Starting with hypnosis

Aranthos Faroth

Ok,
So .. I was watching Darren Brown.
Yup.
There you go, you know know my motive behind wanting to learn this.
However, after trundling through one hell of alot of sites claiming to teach you how to hypnotise someone, I came to a conclusion.

I was way out of my depth.
Not only had I no idea what hypnosis actually was. Be it a form of psychology (as it works with the mind) or a type of illusionist trade.

I also realised something else.
There are alot of odd people out there.
9 out of 10 links that I saw on the internet about hypnosis had some sort of relation to learning how to seduce women without even talking to them, in less than 5 mins.

That is not the reason why I want to look into this.
I don't want to be like Darren Brown, the big stage show artist.. infact I work in I.T and don't plan to leave anytime soon for my big starry show in vegas.

I just want to understand it, from the ground up.

Finally I reach my question:
Does anyone know how I might go about learning hypnosis?
From the very basics. Very basics.
To the intermediate, and maybe in future beyond.

Sorry if this is in the wrong thread (Mostly sorry myself as the 'right' people won't be reading it)

Odysseus

Aranthos Faroth wrote: »

Ok,
So .. I was watching Darren Brown.
Yup.
There you go, you know know my motive behind wanting to learn this.
However, after trundling through one hell of alot of sites claiming to teach you how to hypnotise someone, I came to a conclusion.

I was way out of my depth.
Not only had I no idea what hypnosis actually was. Be it a form of psychology (as it works with the mind) or a type of illusionist trade.

I also realised something else.
There are alot of odd people out there.
9 out of 10 links that I saw on the internet about hypnosis had some sort of relation to learning how to seduce women without even talking to them, in less than 5 mins.

That is not the reason why I want to look into this.
I don't want to be like Darren Brown, the big stage show artist.. infact I work in I.T and don't plan to leave anytime soon for my big starry show in vegas.

I just want to understand it, from the ground up.

Finally I reach my question:
Does anyone know how I might go about learning hypnosis?
From the very basics. Very basics.
To the intermediate, and maybe in future beyond.

Sorry if this is in the wrong thread (Mostly sorry myself as the 'right' people won't be reading it)

Hi mate, if you do a search of the forum there are loads of thread om hypnotherapy training, so you could start there.

crotalus667

Op pop orver the magic board (under arts) its not magic but it goes hand in hand , the main hypnothearpy schools in ireland are not really worth the money (about 3 grand a pop) your better off spending the money on books far cgeaper abd you will learn far more

Odysseus

crotalus667 wrote: »

Op pop orver the magic board (under arts) its not magic but it goes hand in hand , the main hypnothearpy schools in ireland are not really worth the money (about 3 grand a pop) your better off spending the money on books far cgeaper abd you will learn far more

Can I ask your experience and training around hypnotherapy? It's not a trying to catch you out, I don't rate it as a therapy, but think it may have other uses, which you seem to br implying; could you expand on it a bit please?

Namle

crotalus667 wrote: »

Op pop orver the magic board (under arts) its not magic but it goes hand in hand , the main hypnothearpy schools in ireland are not really worth the money (about 3 grand a pop) your better off spending the money on books far cgeaper abd you will learn far more

And this is why the sooner legislation is put in place the better. Advising people to get a few books and then claim they are hypnotherapists is totally irresponsible. Maybe they can learn to be a hypnotist but there is a world of a difference.

Aranthos Faroth

Namle wrote: »

And this is why the sooner legislation is put in place the better. Advising people to get a few books and then claim they are hypnotherapists is totally irresponsible. Maybe they can learn to be a hypnotist but there is a world of a difference.

It sounds like you know it mate.
Can I ask, where/how did you study it?

Odysseus

Namle wrote: »

And this is why the sooner legislation is put in place the better. Advising people to get a few books and then claim they are hypnotherapists is totally irresponsible. Maybe they can learn to be a hypnotist but there is a world of a difference.

I really don't think that poster was suggesting what that his post was about about practicing as a hypotherapist, as I'm not even sure that is what the op is looking for.

OP do the search I recommended there is one regular poster here who is very knowledgable about the training courses in Ireland, and he has posted a lot on here about it.

hotspur

The 2 main trainers of hypnosis and hypnotherapy in Ireland are:
http://www.hypnosisacademy.ie/ http://www.hypnotherapytraining.ie/ (same trainer) and
http://www.hypnosiseire.com/

Choosing an appropriate training from either of those will teach you what you wish to know about hypnosis. As for the beginner, intermediate, and beyond from a pure hypnosis perspective there really isn't much in the way of intermediate and beyond - hypnosis is a simple thing.

If you explicitly wish to train in the entertainment, magic, showman kind of hypnosis tricks then magicians often train with Anthony Jacjuin in Britain. I think he comes here from time to time, but people travel for this 2 day training to Britain. I know one magician who also does hypnosis and he was very impressed with his training from Jacquin. Also Jacquin's book Reality is Plastic is said to be good for the kind of hypnosis you are talking about. Here is his site:
http://www.anthonyjacquin.com/training.html

Namle

Aranthos Faroth wrote: »

It sounds like you know it mate.
Can I ask, where/how did you study it?

I'd rather not mention a specific name but Hotspur has covered it in his post. I would also say that I am intelligent enough to know I am not a psychotherapist but experienced enough to know that there is far more than the placebo effect on offer during hypnotherapy.

Odysseus, I have been a long, long time lurker on this forum and have avoided being drawn into any of the discussions regarding hypnosis. In this case however I feel very strongly that advising someone to learn hypnosis from a book is poor advice. It may only happen rarely but in hypnosis the subject may go into spontaneous regression or relive an old trauma. If this happens the hypnotist should be trained to handle such events. Someone posted here recently that they had to undo severe damage done to an individual who had a traumatic experience in hypnosis that was not dealt with properly.

As Hotspur has said, hypnosis is easy. I can teach anyone the basics of hypnosis in 20 minutes. Therapy on the other hand, well that's a different story.

Odysseus

Namle wrote: »

I'd rather not mention a specific name but Hotspur has covered it in his post. I would also say that I am intelligent enough to know I am not a psychotherapist but experienced enough to know that there is far more than the placebo effect on offer during hypnotherapy.

Odysseus, I have been a long, long time lurker on this forum and have avoided being drawn into any of the discussions regarding hypnosis. In this case however I feel very strongly that advising someone to learn hypnosis from a book is poor advice. It may only happen rarely but in hypnosis the subject may go into spontaneous regression or relive an old trauma. If this happens the hypnotist should be trained to handle such events. Someone posted here recently that they had to undo severe damage done to an individual who had a traumatic experience in hypnosis that was not dealt with properly.

As Hotspur has said, hypnosis is easy. I can teach anyone the basics of hypnosis in 20 minutes. Therapy on the other hand, well that's a different story.

I fully agree and respect you wish not to get into a discusion about it, but my reading of the OP's post was that it was not for therapeutic reasons that he was interested in it. My own view on it as a therapy is well know here.

crotalus667

Odysseus wrote: »

Can I ask your experience and training around hypnotherapy?

I trained for thearpy and stage with a number of people over the past ten or so years including the man thought Paul McKenna,

Namle wrote: »

And this is why the sooner legislation is put in place the better. Advising people to get a few books and then claim they are hypnotherapists is totally irresponsible. Maybe they can learn to be a hypnotist but there is a world of a difference.

I did no such thing

The OP said
"That is not the reason why I want to look into this.
I don't want to be like Darren Brown, the big stage show artist.. infact I work in I.T and don't plan to leave anytime soon for my big starry show in vegas.
I just want to understand it, from the ground up."

Spending 3 grand on a course that IMO is not worth the money when you dont intened to use it is poor advise,

I have seen the content of many courses that are praised in the industry and most of them can be surpassed by reading some of the classics, if you understood hypnosis you would know the futility of legislating against it

FTR
I have found the majority of stage courses show a greater understanding of hypnosis the therapy courses

Namle

crotalus667 wrote: »

if you understood hypnosis you would know the futility of legislating against it

I totally agree, however some people in Brussels who have decided that bananas should be straight are also looking into legislating the use of hypnosis.

Just to explain my position; I have a personal distase for stage hypnosis since i was a psychology student in the 80's. A performer came to UCD and finished his show by leaving the stage and his subjects in trance. One of the subjects became aggressive and violent. I just found the "entertainer" to be very irresponsible.

As I also posted elswhere, my other concern is spontaneous regression. WHile it is rare it is a real occurrence. It is not restricted to therapy, it can happen during any hypnotic trance, which includes on stage or even a simple relaxation exercise. I honestly believe that anyone facilitating a hypnotic induction should be equipped to handle such an event if it happens. Otherwise the subject could be left at best highly emotional or at worst traumatised. I hope this explains some of my concerns about just teaching inductions without stressing the responsibility that goes with it.

Odysseus

Namle wrote: »

I totally agree, however some people in Brussels who have decided that bananas should be straight are also looking into legislating the use of hypnosis.

Just to explain my position; I have a personal distase for stage hypnosis since i was a psychology student in the 80's. A performer came to UCD and finished his show by leaving the stage and his subjects in trance. One of the subjects became aggressive and violent. I just found the "entertainer" to be very irresponsible.

As I also posted elswhere, my other concern is spontaneous regression. WHile it is rare it is a real occurrence. It is not restricted to therapy, it can happen during any hypnotic trance, which includes on stage or even a simple relaxation exercise. I honestly believe that anyone facilitating a hypnotic induction should be equipped to handle such an event if it happens. Otherwise the subject could be left at best highly emotional or at worst traumatised. I hope this explains some of my concerns about just teaching inductions without stressing the responsibility that goes with it.

Well it does for me in anyway, but I think most people here have issues about people calling themselves therapists after such short training.

I would just never allow anybody access to the potential damage that can occur, it would be the same with that Holotropic breathwork I have worked with a few people who had bad experiences with that; and I think the training is just as short as well.

Like anything else playing therapist is all well and good until something goes wrong, and the psyche can be badly damaged by someone who is inexperienced, I know we all had to start somewhere, and my knowledge base is completely different to when I started to see clients, but that's where supervision comes in. But I'm going off topic now so I'll shut up. However, thanks for your input on the thread.

lighthouse

Odysseus wrote: »

I would just never allow anybody access to the potential damage that can occur, it would be the same with that Holotropic breathwork I have worked with a few people who had bad experiences with that; and I think the training is just as short as well.

I know this is off topic but I have plenty of experience of holotropic breathwork. By it's very nature as a regression therapy a person is likely to get in touch with very strong feelings which can go back to traumatic events in early childhood. Problems may occur if these emotions aren't fully dealt with in the holotropic session or in the subsequent weeks.
I'm interested in what you mean by bad experiences. Therapy can often make existing problems worse especially in the early stages as the wound behind the problems a person is experiencing is opened up. Because holotropic breathwork is a more powerful method of allowing a person get in touch with their repressed feelings this can amplify things that may be happening in "regular" psychotherapy.
I owe my life to holotropic breathwork and Prof. Ivor Browne who first introduced me to it in St. Brendan's Hospital in Grangegorman in the mid 90's.
Regarding training, this is very rigorous. While I have not undergone any of the training sessions myself I have a good idea of what is involved from talking to people who have undergone it.
People wishing to train as holotropic breathwork facilitators must do 7 week long training sessions which include them undergoing 2 holotropic breathwork sessions during the week. They must also do a number of breathwork sessions outside of this. As far as I know you cannot get certified as a breathwork facilitator in under 2 years. Prospective facilitators must also attend holotropic sessions with certified facilitators. At the end of all of this there is no guarantee you will be certified as you are assessed by the course facilitators. This is as much of what I know about the Stan. Grof holotropic training. Once certified you can facilitate at holotropic breathwork sessions and use the Holotropic Breathwork TM words to describe what you are doing. Stan. Grof who developed this technique trademarked the words Holotropic Breathwork. There are people who do various forms of breathwork with clients but unless they use the words Holotropic Breathwork in what they do they are not certified Grof. facilitators.

JuliusCaesar

And the evidence base for Holotropic Breathwork is..............??

Rigorous scientific studies only, please.

lighthouse

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

And the evidence base for Holotropic Breathwork is..............??

Rigorous scientific studies only, please.

One cannot judge something of this nature simply by scientific studies. I have benefitted enourmously from it and it is not my desire to convert anyone to it's effectiveness. I am simply giving my own personal experience of it, which often is of more interest to people than what you refer to as "rigorous scientific studies"

JuliusCaesar

But, Lighthouse, ..........this is the Psychology Forum and it's under Science for a reason. Anecdotal evidence is just that. I love opera. But I can't extrapolate from that that everyone gets great enjoyment from opera.

If we are to try to help patients/service users, we need to have a pretty good idea of how to do this and who will benefit, rather than just believing that we can help.

Waking-Dreams

lighthouse wrote: »

One cannot judge something of this nature simply by scientific studies.

Hmmm, I have a question.

Why is it that this line of defence is often always sounded off in response to criticism, like some kind of mantra, when it comes to alternate therapies like this or, homeopathy or healing crystals for that matter.

I very much doubt that if there was scientific evidence which supported it you would still insist that it cannot be judged by scientific studies.

“It worked for me.” All well and good. Somebody can also attribute their not getting to flu to having taken Echinacea, but I’ve never taken it and only had the flu twice in my life. So just how effective are these remedies?

Illusory causation comes to mind.

JuliusCaesar

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Illusory causation comes to mind.

Indeed. Post hoc non ergo propter hoc, as we scientists are fond of saying.

MinnyMinor

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

And the evidence base for Holotropic Breathwork is..............??

Rigorous scientific studies only, please.

if you want Rigorous scientific studies only stay away from psychoanalysis

MinnyMinor

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Indeed. Post hoc non ergo propter hoc, as we scientists are fond of saying.

or Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy as per freud and co

lighthouse

MinnyMinor wrote: »

if you want Rigorous scientific studies only stay away from psychoanalysis

Sounds like you had a bad experience with it?

MinnyMinor

lighthouse wrote: »

Sounds like you had a bad experience with it?

no but thereiso scientific proof about it. repression cannot be proved or investigated. dreams interpretation is just making up as going along, nothing scientific or provable

lighthouse

MinnyMinor wrote: »

no but thereiso scientific proof about it. repression cannot be proved or investigated. dreams interpretation is just making up as going along, nothing scientific or provable

I have already posted above about my positive experiences with holotropic breathwork and some posters replied saying they wanted scientific proof. I didn't reply because I was simply giving my own personal experiences.
However I take issue with some of your comments regarding psychoanalysis. I underwent psychoanalytic psychotherapy for about a year and a half in the early stages of my recovery before I moved to more experiencial forms of psychotherapy such as holotropic breathwork.
I don't really care whether repression cannot be proved or investigated. I have seen in my own life the "damage" to my personality by repression and the healing that has taken place in bringing all these repressed emotions, memories to the surface by experiencial forms of psychotherapy and holotropic breathwork.
Regarding your analysis (if you pardon the pun) of dream interpretation, that is a very negative view of it. Speaking of personal experience again I have seen the significance of dreams in psychotherapy and would have to disagree with your negative comments. After all didn't Freud refer to dreams as the royal road to the unconscious. Or do you even believe in an unconscious as I suppose this is not "scientific or provable" also!

MinnyMinor

lighthouse wrote: »

I have already posted above about my positive experiences with holotropic breathwork and some posters replied saying they wanted scientific proof. I didn't reply because I was simply giving my own personal experiences.
However I take issue with some of your comments regarding psychoanalysis. I underwent psychoanalytic psychotherapy for about a year and a half in the early stages of my recovery before I moved to more experiencial forms of psychotherapy such as holotropic breathwork.
I don't really care whether repression cannot be proved or investigated. I have seen in my own life the "damage" to my personality by repression and the healing that has taken place in bringing all these repressed emotions, memories to the surface by experiencial forms of psychotherapy and holotropic breathwork.
Regarding your analysis (if you pardon the pun) of dream interpretation, that is a very negative view of it. Speaking of personal experience again I have seen the significance of dreams in psychotherapy and would have to disagree with your negative comments. After all didn't Freud refer to dreams as the royal road to the unconscious. Or do you even believe in an unconscious as I suppose this is not "scientific or provable" also!

my pointvwa sthere is nothing scientific about it. if you believe it helped you good for you bjt that is a subjective view.Also your view of dreams is subjective, Frued and is work is largely debunked http://www.skepdic.com/psychoan.html see also why freud was wrong

lighthouse

MinnyMinor wrote: »

my pointvwa sthere is nothing scientific about it. if you believe it helped you good for you bjt that is a subjective view.Also your view of dreams is subjective, Frued and is work is largely debunked http://www.skepdic.com/psychoan.html see also why freud was wrong

And those articles you link to aren't subjective I suppose?

MinnyMinor

lighthouse wrote: »

And those articles you link to aren't subjective I suppose?

webster has researched freud. read his book. if you have scientific proof of repression/dream analysis or other freud tedchnique please post. in order to test repression you would have to in some way abuse or hurt a child and then see if they remember it when they grow up

Pebbles68

MinnyMinor wrote: »

in order to test repression you would have to in some way abuse or hurt a child and then see if they remember it when they grow up

Surely by that rationale, using scientific principals, the concept has not been disproven either. So a scientist would have to consider repression as a hypothesis that can neither be proven nor disproven?

lighthouse

Pebbles68 wrote: »

Surely by that rationale, using scientific principals, the concept has not been disproven either. So a scientist would have to consider repression as a hypothesis that can neither be proven nor disproven?

At last someone who is at least open to some of these concepts

MinnyMinor

Pebbles68 wrote: »

Surely by that rationale, using scientific principals, the concept has not been disproven either. So a scientist would have to consider repression as a hypothesis that can neither be proven nor disproven?

that is why psychoanalysis is considerd a psuedo science

lighthouse

MinnyMinor wrote: »

that is why psychoanalysis is considerd a psuedo science

Yea and people once believed the earth was flat

MinnyMinor

lighthouse wrote: »

Yea and people once believed the earth was flat

the earth has been proven not to be flat but psychoanalyis has not been proven to be scientific and is incapable of being proven or disproven

lighthouse

MinnyMinor wrote: »

the earth has been proven not to be flat but psychoanalyis has not been proven to be scientific and is incapable of being proven or disproven

I wish I could predict the future with the same certainty as you seem to be able to. If I could I certainly wouldn't be spending my time on boards.ie :rolleyes:

MinnyMinor

lighthouse wrote: »

I wish I could predict the future with the same certainty as you seem to be able to. If I could I certainly wouldn't be spending my time on boards.ie :rolleyes:

is the roll eyes a defence:D instread of sarcasmm put up some evidence for it and while youre at it for holotropics as well

lighthouse

MinnyMinor wrote: »

is the roll eyes a defence:D instread of sarcasmm put up some evidence for it and while youre at it for holotropics as well

I have stated a number of times in this thread that my views are based on personal experience which has been rubbished by posters. I would gladly tell you more about my personal experiences but that would be rubbished as well as not being scientific so what's the point?

MinnyMinor

lighthouse wrote: »

I have stated a number of times in this thread that my views are based on personal experience which has been rubbished by posters. I would gladly tell you more about my personal experiences but that would be rubbished as well as not being scientific so what's the point?

i did not rubbish your views just said there is no scientific proof for holotropic or psychoanalysis. i did not say they did not help you merely that your personal experience is anecdotal only

DerekG

Aranthos Faroth wrote: »

Ok,
So .. I was watching Darren Brown.
Yup.
There you go, you know know my motive behind wanting to learn this.
However, after trundling through one hell of alot of sites claiming to teach you how to hypnotise someone, I came to a conclusion.

I was way out of my depth.
Not only had I no idea what hypnosis actually was. Be it a form of psychology (as it works with the mind) or a type of illusionist trade.

I also realised something else.
There are alot of odd people out there.
9 out of 10 links that I saw on the internet about hypnosis had some sort of relation to learning how to seduce women without even talking to them, in less than 5 mins.

That is not the reason why I want to look into this.
I don't want to be like Darren Brown, the big stage show artist.. infact I work in I.T and don't plan to leave anytime soon for my big starry show in vegas.

I just want to understand it, from the ground up.

Finally I reach my question:
Does anyone know how I might go about learning hypnosis?
From the very basics. Very basics.
To the intermediate, and maybe in future beyond.

Sorry if this is in the wrong thread (Mostly sorry myself as the 'right' people won't be reading it)

Hi Aranthas Faroth,

I saw your post about starting hypnosis, and the subsequent argument that commenced... with nobody really answering your question.
For what it's worth I took an interest in Hypnotheraphy like yourself. I picked up a couple of books, and then I did one of the training courses. Think it was about €700 for the distance learning part and about €2k for the classwork but that's about 5 years ago. Some of the people that I did the course with where planning to go on and practice as hypnotherapists. I on the other hand was more interested in the personal development side.

If it's an area that you have an interest in then follow it up, you'd be a fool not to as it's hugely interesting.
Get a few books, do a course if you like, the more interest you have in it the further you will or wont take it, but that's for you to decide and not for someone else to tell you.
The best starting point is to pick up a book or two on Self Hypnosis. What you do inside your own head is nobody else's business.
Best of luck.

Odysseus

MinnyMinor wrote: »

no but thereiso scientific proof about it. repression cannot be proved or investigated. dreams interpretation is just making up as going along, nothing scientific or provable

Can I ask how much study you have done on the topic to come to this conclusion, by this I mean have you read much of Freud or just others opinions on the topic of psychoanalysis?

You will gain little from psychoanalysis without engaging in the texts, if it was that un-scientific why our universities not would be covering it as MSc level, both Trinity and UCD do.

The status of psychoanalysis as a science is a very valid question, the difficultly is where you situate it as it deals with subjectivity.

I do not defend psychoanalysis here, as I see no need to. However, I do be interested in how people form opinions like that. Even though we are off topic.

I don't defend psychoanalysis here as I said above I generally don't see the need to, in the same way I don't seen the need to try disprove others. I'm happy with people going to any type of therapist once they are trained to a high standard. I work along side a CBT therapist, we see roughly the same amount of clients, achieve roughly the same results [depending on what we see as a result], the big difference is we intervene at a different level and I tend to see clients for a longer time frame. Hardly what you could call a study, but it highlights the area I'm interested in clients getting a quality service. Which I think is the most important question we can ask as clinicians.

Does it suit everybody no, I often send clients to my fellow therapist because they are not suited to my approach, but the same happens the other way around.

That's my 2c in anyway, the length of training and person therapy required to become a member of any of the four psychoanalytic bodies here, shows me that the client will hopefully get a better service than someone who has a Dip in something, and quality of care is what it comes down to for me.

Odysseus

MinnyMinor wrote: »

webster has researched freud. read his book. if you have scientific proof of repression/dream analysis or other freud tedchnique please post. in order to test repression you would have to in some way abuse or hurt a child and then see if they remember it when they grow up

Just read The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. Freud's attempt a bit of pop psychology, but it does deal with the topic of repression and the unconscious is a more simple way. Though in those cases you are dealing with repressed thoughts that are not conscious as oppossed to repression proper, which is a different topic all together.

Repression can be understood in many ways, it does not really refer to these memories that often associated with false memory syndrome.

But that is it, I will have to stop here other wise I will end up breaking my own rules.

Waking-Dreams

lighthouse wrote: »

I have stated a number of times in this thread that my views are based on personal experience which has been rubbished by posters. I would gladly tell you more about my personal experiences but that would be rubbished as well as not being scientific so what's the point?

I don’t mean to “rubbish” your personal experiences; only you subtly implying that because these methods worked for you, maybe others could/should consider them also. Anecdotal evidence is just that. And similarly, someone who says their special rock keeps tigers away is also just relaying a story based on personal experience. Maybe they think it works for them, but it is specious reasoning.

Odysseus wrote: »

Can I ask how much study you have done on the topic to come to this conclusion, by this I mean have you read much of Freud or just others opinions on the topic of psychoanalysis?

You will gain little from psychoanalysis without engaging in the texts, if it was that un-scientific why our universities not would be covering it as MSc level, both Trinity and UCD do.

Hmmm, I don’t agree that one must undertake a significant amount of study of Freudian ideas to avoid gaining little, just as one doesn’t need to have attended a theology school to get a proper subjective understanding of religion. We all read second-hand accounts of various subjects and make judgments based on that information.

I can’t help but think of how many theists try and bat away criticisms of their beliefs by people such as Richard Dawkins because, (and I’m paraphrasing here) “he has not studied religious theology in depth as we have”. They invoke “NOMA”; scientific ideas cannot be applied to religion, etc. But again, if there was ANY science to back up religious claims, you can bet your bottom dollar they would endorse it. Imagine if there was scientific evidence for the existence of Jesus. You think they would turn up their noses and keep referring to NOMA?

Freud is still taught on Psychology courses because he did bring a lot of new ideas to the field back in the day when it was getting off the ground, and his legacy is embedded in pop culture to this day (Freudian “slips”; repression; Oedipus complex, etc.)

I don’t think he should be removed from courses as it’s very important to know the history of Psychology. However, the application of Freudian ideas will appeal to some and not others. Such is life.

But I can get an understanding of Freudian ideas without having to engage in reading the texts first-hand because the same thing happens for all the other Psychological perspectives too. Maybe people still read Wundt, who knows?

But to try and counter this is a bit like invoking the, “unless you’ve been through it yourself, you don’t know what you’re talking about” line of argumentation. Many people often state that only those with first-hand experience of something can express a valid opinion on it. That may be true in some cases, but only in a tautological sense. Why? Because I can know, in the non-experiential sense, what a heroin or gambling addiction can do to people without having to get involved in it myself.

I certainly don’t doubt that lots of people understand what both of those addictions can be like for others, despite having never read a book on addiction or studying people first-hand.

I do think it’s unfortunate that Freudian ideas cannot be falsified. Good science relies on being able to disprove our ideas because it’s good exercise and leads to further progress. If we can’t disprove something, we run the risk of confirmation bias where we only pick up everything that proves the rule and ignore anything to the contrary.

And you can see where this really got out of control as lots of psychodynamic clinicians, operating on their fixed belief system (based on Freudian and pseudo-Freudian ideas), pushed vulnerable clients into looking for memories of childhood abuse, where none existed. In trying to find supporting evidence for their theory of repressed memories, they accepted without reservation or question the authenticity of said recovered memories. Now, I know FMS was an epidemic of hysteria and in fairness, Freud can't be blamed for what happened but the point is, just because a memory is expressed with confidence and emotion does not mean it really happened. We cannot yet reliably discriminate true memories from false ones.

“Feelings of absolute certainty and utter conviction aren’t rational deliberate conclusions. They're involuntary mental sensations generated by the brain.” -Robert A. Burton, Neurologist and author of, On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not

Often, in debates over Intelligent Design, creationists are asked by scientists, “what could disprove your theory?” and they never get an answer. Scientists at least have an answer that had rabbit fossils turned up in Precambrian rocks that would raise doubts about evolution but creationists operate on a fixed belief system and find any evidence or even re-interpret any counter evidence to fit their idea.

lighthouse

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I don’t mean to “rubbish” your personal experiences; only you subtly implying that because these methods worked for you, maybe others could/should consider them also. Anecdotal evidence is just that. And similarly, someone who says their special rock keeps tigers away is also just relaying a story based on personal experience. Maybe they think it works for them, but it is specious reasoning.

Waking dreams, I'll just addresse the first part of your reply as the second part seems to be addressed to the other poster.
I don't really know why my personal experiences have caused so many people to reply back in disagreement (i.e. if they are not rubbishing them). I simply relayed them as that. If you take out of it a subtle message then please own that and not try and project it on to me.
On that particular point if someone reading this is interested to find out more about holotropic breathwork based on what I have said, then surely that is their perogative. Now it seems according to your reasoning I'll be responsible for people investigating this form of healing. If I had that much power over people I'd surely be tempted to set up a practice myself and make lots of money out of it.
Please respect the maturity of boards.ie posters to read about whatever they want to and then to make up their minds about it.
I'll repeat for the last time. I am simply giving my personal experiences of holotropic breathwork which has been transformational in my life and on which I have also written a little about here.

Waking-Dreams

I’m sure my posts have come across as abrasive, and I want to reiterate that it’s nothing personal.

lighthouse wrote: »

I don't really know why my personal experiences have caused so many people to reply back in disagreement (i.e. if they are not rubbishing them). I simply relayed them as that. If you take out of it a subtle message then please own that and not try and project it on to me.

Yes, you relayed personal experience but it was your comments after you were asked for some scientific evidence that raised my eyebrows.

lighthouse wrote: »

One cannot judge something of this nature simply by scientific studies. I have benefitted enormously from it and it is not my desire to convert anyone to its effectiveness. I am simply giving my own personal experience of it, which often is of more interest to people than what you refer to as “rigorous scientific studies”.

Unless words don’t mean what I think they do, you are placing your personal experience as of more interest to others over scientific studies, correct? For what purpose, can I ask? Is it because personal experience is all these techniques have going for them? Look, I understand people refer to anecdotes all the time (“a friend of mine tried that and said it changed his life”). Funnily enough, many self-help books can quote you tons of these too. People even attribute their success to guys like Tony Robbins and other charismatic gurus. What can I say?

But Julius Caesar was quite right in asking for some scientific studies which could serve as an evidence base. Your response was that Holotropic Breathwork did not require such evidence to prove its effectiveness, because it worked for you. OK, but I’m afraid that is just too ego-centric a view to take and it smashes the usefulness of your personal experience.

It’s great that you feel you benefitted from your experience but there is no way of knowing whether that was the true cause. For example, people often pray for certain outcomes and then when something favourable happens they attribute the result to their having prayed. You could try tell such a person it was just a coincidence but they will swear, “No, praying is what brought this about. I don’t care what you can or cannot prove! Praying saved my life.” And that’s it. As humans, we assign causality to so many things based on our own biased perception.

I just think you jumped on the defensive very quickly, that's all. When if you were only here to relay personal experience as just that, then why defend it so valiantly when asked for something which could shed more light? Is it because that request would undermine your personal testimony?

Then when someone else questioned another unscientific concept, you said; “Sounds like you had a bad experience with it?” Based on what? Someone asking questions now means they had a bad experience? And again, you immediately took the view that they were being “negative” (read: non-congenial to the idea) and that this is their problem.

Maybe I am projecting, so I’m happy to retire from this discussion. Besides, we’re both obviously committed to our own “side” of the discussion, there’s no need to hash this out over the next number of posts. All the best.

JuliusCaesar

Odysseus wrote: »

You will gain little from psychoanalysis without engaging in the texts, if it was that un-scientific why our universities not would be covering it as MSc level, both Trinity and UCD do.

um, I don't think that defining a subject as a science was a prerequisite for becoming a university course! You can get a degree in acupuncture in the UK.

I'm afraid, Odysseus, that Minny is right. The definition of science includes the ability to replicate experiements, falsification etc.

Is psychology a science? yes. Is psychotherapy a science? no, but we (CBTers anyway) try to be evidence based. We try to be scientist-practitioners, where theory feeds into practice and practice observations feed into theory - which is then investigated.

Psychoanalysis has always said that it is immeasurable. But I believe they are beginning to change this now.

Odysseus

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

um, I don't think that defining a subject as a science was a prerequisite for becoming a university course! You can get a degree in acupuncture in the UK.

I'm afraid, Odysseus, that Minny is right. The definition of science includes the ability to replicate experiements, falsification etc.

Is psychology a science? yes. Is psychotherapy a science? no, but we (CBTers anyway) try to be evidence based. We try to be scientist-practitioners, where theory feeds into practice and practice observations feed into theory - which is then investigated.

Psychoanalysis has always said that it is immeasurable. But I believe they are beginning to change this now.

The jury would still be out at the moment for me, we try to do the same as yourselves but would avoid the term EB, I don't know about this change you speak of;) You have things like the crossover between neurology amd psychoanalysis but I'm not familiar enough to discuss it.

What is changing thankfully is the willingness to engage with other modaities and I'm all for that. What would come to mind for me with this change you mention is previous attempts to shorten/alter psychoanalysis I suppose the first example of that would be the ego psychoanalysis which to be honest is terrible.

We do the same " We try to be scientist-practitioners, where theory feeds into practice and practice observations feed into theory - which is then investigated." However, our biggest tool is the case study. With in terms of research from a psychological viewpoint is seen as poor. However, our congress [APPI] tried to do that each year as well as our CPD, looking at theory and seeing how it fits into the experience of clinical practice.

However, what you need to explain it better is an analyst who has trained as a psychologist or psychiatrist who has the research modality training to explain it better. As even though I have covered certain aspects of it in training over the years and been part of research conducted with my own clinics, I always acknowledge it as a weakness in my practice. Anyway as I said in the other thread time for bed, more to follow.

My eyes are closing here:)

lighthouse

Apologies for the long post.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I’m sure my posts have come across as abrasive, and I want to reiterate that it’s nothing personal.

Waking dreams, is that another projection on you behalf that I'm taking this personally. To put your mind at rest, I'm not.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Yes, you relayed personal experience but it was your comments after you were asked for some scientific evidence that raised my eyebrows.

OK let's look at that!

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Unless words don’t mean what I think they do, you are placing your personal experience as of more interest to others over scientific studies, correct? For what purpose, can I ask? Is it because personal experience is all these techniques have going for them? Look, I understand people refer to anecdotes all the time (“a friend of mine tried that and said it changed his life”). Funnily enough, many self-help books can quote you tons of these too. People even attribute their success to guys like Tony Robbins and other charismatic gurus. What can I say?

I am simply saying that often people are interested in hearing of someone's personal experience about something as opposed to the theory about something. People have contacted me through boards.ie after my posts on another post. They have read about the theories about holotropic breathwork but are interested in hearing from someone who has actually undergone the process. I always reply back saying that I am not a breathwork facilitator, haven't done (yet) any of the training and that what I say is simply my opinions based on experience. People are grateful for my insights. I'm not saying personal experience is more valid than scientific studies, it is simply another angle on something.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

But Julius Caesar was quite right in asking for some scientific studies which could serve as an evidence base. Your response was that Holotropic Breathwork did not require such evidence to prove its effectiveness, because it worked for you. OK, but I’m afraid that is just too ego-centric a view to take and it smashes the usefulness of your personal experience.

I'm sorry you are putting words in my mouth here. My words were One cannot judge something of this nature simply by scientific studies. As I said I'm basing my opinions on personal experience. I'm not implying that because it worked for me it will work for everybody. That is the same as saying that psychotherapy will work for everybody just because it works for one person. There are many variables why psychotherapy will work for one person and not another (apologies, I know this is going off the topic of your post)

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

It’s great that you feel you benefitted from your experience but there is no way of knowing whether that was the true cause. For example, people often pray for certain outcomes and then when something favourable happens they attribute the result to their having prayed. You could try tell such a person it was just a coincidence but they will swear, “No, praying is what brought this about. I don’t care what you can or cannot prove! Praying saved my life.” And that’s it. As humans, we assign causality to so many things based on our own biased perception.

I am 100% certain that holotropic breathwork and accompanying experiencial psychotherapy is the reason why I overcame suicidal depression. You can choose to take my word for it or not.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I just think you jumped on the defensive very quickly, that's all. When if you were only here to relay personal experience as just that, then why defend it so valiantly when asked for something which could shed more light? Is it because that request would undermine your personal testimony?

I wonder is this a projection again on your behalf and it is you who is defensive. After relaying my personal experiences I stopped posting at post 16 on this thread and ignored the next 5 posts before I rejoined the discussion again after someone posted something about psychoanalysis. That doesn't sound like defensive behaviour to me. If I was being defensive I would surely be jumping in after every post I felt wasn't in agreement with me would I not?

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Then when someone else questioned another unscientific concept, you said; “Sounds like you had a bad experience with it?” Based on what? Someone asking questions now means they had a bad experience? And again, you immediately took the view that they were being “negative” (read: non-congenial to the idea) and that this is their problem.

I was simply asking a question. Are you not being a little pedantic here?

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Maybe I am projecting, so I’m happy to retire from this discussion. Besides, we’re both obviously committed to our own “side” of the discussion, there’s no need to hash this out over the next number of posts. All the best.

I don't know if you are projecting. If you are and you recognise it then at least you have got something from my posts. Yes I think it's time we concluded this discussion because as you said we’re both obviously committed to our own “side”
Slán.

fencedin

some links on holotropics

http://citizeninitiative.com/against_grof_therapy.htm#age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holotropic_Breathwork


http://www.kevinrdshepherd.net/html/13__findhorn_foundation_ecobiz.html

lighthouse

fencedin wrote: »

some links on holotropics

http://citizeninitiative.com/against_grof_therapy.htm#age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holotropic_Breathwork


http://www.kevinrdshepherd.net/html/13__findhorn_foundation_ecobiz.html

Yea, yea, yea