never?

Can you think of a time when you did do something right?

Model operators

Lack of choice

Have to

Must

Cant

Its necessary

What prevents you?

What would happen if you do?

Semantic Ill-formedness

Distortion

Which may impoverish the experience

1. Cause and effect
2. Mind reading
3. Lost performative

Cause and effect – x causes y

Challenge whether the causal connection is true allows them to review the situation to see if there are further choices.

Challenge how x causes y

I’m sad because you were late

You frustrate me

You make me angry

Mind Reading

How specifically do you know x allows you to challenge old assumptions

Everyone thinks you are crazy

How specifically do you know that?

How specifically do you know?

I’m sure you can see how I feel

How specifically can you be sure I see how you are feeling?

Lost Performative

Usually judgements, rules that are appropriate to your model of the world and puts them into others

Challenge for whom

That’s the right way to do it

Right for whom?

Its wrong to live on the social

That’s a sick thing to do

What, how, who?

If you find yourself going inside to fill the gaps, as for further information

That really hurt me

How?

The client makes his communication clearer, so you do not fill in from your experience.

I am afraid of the crowds

What is it specifically about the crowds?

How do you know you are?

What prevents you from feeling calm in crowds?

Never lead your client – if you find you are finishing the sentence in your own head you are leading!

Be persistent with metaquestioning.

Good metaquestioning words:

Because?

Specifically?

And?

How?

What?

Where? Always? Never?

Introduction to the NLP Meta Model & A Practice Sheet

INTRODUCTION TO THE META MODEL Whenever someone talks about an experience, their verbal description will delete a great deal of that experience.  That’s what words are useful for  taking a very complex and detailed experience and briefly summarizing it.  What you get is at best a brief outline of the total experience.  Whenever you gather information, you draw on your own personal history in making an internal representation of what the other person says in order to: a) understand it, and b) know what you need to gather more information about to complete your internal representation. As you do that, there is a very strong tendency to delete or distort infor¬mation, and add in details that were not mentioned by that other person, and are not even in that person’s internal representation.The meta model is a set of questions that allow you to gather information that specifies someone’s experience, in order to get a fuller representation of that experience.  It is one of the essential tools that separates a good NLP Practitioner from a sloppy one.  You can use all of the NLP techniques elegantly, but if you haven’t pinpointed exactly where and when to use them, you can come up with a wonderful solution for the wrong thing. If you don’t know how to gather information, you’re like a surgeon who has a very sharp scalpel, but doesn’t know where to cut. When clients, business partners, employees, students, etc. communicate with you, or offer you a difficulty to solve, knowing what questions to ask makes all the difference.  Many people don’t know what questions to ask, and they end up solving the wrong “problems.”  They think they understand, and begin to solve some¬thing they don’t know about.  Often they do more harm than good. Ex:  Management:  “We need to produce more.”  So the supervisor speeds up the assembly line, causing more defects.  Manager meant more quality.  (Or the manager might have meant more different kinds of products.) Ex:  Listening to dinner conversation between two people in a restaurant.  It was clear to us that neither could possibly know what the other was talking about, but they thought they did.  You can have very “meaningful” conversations and arguments without ever knowing what the other person is talking about.  The M M is a way not to do that. When  you  do information gathering,  you’ll be asking questions.  There are six questions in English:  What?, Which?, Who?, When?, Where?, and Why?  “Why?” is the only one that doesn’t ask for specific detail.  The answer to “Why?” is usually “Because…” and a historical or theoretical explanation.  You may get specific detail in response to “Why?” but that will only be a lucky accident.  This is why the question “Why?” does not appear in the meta model.  These information gathering questions are often called “challenges”; if you don’t like that  word, use some other word that you like better. The M M was the beginning of NLP  a great deal of NLP has been developed by using it.  (For instance, Strategies was created by exploring the question “How?”)
Distinction	Meta-Model Inquiry
Unspecified Things
1. After seven years I’ve just lost contact.	With whom?
2. It seemed like an impossible task.	Seemed to whom? Impossible to whom?
3. Now I don’t even talk to her.	About what?
4. The other one is better.	Better than what?
5. I have understood so much from you.	What specifically?
6. You are nice.	Compared with whom or what?
7. You find out the world looks different.	Different from what?
8. Things get me down.	What things?
9. Something should be done about it.	What specifically should be done about it?
10. People get me down.	Who specifically…?
11. This one is the last.	Which one specifically is the last.
Unspecified Verbs
1. I can deal with it.	How specifically?
2. He just won’t leave me alone.	How specifically will he not…?
3. He won’t love me.	Love you, in what way?
4. This is what I believe.	How do you believe, specifically?
5. When he starts another conversation I’m compelled	Starts how? Compelled how?
6. I am blocked.	How are you blocked?
Nominalizations
1. There is no respect here.	Who is not respecting whom?
2. She needs more strength.	Being strong in what way?
3. Knowledge is most important.	How will (who) knowing what be…?
4. Can you have thought without experience?	Can you have (who) thinking (how) without experience?
5. There is a lot of confusion.	Who is confusing whom, in what way?
Universal Quantifiers
1. I’ll never play again.	Never?
2. There is nothing I need to add.	Nothing?
3. Since we changed the times, all the children have been upset.	All the children?
4. The editorials never mention the problems that we have found.	Never mention the problems…?
5. To make sure, I always do a check.	Always? Have you ever failed to do a check?
Modal Operators of Necessity and Impossibility
1. I can’t do anything right.	What stops you?
2. I’d really like to leave him but I can’t.	What would happen if you did?
3. People cannot know.	What would happen if they did?
4. I have to believe it.	What would happen if you didn’t?
5. I couldn’t say something like that.	What would stop you?
	What would happen if you did?
6. I must never say those things.	What will happen if you do?
7. I must not show my feelings.	What prevents you?
Cause — Effect
1. My family makes me mad.	How do they make you mad?
2. My brother has been depressed since he spoke to Dad	How has speaking to Dad made him depressed?
3. When she smiles through her fringe, I get all confused.	How does her smiling make you confused?
4. Her refusal to listen really makes me sad.	How does her refusal make you sad?
5. The whining tone in his voice gets under my skin.	How does his whining tone get under your skin?
6. I feel bad for making her cry.	What did you do that you believe made her cry?
Mind Reading
1. I know what makes him happy.	How do you know…?
2. You should have known I would not be pleased.	How should I have known?
3. He doesn’t like me.	How do you know…?
4. He should know better.	How should he know not to do that?
5. I know what is good for him.	How do you know what is good for him?
6. I’m sorry to keep annoying you.	How do you know that you are annoying me?
Lost Performative
1. It’s right that people should know.	For whom is it true that people…?
2. Failure is a necessary part of the system.	Necessary for whom? Who says it is?
3. That is a stupid thing to say.	That is stupid according to whom?
4. Oh, it is not important anyway.	It is not important to whom?
5. It is not good to be strict.	Not good for whom?

Meta Model Origins

Happy Hypnotism: Introducing the Meta Model Part 1

We are lucky to be hypnotists of the modern world because we can choose to mix and match our personal therapeutic approach from many great practitioners who have gone before us.

Many brilliant modern day hypnotists are great enthusiasts of the Indirect Model, the originator of which was Milton Erickson. In fact the Indirect Model is also referred to as the Ericksonian approach, with respect to the great Erickson. This is a fantastic approach and serves us all well, though today I would like to pay homage to its opposite: let’s take a look at the Meta Model.

Now you are familiar with the word ‘meta’ with our English words like metaphysics though maybe you have not given much thought to its origins. Meta comes from the modern Greek language and means ‘to go beyond’ or ‘after’. So metaphysics is beyond or after physics. To meta question is to go beyond or after, ‘ordinary’ type questioning.

John Grinder and Richard Bandler developed the Meta Model by modelling two very successful therapists, Fritz Perls and Virginia Satir, who got exceptionally positive results from their clients by having them be more specific in how they communicated. That is, they found that by using certain types of questions to gather information Grinder and Bandler observed that people tend to delete, distort and generalise their take on reality. We all do it. However, we do all this unconsciously. Hold onto your hats because once you become consciously aware of how we all dodge the true experience of reality, it can get a bit bumpy.

Regarding how we delete for example, we only present some of the information available at any one time, seeming to ignore some very relevant information as it does not suit our take on reality.

We distort by choosing to over simplify or fantasise about what is possible or what has happened. A lot of our stories would be quite bland without our own personal emphasis and deletion!

To recover the information missing as a result of deletions, generalisations and distortions, Grinder and Bandler identified twelve different patterns with corresponding questions and called this the Meta Model. So, the Meta Model is about being more specific to get a better understanding of the person’s take, or model, of the world.

All human communication has the potential to be ambiguous and as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, reality is certainly in the mouth of the communicator.

The purpose of the questions is to cut through this ambiguity, to access the missing information for both the client and the therapist.

We have a tendency to generalise by making general statements about what we believe, how we see others, our values and so forth. We usefully choose to ignore possible exceptions or special conditions that could present valid argument that would not support our cause. Like I say, we do all this unconsciously though and when we begin to realise how skewed our view of reality can be it can come as a bit of a shock. Of course, we do this for our clients in a loving way. If a person has no idea why on earth they behave in a particular way then we can ask the right questions and cajole the client into recognising that they are merely behaving in a way that serves them.

What I mean by this is that, let’s say a client says they can’t stop eating chocolate. Well, we know they can. We know they are not eating chocolate right now, so proving the point. What they really mean is they choose to eat chocolate from time to time because they find it tastes nice, makes them happy, gives them energy, is part of a sharing, social experience when offered it by a friend or loved one, it’s sweet, it’s smooth, it is fulfilling, oh I think I had better stop now before I need to go and buy some!

Asking the right questions can return a person to their sense of responsibility. Take responsibility for making a choice and you are back in control. However, the tricky bits come when someone pleads that it was not their choice at all. The cookie monster, the evil cigarette companies, the friend at work who is really not a friend at all and just wants you to be fat, is to blame!

Although based on the work of two therapists, the Meta Model has much wider reach and through this series of articles we will recognise how helpful it can be for our own inner talk as well as for communicating with others. Watch out though, as it can also provoke argument when used indiscreetly.

Once mastered, the Meta Model is a powerful and useful tool. However, it does take practice to master the questioning process and the process must be undertaken with a high degree of rapport for as soon as a person feels pressured you have lost their trust and maybe a good friend.

MODELS of Hypnosis - smile please!

Advanced Trance and Models to Know and Love

Does a person have to be put into a certain 'state' by a hypnotist or is the hypnotic state itself something easily and naturally accessible to each human being?

Still in a state about defining hypnosis?

So, what is hypnosis?  Yes, we are still mulling this one over, as some readers are a little unclear.  Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder and every human body could be revered for characteristics which we find especially pleasing, so I find it with models of hypnosis.

Well, that really is no surprise and I have the utmost sympathy with any confusion that might arise with defining hypnosis because the experts in the profession over the years still really can’t agree on how it works, yet we are all agreed that it does.  There is so much evidence now to support hypnosis, medical interventions and royal pregnancies for example, yet the most reputable and academic leaders in the profession, alive and dead, have fought tooth and nail, or cloak and pocket watch about their particular model.

The main point still seems to be, does a person have to be put into a certain ‘state’ by a hypnotist or is the hypnotic state itself something easily and naturally accessible to each human being.

Models of hypnosis fall into two camps, namely state and non state theories as we have examined in the previous article.

So state theorists say that hypnosis is a sleep-like state induced by a procedure of some kind by an operator (hypnotist) and in which certain special behaviours seem to result; particularly extreme responsiveness to suggestions made, including physiological responses and where the conscious mind cannot recall and seems to have no apparent awareness of what may have taken place during the trance experience.

Non state theorists maintain that there is no such special state needed to be induced by a third party and that these capacities of mind are available to all.

Ever being someone attempting to bring harmony to discord (which I think is the inherent nature of a therapist), I have examined and compared the theories further and come up with some comments on a few of the main players in the field.  Each deserves their own article to give any sort of true window into their lifetime’s work, so forgive the brevity of this approach, though I think it valuable to bring certain names to attention.  This is by no means an exhaustive list of theorists and other articles will surely follow when I have your most welcome comments.

I base the following on the choices of Jeffrey K. Zeig, who is the founder and director of the Milton H. Erickson Foundation and has written around twenty books on the subject of mind matters and comparative methods of psychology and hypnosis.

He put forward this list in 1988, identifying the following frameworks, into which I have inserted my own additions for clarity and demonstration of how we can be thankful to all and recognise the value of each who has gone before us.

Hilgard thought of hypnosis as dissociation, meaning splitting off  aspects of consciousness from each other.  One of these aspects was thought to assume dominance at particular times though other aspects were able to influence behaviour simultaneously or even could replace the dominant part.  

In modern hypnotherapy, this fits with our methods of using part therapy to help our clients.   So, for example, the smoking part may seem dominant at one time for the client, when the client explains that nothing they do can stop themselves smoking.  They have tried and tried but still the smoking part remains dominant. 

The New Behaviour Generator Model befriends the smoking part and sends it into background awareness whilst encouraging the creative part to emerge and have some air time.  Whilst the smoking part is never actually replaced, we do coerce it to morph into a more usefully labelled part with more consciously acceptable behaviours, after of course, eliciting what the positive aspects are of that smoking behaviour.  So, for part therapy purposes, Hilgard is tops.

Sarbin and Coe describe hypnosis in terms of role playing,  Following Robert White's radical interpretation of hypnosis in that a subject is merely playing out the role defined by the requirements of the hypnotist, who claimed the hypnotic process thus
“its most general goal being to behave like a hypnotised person as this is continuously defined by the operator and understood by the client.”

Sarbin used concepts from his own role theory using empirical research data, and analogies with other socially constructed roles, to argue that hypnotic subjects did not have to achieve some elusive special state of consciousness but could be better understood as identifying with an unusual socialrole or behaviour, that is acting out the expected role of a hypnotised subject in response to the directions of the hypnotist.

This is where our Gestalt Therapy Model comes in.   We hypnotists rely on this Model, don’t we, in fact for the client to play the role of an individual (such a parent, employer, neighbour etc) causing angst in the subject’s life to prompt a conversation and ultimately a resolution, between warring parts.  This has served me so well over the years, encouraging the client to see the other side of the argument and to pick out any usual purpose or mitigating factors.  It is particularly useful if the party in question is unavailable to make peace with in the present day, or, in fact, dead. 

Of course we open the role playing up to the subject acting on behalf of his pain in the knee, his irritable bowel or high blood pressure condition, you name it, anything goes, and it usually does with the correct handling. 

Spanos is also a leading proponent of this view.  Spanos’ findings were to contribute to the view that the hypnotic state did not exist at all, and that the behaviours exhibited by those individuals are in fact due to their being “highly motivated” by the hypnotist.  He stated that hypnosis is not an altered state and is actually the trying on for size, so to speak, of suggested behaviours that the participant either chooses to go along with or not.

Enter here our New Behaviour Generator as we request the part in question to try on some alternative new behaviours that are as good as, or ideally, much better than, the old behaviour ever could be.  Thank you Spanos.

T.X. Barber defined hypnosis in terms of non-hypnotic behavioural parameters, such as task motivation.  Experiments performed door to door, found that researchers could induce sleepiness by suggestion alone, without the swinging watches or formal protocols used by hypnotists. The power of suggestion worked effectively on about 20 percent of the people tested.  

Here we have to thank Mr Barber for proving to us the power of suggestion.  Never underestimate the power of suggestion and does one even need to be a in a special state for the suggestion to work?  Are we lulled into some specific state as we wonder around isle after isle of brightly coloured packaged products in supermarkets, throwing them into the basket when we just came in for milk?  State or non state, what’s your theory? How many times have you agreed to stuff you didn’t want to do?  Were you in a state?  Love, guilt, feelings of responsibility, arousal, fear, what made you respond to the suggestion given by another?  Perhaps we should tighten up our unconscious security, though that is just a suggestion.

Weitzenhoffer first considered hypnosis a state of enhanced suggestibility, but later a form of influence of one person on another, such as a dominant spouse or parent, or employer or politician perhaps.    Does that mean then that we can legitimately say that we are being hypnotised when our favourite or most respected MP or actor or friend asks us to do something?  This would really serve us well then if we acquire enough publicity that fame of our intention and efficacy would just be enough and all we would have to do is say to a large group, something like, stop smoking, or stop shooting each other, please.

Gil and Brenman described hypnosis in psychoanalytic terms as regression in service of the ego, with transference (when feelings felt for another are transferred onto the hypnotherapist).

I have certainly noticed this when I have been leading a course, all of a sudden I wonder to myself what on earth did I say wrong?   It seems that quite often an outburst would occur in response to my stating something about hypnosis or similar and something I said or how I said it, or indeed something another person said in the group has provoked a heightened response from another participant.  I have thought that something in the behavioural set of that individual has reminded the other of some unfinished business which has proved to be entirely useful when followed up with the practising of hypnotherapy together.  So, yes, thank you Gil and Brenman too.

Edmonston assessed hypnosis as relaxation (based on a Pavlovian theory of sleep as partial cortical inhibition). Edmonston even offered a new term to represent this state, which he termed ‘anesis’, from the ancient Greek ‘aniesis’, meaning to relax, or let go. Remember that James Braid coined the term hypnosis to distinguish what he and his contemporaries practiced as being distinct from Mesmer’s animal magnetism.  Edmonston, in similar vein, proposed that modern-day hypnosis was so distinctly different from Braid’s definition that it was worthy of this new name (Edmonston, 1991). His book concludes with the prediction that the eyes being “the only naturally visible parts of the central nervous system” would prove to be the keys to understanding hypnosis. 

This is surely where our eye catalepsy inductions come in and suggestibility tests using such have come from.  Thank you Edmonston.

Spiegel and Spiegel implied that hypnosis was a distinct biological capacity, so I thank them for all the arm levitation inductions I have done.  Certainly I would think that a person can quickly and spontaneously achieve 'trance' when in absolute shock where all systems seem to shut down apart from gaping mouth and wide eyed stare.  For those of you who have enjoyed our stage hypnosis and rapid induction demonstrations you already know that the path to hypnosis is not always paved with relaxation!

Milton Erickson held that hypnosis was a unique, inner-directed altered state of functioning and our thanks to Erickson is unquestionable.  Directing the subject to an inner state of enhanced awareness is a reliable induction in itself.  Engaging with metaphoric, indirect language patterns and encouraging the client’s own subjective reasoning is where all our meeting the client where they are and indirect hypnotic suggestions come from, particularly helpful in working with the difficult client.

Various followers of Erickson's lead have proposed that hypnosis is best defined subjectively and phenomenologically as a process between individuals, and a communications strategy for the achievement of therapeutic goals, with or without recourse to 'trance.'

Zeig says we should also reserve at least one category for what he calls “the numerous esoteric, non-scientific, or archaic models which view hypnosis in general as a condition of subtle unidentified or unobservable bodily fluids, a unique electromagnetic field phenomenon, or the result of supernatural influences or contacts, or contact with alternate realms of existence (in a non-metaphorical sense).” 

New age enthusiasts and proponents of angelic realms and other worldly associations and scientifically focussed multiverse theorists and various religious orders may find a way of coming to agreement  with the powers of mind and body whilst knowing that there is perhaps not only ‘something out there’ but also ‘something in here’ (I say as I point to my head!) that is worth our praise and respect and even our awe and wonder, if not always our credible understanding or definition.

Yes, let’s keep mulling this one over, as we add more and more to the mix, pushing the profession onwards and upwards.  We may still be unclear on agreeing on a specific model, though can all be usefully intrigued in exploring our favourites with every one being revered for those characteristics which we find especially pleasing, useful and appropriate at the time.  

It seems that hypnosis, or whatever we may choose to call it tomorrow, is still an exciting frontier with so much more to be discovered and many more discussions to have.   Who know, maybe it is one of us in our lifetime who will finally label, package and once and for all determine and prove that [ you fill in the blank !].   

Is Skype Safe?

Are Skype Hypnotherapy Sessions Safe?

Today with the advent of technologies such as Skype the Hypnotist and the subject no longer need to be in the same room or even the same country. This poses the question, what safeguards must be put into place in order to keep Skype Hypnotherapy safe?

Hypnosis has been used for thousands of years as a way of healing and pain control. From the ancient sleep temples in Greece to today in Dentistry, hypnosis has proved itself as being a powerful tool in healing and medicine.

Hypnosis has always been a practitioner in a room with their subject or client. The practitioner guides the subject through the various levels of trance, initiating the positive change work such as weight control, stop smoking, alleviating phobias or controlling pain, then safely returning the subject to full awareness.

Today with the advent of technologies such as Skype the Hypnotist and the subject no longer need to be in the same room or even the same country. This poses the question, what safeguards must be put into place in order to keep Skype Hypnotherapy safe?

The General Hypnotherapy Register which is one of the oldest and most respected hypnotherapist professional bodies in the world has put together some guidelines to help keep clients safe. Here is a small extract from the guidelines.

“Obtain an agreed back-up number or text arrangement in case of technology failure, and a third-party emergency contact number.

"Ensure that the client has a clear understanding of what to do in the event of server or computer breakdown or other loss of communication.”

If you are considering a Skype Hypnotherapy session have an alternative phone number that the Hypnotherapist can call you on. Also let a friend know that you are having a Skype Hypnotherapy session. Inform them of the date and time and let them know that you will be giving the Hypnotherapist their phone number in the unlikely event that assistance is required. It is also very important to ask your Hypnotherapist what is their back up plan in case of a failure in internet connection, computer or headphones and microphone.

This will keep you safe in two important respects. Number one, by knowing the procedure you will simply follow the steps detailed by your Hypnotherapist and no harm will come to you but more importantly number two, this will alert you as to whether your Hypnotherapist has a safety plan in place or not. If your Hypnotherapist cannot give you a step by step safety plan you would be strongly advised not to use that Hypnotherapist.

Another important safeguard is always to ask your Hypnotherapist if they are a member of a professional body and are they insured for online hypnotherapy consultations. Professional bodies have codes of conduct that members must follow and in order to be a member of a professional body you must be qualified or at least be very experienced and if your Hypnotherapist is insured this gives you an extra layer of protection.

The most important thing to remember is that Hypnotherapy is a relaxed, focussed state of concentration and is natural and safe. People and animals have been experiencing hypnosis for thousands of years with no negative side effects. With the above precautions in place and working with a fully qualified professional Hypnotherapist you can fully enjoy your consultation and all of the positive benefits it will bring.