by Tim Brunson, PhD
Many hypnotherapists and others who claim to include hypnotherapy in their range of talents regularly unknowingly mislead their patients and subjects. Today I want to focus on a couple misstatements that have come to be part of our clinical tradition despite being disproven a very long time ago.
During my initial hypnotherapy training I was instructed to tell new clients two important "facts." The first one was that a person absolutely cannot be hypnotized against his or her will. Secondly, a person cannot be influenced by a hypnotic suggestion to do something that is against their morals or values. Indeed, these comments are echoed in just about every hypnotist's pre-talk, by prestigious authors, who are published by mainstream New York book companies, and in hypnotherapy schools and courses, which are recognized by international associations. Early in my career I repeated these rules countless times to people who trusted my expertise and education. Yet, since I first heard them in an Atlanta workshop over two decades ago, I have completed numerous courses – all of which have been sanctioned by one or more of the same organizations just mentioned – in which I was taught numerous ways to create hypnotic effects and get people to unwittingly comply with my instructions totally without their knowledge or prior consent.
I once started every session by assuring people that they had nothing to fear from me as a hypnotist because absolutely all control still resided with them. However, I constantly employed tools such as confusion techniques, sleight of mouth, repetitive suggestions, Waking Hypnosis, "yes sets", direct suggestion, time-distortion, NLP, and other skills, which allowed me to promptly and elegantly bypass their resistance and make them more susceptible to my suggestions. I have never encountered anyone who felt forewarned or adequately prepared to counter my steadily increasing confidence and experience when it came to hypnosis.
The methods just mentioned will either slowly or rapidly cause a person's mental state to significantly change – which is often referred to as a trance. Even without inducing an altered state, I have caused people to enjoy the smell of an imaginary pecan pie, to involuntarily look in a specific direction, to begin itching without the existence of physical stimulus, and to even retch. In non-clinical settings, I have influenced waiters to smile or begin laughing for no particular reason. Like many of my readers, I am very good at getting people to think and do things – even when they do not want to or when it is creates activities of which they thought they were previously incapable or unwilling to perform. Therefore, I stopped ritually telling my paying clients something that is obviously untruthful as I have yet to meet a person with whom I cannot create a hypnotic effect – or put into a trance (which is not necessarily the same thing).
Nevertheless, the admission by hypnotherapists that the two widely repeated basic ground rules are actually falsehoods is dangerous. We have traditionally erroneously felt that our acceptability and effectiveness depended on the public agreeing that they have a high degree of protection from a potentially unethical hypnotist. Therefore, we have falsely misled them into thinking that the hypnotic operator's talents were somewhat limited and promoted the lame belief that all hypnosis is self-hypnosis. All the while we were – hopefully ethically – seeking to influence them as we sought to create a significant transformation.
I am a highly trained professional, who is in the business of manipulating people so that they can quickly achieve their goals regarding health, happiness, and self-actualization. Surprisingly most hypnotherapists are not alone in this respect. Medical professionals, ministers, school teachers, military and political leaders, coaches, advertising agencies, and sales people are all in the manipulation business. Yes, they may prefer not to use the word "manipulation," preferring instead to use teach, coach, influence, sale, or cure. However, if it walks and talks like a duck, then it most likely is a duck. (Of course, we hypnotherapists would probably say if it "quacks like a duck," it is either a duck or a hypnosis client.)
Hypnotherapists are just one of the trades, occupations, and professions who seek to transform others by using their abilities to influence. The main difference between our field and that of others is that we specialize in the art – that is to say, the art of manipulation. Like advertising specialists, we focus first and foremost on honing our abilities to bypass a person's resistance to change – which includes interfering with prior and existing patterns of thinking and behavior – and allowing them to create more efficient selective thought. Whether a hypnotist does this as stage entertainment or for clinical purposes, the fact remains that we are master manipulators. Indeed, other fields, which rely on their abilities to influence, stand to learn tremendously from us – provided we are truthful as to the true nature of the power of hypnosis.
Obviously, this brings up the issues of ethics and professionalism. If our sole aim is to ply our skills for the welfare and betterment of others, I would consider our activities as being ethical. On the other hand, if we use our considerable abilities solely to further our own financial desires – to include making misleading claims as to our qualifications and abilities (such as telling them the two falsehoods) – then we are clearly unethical. Furthermore, it is incumbent that all of us who profess to be either hypnotists or hypnotherapists – or tell others that as medical or psychology professionals we have sufficient training to perform such techniques – to remain knowledgeable both about where our field has been, where it is now, and where it is going. A practitioner, whose skills and knowledge are clearly outdated – which is unfortunately usually the norm – is treading on thin ice when it comes to maintaining an ethical and competent practice.
This takes me back to the central questions as to whether a person's mental state can actually be changed unwillingly or if they can be induced to have thoughts and perform behaviors that they would consider to be uncharacteristic. If you are compelled to find an answer, just turn on your favorite news channel and watch it for a few hours. Riots and atrocities are prime examples of people experiencing such influence. Add to this the activities of cults – such as the incident in Guyana in 1978 when 900 members of Jim Jones' group with very few exceptions voluntarily drank cyanide – and you will clearly see that a person's state can be readily changed as they are influenced to perform acts that they would previously thought unacceptable.
So, provided that hypnotists start being universally honest about the extent of their skills, should the power of a hypnotist create a need for alarm? I still believe that a person's moral character – which is an innate ability that often prevents a person from being unduly influenced by anyone ranging from their waiter to their surgeon – will protect them from an unscrupulous hypnotist in most situations. Regardless, that protection could be insufficient when a subject is dealing with a highly trained professional. In those cases I would hope that the established hypnotherapist trade organizations and elements within medical, counseling, and psychology organizations, which oversee their members' conduct, would provide an effective safeguard.
Self-regulation is a critical requirement needed for the creation of society-wide acceptance of hypnosis. However, I am still not convinced that this is the prime purpose of hypnotherapy organizations as I frequently encounter certified-but-inadequately-trained practitioners and the numerous daily sleazy promotions by their members on Twitter and Facebook as they push get-rich-quick hypnotherapy and NLP training courses. Should their focus be less on financial gains and self-perpetuation and more on professionalism and self-regulation, then I will be more satisfied that these organization are providing significant assurance as to the ethics of their members.
Formal legal regulation must also be considered. On a state-by-state basis in the United States, licensing laws governing a hypnotherapist's activities are either non-existent or woefully inadequate. I am not aware that any state has a regulatory department either set up or competent and capable when it comes to regulating hypnotherapists. Incorporating oversight of hypnotherapists into existing medical or mental health regulatory agencies is presently illogical as they have yet to demonstrate an understanding of the field. They can also be heavily influenced by medical or psychology groups who are either equally lacking in expertise and knowledge – or openly hostile (which I feel is more due to irrational fears of losing income to hypnotherapists than their concern about the welfare of the general public.)
Over the past decade or so legislative efforts have either focused on limiting hypnotherapy to medical and psychology practitioners or creating standards, which exceed those currently met by the members – meaning customers – of most of the hypnotherapy organizations. Having a medical or psychology doctorate (or less) does not qualify those professionals to practice hypnotherapy. Unfortunately, many with those credentials openly treat hypnosis with uninformed hostility or have minimal training and/or questionable competence (if any) regarding hypnotherapy. While legally sanctioning the incompetent practice of hypnotherapy should not be tolerated, proper regulation should be seen as a positive step towards the field receiving cultural authority. Internationally recognized hypnotherapy associations often pride themselves on their record of fighting any legislative efforts. Normally, what they are doing is proving that they are the field's worst enemies as they should be – like their medical and psychological counterparts – focusing on improving their member's level of professionalism, enforcing ethical behavior, and even proposing regulatory legislation.
In conclusion, should the public fear hypnotherapists? I think not. I have been directly involved with this field for over two decades. Since then I have never personally heard or come across a non-medical or psychology licensed hypnotherapist who has been accused or convicted of harming a client or patient. Those who are attracted to hypnotherapy and stage hypnosis – and even those who I criticize for the aggressive and questionable business practices – tend to be a very ethical and compassionate lot when it comes to dealing with clients and patients. In fact, while being a very vocal critic of my own field, I have always been impressed with the personable and caring attitude of my colleagues.
Nevertheless, I do firmly believe that our profession is in a tenuous position when it comes to the need of updating our knowledge base to reflect current scientific realities. I do believe - if hypnotherapy is to be elevated to the level of a "profession" - that we should promote hypnotherapy as a major field of study in mainstream academic institutions, that our organizations must become effective self-regulating bodies, and that we receive proper sanction from legal authorities. Meanwhile, the public should still feel extremely safe when they employ the services of a hypnotherapist. If hypnotists had developed a tradition of misusing their abilities, most definitely public outcry would have demanded more regulation a long time ago. The fact that this is not the case stands as a testament to the quality of the hypnotherapy field. Despite inaccurate myths perpetuated by the media and the paranoia of our sister fields, hypnotherapists are probably one of the most reliable groups serving the public.
Posted: 10/27/2014
