Talk:Hypnotherapy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Personal Links
Hi, I'm not terrily 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] Evidence
I 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.
I should add that the article does contain quite a lot of useful information. --Robert Merkel
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] Criticism
I 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
- Absolutely. Does anyone know of a study where they compared people who were put under "hypnosis" for 1/2 hour a day compared to just lying down and relaxing for a 1/2 hour? I'm sure the "you're getting very very tired" part helps with stress, but I'm not convinced there's any medical effects besides those of the relaxation.--AK7 17:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- A lot of criticism about hypnosis comes from fear due to lack of knowledge and the way the media and Hollywood has portrayed hypnosis in the past. You state, "hypnosis is often perceived as dangerous by health professionals," yet you also say "i'm not familiar enough with research/applications in this area". Hypnosis is not dangerous, there is no way being in a highly suggestable state can cause injury to you mentally or physically anymore than you already are (depression, chronic pain). During hypnosis, if you do not agree with the hypnotist or do not want to follow instruction, you won't. Stage hypnosis and hypnotherapy, while both involving hypnosis, are pretty different from each other. Stage hypnosis relies on extroverted volunteers (the hypnotist generally gets to pick the 3-10 most highly suggestable audience members out of a crowd of 20-200), who are completely aware of what they are doing while on stage. While a short period of time in hypnosis can cause extreme relaxation, it has also been used to cessate/cease pain (painless child birth, surgery without anesthesia), relieve issues in the past(abuse), and stop habits(smoking, overeating, etc). Since I'm new to Wikipedia, I don't feel comfortable editing this page directly and would appreciate feedback on this. residente
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.
Seems to be written without much thought into the matter and simply taken from the book, and if this is the way it has been written in the book then I daresay Erica Fromm is giving false information. I understand that these can be problems but it is not specified that these kinds of reactions could occur in any setting with a therapist whether they by utilising hypnotherapy or not. It should be stated that this is common in all counselling/therapy related situations, and indeed even in day to day living where a person is being spoken to by someone they feel is superior. This person seems to be using scare-tactics to put hypnotherapy in a negative light.
Also more evidence should be put forward as to the benefits of hypnotherapy, and reference from other writers on the subject.
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
- My name is Donald Robertson, I'm also a hypnotherapist and director of a UK training school. I've published many articles on hypnosis, including a detailed review of the scientific and medical acceptance of hypnosis.
- In response to Mark's comments above. I think most people in the field of hypnotherapy would consider Yapko's work to be at least worthy of mention in relation to the treatment of depression, perhaps we can leave it at that. I would suggest that if Ericksonian hypnosis is to be linked to NLP it should be mentioned that the relationship between the two fields is controversial. E.g., Weitzenhoeffer, a colleague and contemporary of Erickson, described the NLP interpretation of his work as "fanciful and absurd."
- Not sure I understand your comment about CBT/psychotherapy, I think you may have misinterpreted my post. Anyway, I think the article should make it clear that cognitive, behavioural, and other psychotherapeutic approaches are widely used in the field of hypnotherapy.
- The BMA council actually recognised hypnotherapy as a legitimate and potentially effective treatment following a committee report in 1892, which was subsequently re-endorsed in 1955. See my article on the subject for details.
http://www.ukhypnosis.com/Events/Special%20Report%20on%20Hypnotherapy.pdf
- You mention the relationship between BACP and the BSCH. I met with Laurie Clark, the chairman of BACP recently over the topic of hypnotherapy. Unfortunately, BACP do not accept hypnosis, hypnotherapy, or NLP as legitimate techniques of counselling or psychotherapy. I hope that position will change one day, but at present there seems to be opposition to it. The UKCP and EAP, by contrast, acknowledge "hypno-psychotherapy" as a key modality of psychotherapy.
- The comment about Gestalt therapy for depression is interesting but I don't think this should be incorporated into the article without evidence as it might be disputed by skeptics. --HypnoSynthesis 15:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Returning to the the question of BACP's attitude towards hypnotherapy. It is worth remembering the previous comment regarding the BMA's positive attitude to hypntherapy i.e. that it is a legitimate form of therapy. The fact that BACP refuses to accept hypnosis, despite the position of the BMA raises the question of; what is the motivation of BACP in this area? Is their refusal an example of a 'cautious' attitude, or are there more political motive behind their stance? 90.192.107.176 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The APHP
Why 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)
- As someone who has had some experience of working with and editing Wiki entries (albeit by-enlarge anonymously) Might I suggest you have as much right as anyone else to edit entries that are incorrect, provided you can substantiate your reasons for editing. Although, to be perfectly frank, such is the 'nature' of wikipedia, you can edit away as much as you like as there's little or no controls in place to prevent anyone adding out right nonsense to an entry, altough someone will eventually change it. It's also worth noting that 'entry vandalism' does seem to be on the rise 90.192.107.176 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2008 (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 not
It's more likely to be the psychoanalyst Erich Fromm. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hypno-psychotherapy
I 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)
