“I have no confusion at all in my understanding of it, which makes me a better-than-average hypnotherapist.” Bit of a logical fallacy or two going on there! (i.e, you’re talking rubbish man!)

I should accept there is consensus about a definition of hypnosis because you say there is? Like heck! Where’s the evidence!

Do you have any sort of qualification in clinical psych? Given soe of the stuff you calim to be able to acheive, I’d have thought it essential.

I’m well aware that hypnosis is not necessarily something that someone does to you (that’s why self-hypnosis is possible).

You talk about a state of trance as if it’s some real objective state (like sleep). Do you have a definition of ‘trance’. And do you have any references to reliable literature to support your ‘2 crucial points’?

Lastly, you cite New Scientist (1992) for supporting the smoking cessation aspect of hypnosis. I suggest you go look at this open access review: Hypnotherapy for smoking cessation
Abbot NC, Stead LF, White AR, Barnes J (http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001008.html)

HEre’s the plain langauge summary:
Does hypnotherapy help people who are trying to stop smoking
Different types of hypnotherapy are used to try and help people quit smoking. Some methods try to weaken people’s desire to smoke,strengthen their will to quit, or help them concentrate on a quit programme. The review of trials did not find enough good evidence to show whether or not hypnotherapy can help people trying to quit smoking. So it looks like your claim on your website is actually a bit dodgy!

“@Chris
You’re quite right – I don’t really know what hypnosis is. As far as I know, to-date there is no consensus. So I guess I could argue you don’t really know what hypnosis is either. And since you earn a living from it, what does that make you?”

I have no confusion at all in my understanding of it, which makes me a better-than-average hypnotherapist. And there IS a consensus, but it’s an old-fashioned one (circa 1950s) and still involves some degree of misunderstanding. Believe me, there is NOTHING mysterious about hypnosis or hypnotherapy, but there is a public concept of it which is entirely wrong. The erroneous concept is that hypnosis is “something somebody does to you” (as in ‘hypnotizes’) i.e. a treatment. This notion is gleaned from watching Stage Hypnosis (not hypnotherapy, which most people have NEVER seen)and being taken in by the illusion that the ‘hypnotist’ has some sort of power or influence over the ‘hypnotized’ person. The assumption that accompanies this notion is that ‘hypnosis’ is some mysterious altered state that you (Andrew, Skepticat… anyone) have never experienced, which is rubbish. Trance states are normal and we all drift in and out of them all the time.

Your mention of relaxation is typical of the virtually non-existent understanding of hypnotherapy in the scientific world, and beyond. Relaxation is therapeutic in itself, being the opposite of stress, but here’s the thing: relaxation is not even required in the hypnotherapy process. It is an optional extra we usually throw in because it makes people comfy, but it has no significant role in any change process. Any discussion of the subject which centres on relaxation is a discussion between novices and dabblers, not experts on hypnotherapy.

The significance and usefulness of trance states can be summed up thus: in non-trance states the Subconscious mind pays little or no attention to what is going on around us; it leaves it to the conscious mind to deal with that. So if you are talking to a person who is not in trance (e.g. in ordinary conversation, a doctor’s consultation or a job interview) you are talking to the conscious mind alone, and therefore any changes resulting from that would be limited to the small amount of daily behaviour which is operated under conscious direction.

If the person is in trance – any old trance, depth of trance and depth of relaxation are nearly always irrelevant – the information / case for change / would be heard not only by the conscious mind but the Subconscious also. This dramatically increases the range of potential positive adjustments, since all bodily reactions, instant reactions, emotional reactions, feelings and habitual behaviour are all under Subconscious direction.

2 crucial points in truly understanding hypnotherapy:

1) The common notion that a person is “more suggestible” because they are in trance is utter rubbish. The same misunderstanding can be found in the word “susceptible”. The fact is, if the person is not in trance at all, then the subconscious mind never hears the suggestion for positive change, so of course it does not respond.

2) If the person IS in trance, then the suggestion will be HEARD. However, the Subconscious mind of any individual is a law unto itself and does not have to change a damn thing, whatever is suggested. I have never encountered any scientific investigation into hypnosis where these facts have been understood! The assumption always seems to be that if you get the person relaxed enough, or deep enough into trance, then they will respond to whatever suggestion you care to pitch at them! What nonsense!

For any suggestion to be accepted and acted upon, it is essential for that individual to recognise the advantage in that change for them personally at the time the case for change is presented. The therapist’s task is to make the case well, and present it in a manner that is wholly acceptable to that particular person.

The word ‘hypnosis’ doesn’t even mean anything. Hypnos is a Greek word referring to sleep, and there is no sleep in hypnosis or trance states. Unfortunately we seem to be stuck with it, just as we are stuck with the antics of the stage hypnotists, who are really just illusionists.

Skepticat: You may yet prove not to be a cynic. To some degree I have an open mind on the subject! Cynics are so certain that they are correct in what they already believe that they are done with any learning on that subject, and will only pay attention to material which appears to confirm their beliefs. There is usually some bitterness about the matter on their part, and they rarely know much about that subject in reality.

Skepticism on the other hand is a cautious, somewhat doubtful position but without a particular axe to grind – in other words skeptics are quite happy to abandon the cautious doubtful position if they subsequently find it to be unnecessary caution.

You called me “some jumped-up quack of a nicotine denialist”. From a position of knowing WHAT about the subject, exactly? You didn’t engage with the argument, you don’t even know what my argument about nicotine is! For a person who claims to have little interest in labels, you’re pretty quick to slap them on other people without knowing anything much about the subject. Can’t speak for homeopaths, but I am NOT a quack and my detailed arguments about nicotine have received some very favourable reviews from the people who actually read them.