Starting with hypnosis

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