|
|
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Mental_Mike Special user Canada 726 Posts |
Someone told me that hypnotherapy is quackery. Has it worked for anyone here?
|
|||||||||
xanatos Regular user Wilbraham, MA 144 Posts |
Hypnotherapy is not quackery. However, there are MANY quacks who claim to perform the service.
Hypnotherapy is based on many sound, tried and true methods, and many people have had good success with it. People often have a bad experience with a quack, and condemn the entire profession, which is unfortunate. They'll never know what they're missing. Dave |
|||||||||
hkwiles Special user Howard Wiles 797 Posts |
"Someone"? Who might that have been. The postman, the milkman? Or someone with a background and knowledge of the subject?
Howard |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchison Regular user Madison, MS (orig. CNY) 118 Posts |
The AMA does not countenance quackery, and it endorsed hypnotherapy in 1958.
At the risk of being overly commercial, may I suggest reading my book, "Hypnosis: Clinical, Social, and Theatrical Uses." |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Re : The AMA does not countenance quackery.
Perhaps we could agree that they try to condone the most reliable treatments that will serve the most people. Are these the same people who countenance ADD as treatable by medication? Or almost over the counter anti-depressants... and viagra to manage that 'side effect' that seems to go with most anti-depressants? Is there an AMA position on basic bedside manner or what some call 'rapport skills' these days? And how does this involve folks using quicksilver in their practice? <- quack salver?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Lee Darrow V.I.P. Chicago, IL USA 3588 Posts |
Okay, we're in my backyard now...! Apologies for the length.
Hypnotherapy is a viable modality, recognized by both the AMA and the APA as a useful method of working with those whose needs are addressed by the technique's abilities and limitations. However, there is a wide range of people who do hypnotherapy, ranging from serious professionals, paraprofessionals and the fun bunches I call the "crystal flakes" and those who believe in "psyche uber alles." Professionals who use hypnosis for therapy include doctors, dentists, psychologists and psychiatrists as well as clinical social workers and other degreed, regulated mental health professionals. Unfortunately, the way almost every State licensing statute currently reads - ANY of these licensed professionals can use hypnosis without any formal training at all in its uses. This, to me, is a Bad Thing. Paraprofessionals include the Certified Hypnotherapists, Certified Hypnotists and the like, who have received training from any of the member organizations of the Congress of Professional Hypnosis Organizations (COPHO). These groups include the National Guild of Hypnotists, the International medical and Dental Hypnosis Association and several others. Training in these organizations includes usually 200 to 300 hours of classroom training under a certified instructor (one who has been through the basic certification program and then takes an additional program for teaching hypnosis and who follows an approved curriculum) and are required to maintain continuing education credits each year to maintain their certification. That would be me, forinstance. Paraprofessional hypnotherapists are allowed, in many states, to work with people for personal, self improvement and recreational purposes and cannot work on deeper psychological issues (like schizophrenia, depression or multiple personality disorders) unless they are under the supervision of a licensed mental health professional whose license allows them to work with such cases. Hypnotherapy has had successes in many areas, both as a primary and ancillary therapy. The "crystal flakes" are the crowd that go for the Atlantean crystals for hypnotic healing through the recall of long-dead spirit guides, etc., etc., etc. I don't give them much credence, frankly. The "psyche uber alles" crowd believes that EVERYTHING can be cured by the mind alone. Obviously, as no one has survived AIDS through mind power alone (or any number of other diseases), this is a dangerous way to go. Unfortunately, one finds certified paraprofessionals in both camps as well as in the mainstream (which is the majority of rational practitioners), so ask questions before working with someone. A good book to start with is, believe it or not, is "Hypnosis For Dummies" by Roberta Temes (IIRC). It's a non-technical overview of hypnosis as a therapy and also gives a general look at self hypnosis as well. I hope this helps! Lee Darrow, C.Ht. http://www.leedarrow.com
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!" |
|||||||||
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts |
Very basic hypnotherapy can have very beneficial results for conditions such as anxiety, removing the need for medication.
Hypnosis, a more general term I use to encompass a variety of techniques and processes, can achieve astonishing results compared to other mainstream psychological therapies. I talk from the experiences of people I've worked with. It has in some cases totally changed their lives. |
|||||||||
Dr Omni Regular user UK 199 Posts |
I think that the most useful term to describe hypnotherapy is "a process of learning". As we go through life, we all learn many things, some which are useful in the long term (walking, reading, using a knife and fork, driving, etc.), some of which are the best response the unconscious comes up with in a specific situation, but which proves to be a problem later in life (smoking, over-eating, procrastination, and numerous physical and mental conditions).
Hypnotherapy is the process by which a person learns---at an unconscious level---a more useful response for their life today than the "problem" behaviour or condition. Hypnotherapy merely utilises existing faculties of the human mind in order to facilitate this learning. Examples include the use of language, bringing back memories and accessing unconscious resources. Some well-known examples of hypnotic experiences from everyday life include hearing a song which brings back powerful memories of people and places and experiences from the time when that song was in the charts (anchoring), and driving on a motorway thinking that only five minutes have passed when in fact we have been driving for two hours (time distortion). So using these innate faculties can hardly be described as "quackery"; however, it is undoubtedly true that hypnotherapists (whether lay people or doctors, dentists, clinical psychologists, etc) vary in their skill in accessing those faculties in the hypnotic subject before them. |
|||||||||
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts |
The thing that may have confused your friend is the fact that there is a not a lot of scientific evidence (read none) to the fact that there is something called hypnosis that is separate from relaxation and suggestion. What this would imply is that hypnosis works but not because it is hypnosis.
This is, of course, a matter of some controversy, and I am not really looking to get into a debate over it. The notion of quackery, as I understand the word, must rely on a lack of faith in the method in the healer. Essentially, if I believe my snake oil works, I cannot be called a quack, although I am certain rude people can think of other words to throw at me. So there are hypnotherapists that are quacks (this is my assumption, I can't offer evidence here), just as there are psychotherapists who prescribe drugs they don't believe in that should also be labeled quacks. Both fields are however rife with non-quacks. /bamba |
|||||||||
Lee Darrow V.I.P. Chicago, IL USA 3588 Posts |
Bamba, I suggest that you take a look at the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. There have been several articles in there and in the APA journal (IIRC) that shows that there is significant evidence of a difference in brainwave patterns between meditation, hypnosis and relaxation.
I will see if I can find the specific articles, but this is a busy month. Happiness is a positive cash flow! Lee Darrow, C.Ht. http://www.leedarrow.com
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!" |
|||||||||
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts |
Lee,
That sounds interesting. I don't really need convincing, though. I can sleep at night having faith in things that aren't backed by scientific evidence. And if this is conclusive, undebatable evidence that hypnosis is a real state separate from suggestion and relaxation, well, the best I'd expect is it would spark off ten years of new bickering. Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of momentum invested in the bickering already, and I can't see it going away anytime soon. Most of the time I am happy enough to know that something works. But I would be interested to read the articles. Let me know how to find them when you are less busy getting rich! :) /bamba |
|||||||||
7th_Son Elite user Australia 437 Posts |
My guess is that the majority of the population is highly skeptical of the benefits of Hypnotherapy.
I have no empirical data to back up this bold statement. It's just a hunch.
"Here's to our wives and girlfriends...may they never meet!" - Groucho Marx
|
|||||||||
Lee Darrow V.I.P. Chicago, IL USA 3588 Posts |
One place to look for more empirical information is "The Experience of Hypnosis" by Hilgard & Hilgard. They ran the hypnosis program at Stanford for about 40 years and were considered at the top of the field, ranking up there with Milton Erickson.
One of the problems with defining hypnosis is exactly that - whose definition of hypnosis is one using? In Monsters & magical Sticks, the definition is so loose that it is impossible to delineate between a session where "formal utilization" occurs and the state of mind that one gent when locked in to a TV program! Hardly the same thing from a utilization standpoint and, frankly, a suspect argument, IMHO. However, the book contains some interesting methods of utilizing the imagination and attention to achieve positive results for the client, so the issue there is a bit moot. Just some more on the topic. More later. Lee Darrow, C.Ht. http://www.leedarrow.com
http://www.leedarrow.com
<BR>"Because NICE Matters!" |
|||||||||
hkwiles Special user Howard Wiles 797 Posts |
"Monsters and Magical Sticks", an excellent book on the subject, gives much food for thought.
Howard |
|||||||||
gerrardlo New user Manchester 34 Posts |
[quote]
"Someone"? Who might that have been. The postman, the milkman? Or someone with a background and knowledge of the subject? I totally agree with this. It does work and is definitely not quackery. Surely the person you told you this must have had no knowledge about the subject and would be very opinionated. |
|||||||||
Tantrik New user 78 Posts |
If anyone is interested in seeing the documented in scientific journals evidence that hypnosis and hypnotherapy are effective and powerful, I suggest the following site:
http://www.altor.org/et-bulk.htm |
|||||||||
santlerconjurer Veteran user 364 Posts |
I think the best answer is in two parts.
Part I: there's general professional agreement that any legitimate therapy (psychological counseling, psychotherapy, hypnotherapy, etc.) "works" in the sense that it shows better results than no therapy at all. Part II: "Hypnosis" is now understood quite differently than it was in the 1950's and 60's. We now know you can lie and fantasize under hypnosis, for example. We also know hypnosis opens no magic doors to the "subconscious" (because we just don't HAVE a subconscious like the one Freud described). This all having been said, I think the extreme position "hypnosis is all play acting" has been debunked as well. |
|||||||||
procyonrising Special user New York 698 Posts |
Oh... I dreaded this, but I think it's necessary.
Alright folks, I'm going to offer what I can about hypnosis. I'm a researcher in hypnosis and related phenomena (mental control, priming, and agency) and do hypnosis both in clinical and theatrical settings. Hypnosis does not lend itself to a concrete definition like the hard sciences (e.g. chemistry, biology), however, it is often described as a state of enhanced concentration, usually distinguished by a marked increase in suggestibility, relaxation, and/or feelings of dissociation (many hypnotized people feel as if they're outside their mind or body). Thus, many things can be defined as hypnosis, and that is an inevitable source of controversy. (For instance, considering the definition above, you can say that watching TV is hypnosis - and while you wouldn't be wrong per se, you wouldn't be exactly right either). Hypnosis does exist and is distinct from your normal waking state. Several studies were done by Orne at Penn to help support this statement. The first was to distinguish whether hypnotized people were just very compliant. Orne hypnotized two groups of people; the first rated high in clinical suggestibility (they scored high on the Stanford Scales of Hypnotic Susceptibility), the second scored low and were asked to "fake" being hypnotized. Orne then hypnotized both groups in the same room. Then, he left the room for a while. Apparently, the hypnotized group stayed in a relaxed "hypnotized" state, while the other (faking) group opened their eyes and looked around for the "disappearing hypnotist" (this is what they call this famous study now). Sounds pretty good, but let me play devil's advocate here. What if the people who were really really hypnotized felt some kind of inner motivation to remain in a "hypnotic" posture? What if they felt that the experimenter was hoping they'd succeed at being hypnotized, thus, making them stay slumped over and relaxed until the experimenter came back? Okay... so more evidence is necessary. Orne did another study using the same paradigm of high hypnotizability and faking hypnosis. He had subjects come into a room, one by one, to look at four red dots projected onto a screen. They were asked to negatively hallucinate one of the dots disappearing. 8 out of 10 people who were faking hypnosis showed heart rate decreases during the exercise (heart rate, among other bodily functions, were monitored throughout this study), while 9 out of 10 hypnotized people showed heart rate increases. To have such a high correlation in heart rate differences is pretty much a smoking gun in psychology. But wait... there's more proof. Actually, there's so much evidence for the existence of hypnosis that no one actually questions it anymore (kinda like the psychologist's equivalent of the round earth/flat earth debate; pick the wrong side and you just look stupid). Orne did (yet) another study looking at post hypnotic suggestions with this same high hypnotizability and faking hypnosis paradigm. In this study, the subjects were hypnotized and told that after they arose from hypnosis, they'd respond to a particular word by touching their ear (post hypnotic suggestion). After 24 hours, hypnotized people responded substantially more (I'm thinking 60% more, but since I haven't read the study in years, don't quote me) than those who were faking. Lastly, for this particular post, let me also add that fMRI studies looking at brain activity shows that people who are hypnotized can and do activate different parts of their brains in hypnosis, than when awake. The point is, hypnosis is a hugely researched topic in psychology. It isn't just bunk. Alright, but what of hypnotherapy? Hypnotherapy, simply, is psychotherapy performed when the client/patient is in hypnosis. That's it. Nothing more. If you're questioning the credibility of hypnotherapy, you're questioning the credibility of psychotherapy. However, I understand the argument isn't as simple as that... Let me begin by saying that ALL therapies experience success some of the time. This is widely known and suggested by Jerome Frank in his classic "Persuasion and Healing." Basically, Frank says that just being in a room with someone who cares about you makes you feel better (doesn't it?). Plausibly, we could all start a form of therapy tomorrow, prescribe sugar pills while listening to people moan about their problems - and 2/3rds of them would get better! So, does hypnotherapy work? In this context, yes. But what about hypnotherapy in general? Does it work? Yes. Studies show that it's effective in several areas, most notably pain management. It is used extensively in habit control (though most psychologists use some behavioral methodology - only because more evidence exists to support its use), relieving forms of anxiety, even removing warts. It is not, however, a panacea. It does have limits. Now... I'm going to refute some things in this thread and confirm some things: To everyone reading this, you should know that, indeed, a lot of Ph.D. and PsyD's do not have a lot of training in hypnosis, yet use it in their practices. However, hypnosis doesn't take a lot to learn, all you need to do is talk... That said, I must warn those who would have faith in para-professional organizations like the National Guild of Hypnotists. I've read their journals, been to their conventions, and met many of their members. A lot of quackery going on. Reading their journal is kinda like reading a comic book: there's nothing that suggests this is something to be taken seriously. Several things are misquoted. Several items are erroneously cited. Some stuff is just plain kooky. Additionally, I do know several trainers from these organizations. A lot of them are, in a word, weirdos. That's why the public doesn't trust hypnotherapy. You've got a bunch of freaks pretending to be scientists and therapists. True, everyone gets a few hundred hours of training, but in what? Let me give you an example from this year's NGH catalog - the source of continuing education for many lay hypnotists: "A look into the subconscious mind via handwriting analysis" (and the instructor isn't even French!) or how about "ADD children need you!" (to man the phones at their telethon!) or maybe "Chinese Motivational Hypnotherapy" (what does that mean? Dangle an egg roll over fat people as they run?). Can you say B***Sh**? This is my point: people don't trust hypnotherapy today because they is so little to trust. However, let it be known that: 1. Hypnosis does exist. 2. Hypnosis is distinct from the waking state, but does not have a clear definition. 3. It is extremely difficult to find quality, skilled practitioners of hypnotherapy. 4. Training does not equal competence. 5. Despite this, Hypnotherapy is not quackery. Alright, this is long enough. Do you see why I hate getting into these things? Oh, and personally, I've used hypnosis to help me excel in work and performance. And, I overcame paralyzing stage fright with self-hypnosis. |
|||||||||
hoodrat Veteran user Southern California 388 Posts |
Like many Americans, I have been suffering from Irritable Bowel Syndrome-related problems for two and a half years now. Just last week, I ordered a Self-Healing hypnosis CD from SuccessWorld http://www.successworld.com. I used to use these same programs (only on cassette tape) back in the late 1980s. Anyway, I've only used this Self-Healing self-hypnosis CD a few times this past week since owning it, and since then I've had no Irritable Bowel Syndrome symptoms for the last week! My diet is still as lousy as ever, so I cannot attribute the positive change to changes in my diet. It has to be an effect from using the self-hypnosis and subliminal tracks on the CD.
Yes, hypnosis does work!!! |
|||||||||
vratkins Regular user New Orleans USA 151 Posts |
Procyonrising,
I see why you hate getting into these things, but thanks for doing it. That was the clearest and most authoratative post on hypnosis I've ever read. Thank you, Victor |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » You are getting sleepy...very sleepy... » » Is Hypnotherapy Quackery? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |