Alan Heap
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 86
1
yes, exactly. it's the appearance of the commanded acts performed by the volunteers which gives hypnosis the "putting them under effect" and at the same time giving the effect it's more than it is.
on to therapy. even sigmund freud gave up hypnotherapy because it was ineffective and if 99% of hypnotherapists won't work with people with severe problems, then what use does it actually have? what makes it any different from selling tap water with a claim that it boosts your confidence and improves your social skills for 50x the cost of tap water? hypnotherapists don't even care about the specifics of the problem because all they do is tell the patient to get over X, go do X or don't do X. they make no attempt to find the cause of the patients problem so how are they supposed to know whats best for the patient?
if water was sold with some ridiculous claims(which there has been), people on here would be debunking it like crazy, yet if someone comes along with a technique with similar types of claims, it's considered ok? unless i'm missing something huge here, it's a double standard.
hypnotism for entertainment is fine as it obviously provides entertainment as it's trick, but it's still no more than a trick and it will never be anything more than entertainment. the performer/hypnotist has to put on a show, be charming and glamorous and tell the volunteers to do entertaining acts, mystical, funny etc. class it as anything more than entertainment and it's a con.
Hypnotists often say ""you can't make someone do what they don't want to". I don't like or use that wording. I prefer "You won't do anything that is morally or ethically against your beliefs". When you see the stage hypnotists having the people on stage do goofy things everyone always say's "Why would they do that?". Well the answer is, it wasn't against their moral or ethical belief. I have seen stage hypnotists make suggestions that one or more people on stage refused.
As far as your comment on working with those with severe mental issues. 99% of trained hypnotherapists will not work with clients who have severe mental issues.
Keep in mind. All hypnosis is self hypnosis. Anyone how wants to be hypnotized can be. Anyone who doesn't - Won't....
yes, exactly. it's the appearance of the commanded acts performed by the volunteers which gives hypnosis the "putting them under effect" and at the same time giving the effect it's more than it is.
on to therapy. even sigmund freud gave up hypnotherapy because it was ineffective and if 99% of hypnotherapists won't work with people with severe problems, then what use does it actually have? what makes it any different from selling tap water with a claim that it boosts your confidence and improves your social skills for 50x the cost of tap water? hypnotherapists don't even care about the specifics of the problem because all they do is tell the patient to get over X, go do X or don't do X. they make no attempt to find the cause of the patients problem so how are they supposed to know whats best for the patient?
if water was sold with some ridiculous claims(which there has been), people on here would be debunking it like crazy, yet if someone comes along with a technique with similar types of claims, it's considered ok? unless i'm missing something huge here, it's a double standard.
hypnotism for entertainment is fine as it obviously provides entertainment as it's trick, but it's still no more than a trick and it will never be anything more than entertainment. the performer/hypnotist has to put on a show, be charming and glamorous and tell the volunteers to do entertaining acts, mystical, funny etc. class it as anything more than entertainment and it's a con.
Last edited: