The intrinsic Flaw in Objectivity in Hypnotherapy

Many hypnotists take for granted the belief that not everyone is a
good candidate for hypnosis. Some of us even spout statistics
regarding which percentage of people fall into which category of
suggestibility, as made famous by a study at Stanford University. The
funny thing is though, the study was as objective as possible, which
is the intrinsic flaw in any clinical study about hypnosis. More on
that in a minute.A woman came into the dentist office, where I am on staff, last
Friday. She promptly told me that she was there against her will and
that she had tried to tell the dentist that she knew she couldn't be
hypnotized (I get this a lot for some reason). So I asked her the
question I always ask people who tell me that, "how do you know you
can't be hypnotized." Funny thing though, she gave me the best answer
I have ever heard.

 You see this woman, let's call her Mary, went to Stanford many years
ago. And she took place in this study they were doing on hypnosis and
sleep. Long story short, scientists at Stanford spent quite a bit of
time and money proving that Mary couldn't be hypnotized. They even
did follow ups with her, one two years ago, and she was sure she
wasn't a good hypnotic subject. But the more Mary and I talked, the
more I recognized within her qualities of a great candidate for
hypnosis. So I told her about what I see as the intrinsic flaw in the
study she was a part of and convinced her to stay for the remainder of
her hour.I told Mary that clinical studies are supposed to be objective, and
that makes sense. So in the case of the Stanford study they used the
same technique on a large sample of people, asked a handful of
questions about the experience, and compiled the data.

The problem is in their intent, which was to find out if that specific technique
worked or not. When I am working with a client it's my intent to get
results, and therefore to use the technique I deem as best suited for
that person at that time. So they look for what percentage of the
population fits a certain technique, where as I am as dynamic as I can
be to (hopefully) find the technique that best fits the client.The difference between the approaches and outcomes is huge, as I'm
sure many other hypnotists have recognized long ago. But I think this
is a story worth sharing, because any time we can show a flaw in
conventional wisdom I think it's important to do so.

Because Mary was surprised, not only with the fact that she was hypnotized, but by how deeply she was hypnotized. I had her fully regressed to moments that
made her cry with joy, then deepened her further until she went lights
out and didn't remember anything for a period of time she couldn't
define (just under ten minutes of deep conditioning) and then came
back up feeling better than she had in a long time. She was excited
about coming back for her next appointment and thanked me for
hypnotizing her.

And for what it's worth, there is zero ego behind me telling this
story. My point is in emphasizing what we can do with people who are
willing to follow instructions, even the most understandably skeptical
of our clients. I think a lot of good hypnotists fall into believing
that there are some people who just aren't candidates for the work we
do, and I think that's unfortunate. I understand that there are some
people that I am not best suited to work with, and I think there are
some people who aren't ready to deal with an issue at a given time,
but I believe just as strongly that everyone can be hypnotized given
the right timing and practitioner.

And I would really like to express to the newbies how important this
thinking is, and what it does for me as a practitioner. It
necessarily short circuits any doubt on my part and gives me the
freedom to be at ease with my clients. It means that if I learn enough
techniques and approaches I can be even more confident in the fact
that I can hypnotize anyone who walks in my door. And this is exactly
why we keep learning, regardless of the numbers of years of experience
we have.

This is also a great example of why I don't use scripts with clients.
I like scripts, read scripts, even write scripts, but the only piece
of paper in my office is my notes that I take during the session.
Getting stuck in the rut of "script-nosis" simply doesn't interest me,
because that just makes me a walking tape recorder. And if I was a
tape recorder then I wouldn't be able to hypnotize Mary.

So it's a fun little story, mostly because it encapsulates something
we already know and explains it so simply. Mary is the perfect
example of what we can do with our clients when we ignore conventional
wisdom and trust our instincts. Hypnosis is, at its best, a really
fun blend of art and science. Some professions, even in the medical
and mental health fields, should remain objective. But the very
nature of our craft is subjectivity, to elicit and create personal
scenarios in our clients' best interest. And I think this is worth
saying every now and again, and I recognized this as a good
opportunity to do so.

Have fun,
Scott Sandland, C.Ht.
Goal Oriented Hypnotherapy
http://www.gohypnotherapy.com