| advertise add site services publishers database health videos | ![]() | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Body Talk - Hypnotherapy of Nevada hyptalk.com | Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking... independentliving.com | Hypnotherapy introduction course - our two day basic hypnotherapy... sich.co.uk |
[edit] Personal LinksHi, I'm not terribly familiar with the Wiki systems but have always been led to understand that personal advertising is not permitted. I've worked on the training section of this article to tidy it up (in a non-controversial way - others are welcome to update anything I've wrote) but when I try and delete the ad for MJP Hypnotherapy along with some information on NGH which is already mentioned in the section below so therefore duplicate it keeps getting reverted. I've tried a few times but it keeps getting changed back - how does one go about removing personal links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.3.230 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] EvidenceI have just made extensive changes to this article. I removed a side-bar about CAM because it totally obscured the start of the article. I deleted some "hype" about success of different treatments that was unsupported by evidence. I have also added extensive references and quotations from my own peer-reviewed article on the history of hypnotherapy efficacy research. I've done it quickly, but if anyone needs more information to tidy it up or flesh out the references, I'll be happy to provide it. A link to a more detailed article on efficacy is below, http://www.ukhypnosis.com/Events/Special%20Report%20on%20Hypnotherapy.pdf --HypnoSynthesis 13:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Huge improvement Hypnosynthesis. Now this article actually says something about it's subject. (I spent some time trying to get the text to run down the side of the side bar without success. I'm sure there's a way)(o: Fainites 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I just deleted the section on techniques because it was an advertisement that somebody put up for their services. Not very appropriate for wiipedia. Hmmm. This is hardly neutral point of view. The efficacy of psychotherapy is very much doubted by those who use behaviourism or cognitive psychology as the basis for their theraputic work, and Freud himself gave up on hypnosis as a useful method for psychotherapy. Also, the articles claims for "success rates" is unsourced, and probably ignores the issues of the placebo effect, the possibility the patients would have gotten better without treatment, doesn't define "successful treatment", and doesn't compare the success rate with alternative treatment methods. --Robert Merkel Hence, I removed this sentence from the main article: Hypnotherapy is very successful with motivated clients that are mentally well (That is, they have a firm grip of reality), and with this specific group of clients, it often has a success rate of roughly 65-70%, according to some practitioners.
Can hypnotherapy be successful in curing clinical depression? Malau1 I disagree with your position that Behavorists and Cognitive Psychologist are not successful hypnotists. I read a book by Pavlov the famous Russian learning theorist. He described hypnosis as "cortical inhibition". It is when a stimulus no longer produces the reward. While the stimulus then reward is exciting, the stimulus and no reward causes inhibition. The lack of reward causes slowing down or something like sleep. He demonstrated this with an experiment. Albert Ellis is a Cognitive Psychologist and he has written many articles on hypnosis. He wrote one of the hypnotic scripts in the book "Hypnotic Suggestion and Metaphors" by Norton Publishers, page 168. It is titled "Rational Emotive Suggestions about Anxiety". Freud was a long time ago. Why do the teachings of a person (Erica Fromm) belong here? Please provide some information on this person's authority in the subject, how widely accepted her ideas are, etc. - Centrx 21:38, 6 Jul 2004 [edit] CriticismI really think that this article needs a criticism section, seeing how hypnosis is often perceived as dangerous by health professionals (i.e. the highly suggestible state of the subject). I would include some criticisms myself, but i'm not familiar enough with research/applications in this area. dr.alf
I personaly feel that this part: The Hypnotist-Subject relationship has been feared by some due to the practice of stage performers. In a book by Erica Fromm, it has been referred to as "archaic involvement", listing these responses in the "patient": Feeling like a child in relation to the hypnotist. Wanting to please the hypnotist. Feeling guilty at not doing what the hypnotist wants. Worrying the hypnotist will not like you. Wanting to bask in the "power and glory" of the hypnotist. Everything the hypnotist says and does deeply matters. Hypnotherapy, however, usually takes place in a clinical setting, within the framework of an individual course of therapy.
I'm new to this system but felt I had to contribute as I am a hypnotherapist, psychotherapist, and trainer, so this is my area of expertise. Far from the efficacy of psychotherapy being questioned by cognitive or behaviour therapists, these are often classed as forms of psychotherapy themselves. Freud abandoned hypnosis for a variety of reasons most of which would now be seen as highly questionable. One was that he was frightened that subjects would become sexually attracted to the hypnotist, a conclusion he seems to have based upon a single anecdote. Later in his career he published an article entitled On the Future of Psychoanalysis (if I remember rightly) in which he accepted that hypnotherapy would have to be re-introduced to psychoanalysis in order to increase its effectiveness and speed the process of therapy up. Regarding the placebo effect, there are now many reliable clinical trials which compare hypnosis to placebo and/or other treatment methods. I will supply references if it helps with the entry. Michael Yapko is a world authority on the psychotherapy of depression and has published at least five books on the use of hypnotherapy to treat clinical depression. I'm concerned that some of the posts above seem to assume that there is little or no research on hypnosis. There are an enormous number of studies available. For example, in 1999 the British Medical Association published a Clinical Review of hypnotherapy which cites a number of other meta-analyses and randomised trials. The US National Institute of Health also commissioned a report which reviewed the research and concluded that hypnotherapy was proven to be effective in managing a variety of different forms of physical pain. I think this discussion needs to move beyond people's personal opinions and be informed by expert opinion and published research. Especially when the discussion is driven by people who, with respect, admit they don't know anything about the subject. The reference to Erica Fromm seems out of place as her opinions are not representative, and do not seem to be substantiated by any evidence. --HypnoSynthesis 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC) As an actual clinical hypnotherapist - I would junk and reorganise most of this page! The section on 'Techniques' is not correct in any sense, as the majority of points in it are actually phenomenon that occur within a hypnoidal state - not as an induction or process to the state. The previous poster has raised some concerns, but I feel that there is even less creditation to some of his comments regarding Mr Yapko and his publications - which are not actually field specific. They tend to draw more upon the natural suggestive states of therapy in general, with concentration on previously examined phenomenon established by others and his own anecdotal evidence. I would also recommend that the articles section commenting on Ericksonian approaches; should have more specific vocabulary - 'Rigmarole' does not give any true comment on the induction processes or applications of trance. It would be worth linking Erickson to an NLP article, due to the predominant usage of 'Indirect' hypnosis in the popular sense. Hypnotherapy has been recognised by the BMA since 1955 - a fact that has not been mentioned in the article or by any commentors on this discussion. The previous poster seems to have also misused a schism between cognitive, behavioural and psychodynamic schools of thought... CBT, REBT and psychotherapy are integral to many of the interventions used in hypnotherapy and the schools of thought (also Humanistic existentialism and biogenic theories) tend to be supportive of techniques that are brought to the individual treatment of the patient - NOT the disorders. The references to Fromm - are just one point of criticism to the 'Role Playing' nature of hypnosis, appreciation of the other hypnotic models would be advised before commenting from one angle of critical understanding. Other theories of the actual state/process would include the 'Pavlovian' conditioned response to secondary signalling systems (language to suggestion), social/authoritive obedience/conformity (including role-playing), nervous sleep (hypnoidal responses), altered states of consciousness and many more etc etc et al... With regards to Freud - he was not actually very good at hypnosis and therefore abandoned it and approached the 'Free association' without realising that it created a similar effect. Of course, he recognised the need of relaxing a client to promote a more hemispherical level of activity in his patients and would continue to take advantage of many of the phenomenon that are produced by such focussed attentions (regression, transference, amnesia). With regards to a 'criticism' section - I would point out that properly trained and registered therapists are equipped to assess the possible usage of hypnotherapy to resolve a patients issue without harm. There is at the moment no legislation or government body that regulates therapists. The British Society of Clinical Hypnosis is constantly petitioning the UK government to create a regulatory body - also to ban the 'Stage hypnotist' forms of entertainment (which are already banned across the majority of European countries. Danger is only present to the patient when an unqualified or non regulated (by professional body) therapist is acting out of concern for money rather than ethical concerns. There are no more concerns of abuse of therapeutic relationships/treatment than there are with any other malpracticeable profession in the uk. Less than 1% of malpractice claims are actually taken to judicial court hearings - which is somewhat lower than those that are entertained from many other medical/therapeutic professions. The BACP (British Association of Counsellours and Psychotherapists), Imperial College and the University of Greenwich all have a working relationship with BSCH. The topic of depression as a hypnotically treatable symptomology is very carefully debated with all these bodies. As a rule of thumb - 'exogenous' depressions are typically considered treatable by hypnotherapeutic interventions. 'Endogenous' (or clinical) depressions are only treated with careful communication between the therapist and the GP following an actual specific diagnosis of depression. Either way - the approach to treating depression is very carefully adapted to ensure that certain suggestive languages are used and without the prescence of 'burdening' or 'heavy' languages that indicate 'Deepening sleeps' etc. Typically - Gestalt 'Parts' therapy can be very succesful with some types of depression, as these are very 'mild' and covert in the nature of fixations of conscious processes that can lead to very natural hypnotic states without formal inductions... Hypnosis can be used with therapy to treat almost every type of physical or mental disorder, with the exception of; schizophrenia, autism (severe), epilepsy and organic brain diseases. mark@placidcat.f9.co.uk
http://www.ukhypnosis.com/Events/Special%20Report%20on%20Hypnotherapy.pdf
Under the US Certification boards, as of 12/12/2008 the first 2 - The International Medical and Dental Hypnotherapy Association and the International Association of Councelors and Therapists, have the same CEO and same people performing the same function on the operations team of both organizations. There are probably legitimate reasons for them to be organized this way but a casual surfer could construe that these are 2 completely independent organizations that recognize each other. I am not sure whether my concern is legitimate or how to neutrally phrase it on the main page - any thoughts? ----rgalbin [edit] The APHPWhy not ask the Association for Professional Hypnosis and Psychotherapy for input on this one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suenortheast (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC). The APHP are just one of about six major hypnotherapy trade organisations in the UK of similar nature and membership size. Their comments might be useful, but so might those of other similar organisations. HypnoSynthesis 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC) [edit] No Criticism?I think that no one can deny that there is some criticism of hypnotherapy. Furthermore, I am very impressed by the eloquent defenses of its legitimate value on this discussion page. Should those concerns and responses not be represented on the topic? I think they should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.112.14 (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC) There have been some additions to this page recently which seem to be unfounded and unsubstantiated criticisms (and based on false assumptions). There are criticisms of hypnotherapy but (believe it or not!) you would be hard pressed to find much in the way of coherent, evidence-based criticism -most of it is just public misconception. I am partisan, but I'd be happy to see rational criticisms being included. The recent stuff is unreferenced and blatantly false, though. It looks like vandalism, IMHO. --HypnoSynthesis 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, vandalism is on the rise since you can edit all you want. But justifying yourself is most helpful. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Erica Fromm notIt's more likely to be the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC) [edit] Hypno-psychotherapy - Merger from section in psychotherapyI agree that the Hypno-psychotherapy section in psychotherapy should be reduced to an explanatory sentence, and the bulk of the text merged with hypnotherapy. The content is absolutely fine but in the present form it has undue prominence in the psychotherapy page, relative to its importance in the field of psychotherapy. --Anonymaus (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Agree The section is too long for an overview needed here. (It was added by User:Hypnonlp on 25th January 2008.) Lumos3 (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC) The following essay was moved here from the psychotherapy article by me. It is too long and detailed for that article . Will a subject expert merge it with this article if it is useful. Lumos3 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |