 |
 |
          |
|
Vol.
6 No. 1 March 1985 ABSTRACT HYPOTHESIS The second is, in order to permanently alleviate the presenting problem, it is often necessary to de-hypnotise our patients rather than hypnotise them. The distinction made between these two phrases may appear no more than a play on words, but it is hoped the following will demonstrate a subtle, but non-the-less crucial difference. It is further postulated, that is the therapist approaches treatment with the idea of de-hypnotising, AS WELL AS hypnotising in mind, this will open up a wider range of possible hypnotic strategies for the clinician. RATIONALE It may be expedient to tell a prospective subject/patient that hypnosis is “a state of mental and physical relaxation in which one can accept therapeutic suggestion more easily”, but is it an accurate definition? This definition, or something akin to it seems to be commonly used in the clinical setting, and is no doubt quite useful as it can help to allay fears the person may have been previously entertaining. However it is not difficult to induce a responsive subject to stand rigorously to attention while imitating a soldier on guard duty: deeply hypnotised, yet without any ‘relaxation’. For a definition to be valid, it must remain an accurate description of the defined subject of object under any and all circumstances, I believe Elman’s definition cited above satisfies this requirement. Having postulated that people are hypnotised into having their problems, and in keeping with the fundamental nature of this article, I shall endeavour to simplify this concept by drawing a comparison between ‘hypnosis;’ and ‘belief’. When someone is being influenced by a hypnotic suggestion, we can say they are believing in the idea being conveyed by the suggestion. They are being uncritical and have faith in the soundness of the idea or concept: they have belief in what has been suggested. This remains true even if the reason the suggestion is carried out is because having been hypnotised, the subject believes he has no choice but to carry it out … The ‘uncritical acceptance’ of an idea creates a belief in the idea. Perhaps we can extend this notion a step further to say that, uncritical acceptance of an idea is in fact – belief. The two phrases become interchangeable. SUGGESTIBILITY,
BELIEF & REINFORCEMENT A belief can be created by a person’s uncritical, face-value acceptance of an idea, with no (apparent) conscious judgment involved. A belief can also be created in the wake of considerable conscious evaluation and arbitration. Either way, a belief is not a belief, nor does it become one, until the idea or concept is uncritically accepted and filed away in the person’s ‘accepted basket’ of the mind. Once there it becomes more than just an idea or thought. It becomes a sensation; an experience; a belief. It takes its place beside millions of other impressions and beliefs, which in total constitute the self-image. In this capacity it becomes the impetus of much of the believer’s daily behaviour and overall attitudes-to-life. Once a belief is firmly established, it can become reinforced in various ways. Firstly, it can be reinforced through reiteration from the original source. An example of this would be the regular exposure to ideas advanced to children in a kindergarten or Sunday school situation. Likewise, the continued injunction of ”you’ll grow up just like your father (or mother)”, will serve to reinforce a child’s belief system. To be continually told “you’re lazy”, “you’re clumsy”, “you’re bad tempered”, you’re good natured”, will usually have a similar effect. Secondly, a belief is reinforced when the person observes ‘evidence’ to support the original idea. Bearing in mind that much of a person’s behaviour is initiated by a belief system, the ensuing behaviour will often bear witness to the belief. If a child is led to believe he has an extraordinarily bad temper, he will tend to focus attention on any such behaviour, and accept this as ‘proof’ of the original injunction, and therefore help create and/or reinforce the belief. When this occurs, a circular pattern of ‘bad tempered behaviour’ leading to more ‘proof’, leading to more ‘bad tempered behaviour’ is set in motion. It may sometimes be useful to realise that not only is the ‘bad temper’ child caught up in this vicious circle of ‘behaviour-proof-behaviour’, but usually the parent or person making the original injunction is also similarly effected, making it more likely they will continue reinforcing the syndrome. This stratagem is not confined to childhood. For the most part, the people that present to a hypnotherapist for help with emotionally based problems are victims of this syndrome. These patients believe they are ‘failures’, ‘smokers’, ‘compulsive eaters’ and the like, and often have a lifetime of past ‘evidence’ to ‘prove’ it. The man suffering impotence, which started with an isolated over indulgence of alcohol, or a particularly arduous day at work, is similarly affected. The (otherwise) healthy twenty year old that avoids social gatherings with her peers because of ‘shyness’ is a victim of the same unfortunate circumstances. And of course the same can be said for the vast majority of people we see in our clinics each week with any number of psychological, emotion and very often physical disorders. The common element in these varied examples is the vicious circle of ‘behaviour-proof-behaviour’ noted above. MORE
NEGATIVE BELIEFS Of the beliefs that fall into this category, possibly the most commonly encountered is that the person - must be loved by someone in order to be happy. Unless brought to the person’s attention, this belief will almost always go completely unrecognised. It is common for many people to live their lives, desperately trying to secure other’s love and approval. These people will prostitute their own desires and wishes and passively accept the dictatorial shoving around of person after person, in their never-ending quest for love. This belief not only causes unhappiness and discontent in personal relationships, but also a continual undercurrent of anxiety, which pervades many other aspects of the person’s life. It has often been found to be the basis of a chain-reaction of fears; manifesting overtly in a seemingly unrelated manner. And of course this belief seriously undermines emotional independence, making it more difficult for the person to take responsibility for the managing of his or her own affairs generally. When presented clinically with relationship discord, phobias and other anxiety-based problems, and people displaying unhealthy amounts of dependence on others, it is suggested that consideration be given to the possible presence of this self-defeating belief. When a patient is encouraged to substitute a keen desire for love, in a place of a dire need, many problems will be overcome, or at least rendered more tractable to further remedial help. Another equally damaging belief that possibly occurs with similar frequency to the foregoing, is to do with revenge. In our society, from the time a child is old enough to sit upright in front of a television set and comprehend what he sees and hears, he is taught to hate and seek revenge. He is led to believe that it is normal, natural and indeed necessary to hold a grudge; and feels completely justified in harbouring his feelings of resentment and condemnation for as long as he wishes. I have yet to see a ‘soapie’ demonstrate the corrosive damage spawned by these feelings. Since the time mankind crawled out of the sea, or down form the trees, or out from the Garden of Eden (your choice), he has had an inbuilt sense of self-preservation that has protected him. Alas, human beings use their thinking/believing power to convince themselves they will feel better if they hate someone that deals them an unkindness… Many of our patients suffer the mental, emotional, and physical cost of deep-seated and often forgotten hatred. These patients can usually be identified by their unaccepting attitudes, or their sour looks and rigid, unyielding deportment; or sometimes by a history of ulcers, heart attacks and high blood pressure. Sometimes sadly, by all of these and more. Most of us readily agree that a major proportion of human suffering is either a direct or indirect result of ‘excess stress’. By helping out patients adopt a more accepting attitude and philosophy towards others, themselves, and the world in general, we help them discard current, and avoid future excess stress. I have discussed these two irrational beliefs in some detail, as they are so savagely destructive, and so commonly encountered in clinical practice. Quite obviously there are numerous variations and combinations of these beliefs; and the degree of intensity in which they are held is equally diverse. The astute clinician will be prepared to detect and deactivate them, in whatever guise and strength they may appear. At this point I’m going to digress for a few moments and say some more about suggestibility and the acquiring of beliefs. It was omitted earlier as I feel it deserves separate consideration, and is particularly relevant to the next debilitating belief system I intend to discuss. Of the various ways in which an idea can be suggested from one person to another, the most difficult (suggestion) to reject is that which is implied only. The suggestion that comes to us by way of implication is taken in and endorsed, usually without our being consciously aware of having been subjected to it’s influence at all. Unlike in the case of the more ‘direct’ suggestion, any evaluating, which occurs, takes place at a level of thinking outside of conscious awareness. Statements such as: “that frightened me”, “this makes me happy”, “they make me angry”, “when the children behave like that it upsets me” etc., are all commonly used and heard. These utterances come from, and help reinforce, an implied belief system. The implication being that we can be made to feel certain emotions, by people and circumstances in the environment. I dare to say that MOST people take it for granted that they have virtually no say in how they feel emotionally. This belief is central to an extensive array of emotional tensions and upsets we see presented for hypnotherapy. A common complaint of patients is that they are ‘too emotional’ or ‘too easily hurt’. These people are no more emotional or easily hurt than anyone else; they are however, more prone to emotional stress, due to belief that it is externally caused. This externally focused attitude renders the person less likely to contemplate their own involvement in the causing of emotional stress and conflict. This belief not only causes problems both in and of itself, but puts the person in a position of disadvantage when trying to overcome other emotional problems – with or without professional help. As with the self-defeating beliefs mentioned earlier, better therapeutic results can usually be expected when the patient is caused to challenge this attitude and becomes aware of the part they play in causing their own emotional feelings. The philosopher Epictetus (1st century A.D) indicated the fallacy of believing external circumstances are the sole cause of emotional distress with the words – “Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of them”. In other words, it is not the negative influences present in our environment, but rather the individual ways in which we interpret them, which ultimately lead to our emotional reactions. There are many and varied self-defeating beliefs which lead to mankind’s unhappiness and discomfort. If a person is unwilling, or through ignorance unable to take responsibility for his own emotional feelings, he is sure to experience difficulty overcoming the various negative influences that this life seems to hand out. We, (and our patients) have the final say in the way we feel emotionally. DISCUSSION It does happen of course, where an alternative way of thinking/feeling/behaving is directly suggested to the patient during hypnosis, and the required change takes place without the need for formal ‘de-hypnotising’ or challenging of the inappropriate idea. In these cases it would seem that the patient does the challenging and giving-up of the unwanted concept spontaneously. I believe however, that to expect this to happen always, and conduct therapy accordingly, would amount to a rather ‘hit-or-miss’ form of treatment. CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES |