Hypnosis

Wondering if anyone has any experience with hypnotic suggestion/programming for lucid dreams. If it works so well (so I hear) on health issues, psychological issues and every other freakin' issue people use it for, why can't someone set up an appointment with a hypnotherapist, pay a hundred bucks, and have LD's every night. They could re-inforce the initial session with self-hypnosis and keep the ball rolling. It sounds so easy...

If this position isn't filled, perphaps I've got a carrer in the making ;)

I'm sure it would work like it said it works for most thing it would be worth a shot I myself have no experience with hypnosis.

If you search around, you'll find many threads on this subject. You will also find some auto-suggestion MP3s that might interest you.

I don't think some simple suggestions in hypnosis will make you LD everynight. It is something that takes programming of the mind which takes an amount of time to happen. I think just trying to LD and learning as much as you can will help you gain experience and get mor LDs. Theres no simple way to get them. You have to find what works for you.

I think if you could meet someone who knows how to NLP, you could have them program you. There are people who can throw suggestions in sentences and make the victim think that the therapist is invisible.

As for the mp3s and such, you can find some at this site but for me they didn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rainman

I think if you could meet someone who knows how to NLP, you could have them program you. There are people who can throw suggestions in sentences and make the victim think that the therapist is invisible.

---

Like Derren Brown! I don't think that will make you have tons of LDs though.

Yep I was actually about to mention Derren Brown. That guy's a genius really! You never know... there are so many ways to manipulate the mind, it could be possible to trigger lucid dreams that way.

Everyone can benefit from hypnosis in terms of relaxation and guided imagery, but only 5-10% of people are highly hypnotizable to the point that they will act out a suggestion. It's a heritable trait that is probably genetic to some extent.

If you're a part of that lucky minority, then it can help you lucid dream very quickly. If you're like the rest of us, it only help as much as any other technique...

Quote:

---

but only 5-10% of people are highly hypnotizable to the point that they will act out a suggestion.

---

No, that's entirely false I'm afraid. Most people can be programmed to act on suggestions with very little difficulty. You will find that this is true with most people who follow trends of society, and that's a majority of any civilized society or country.

Read up on neuro-linguistic programing, conditioned response, and hypnotic suggestion. You'll find that almost anyone and pretty much everyone is affected by it constantly and in a more exclusive hypnosis, they would be affected. Actual hypnosis only works on you if you want it to, but subtle suggestion will work on just about anyone whether or not they agree to it. Kind of scary when you think of it.

I'm actually trained in hypnosis and have actually read the scientific research on it.

In controlled scientific studies, you have to be able to act out "posthypnotic suggestion" to get a score of 11 on this standarized scale. If you look at the chart, only 5% of people scored an 11, and 3% scored a 12. So 5% + 3% = 8% total are considered "high hypnotizables," which empirically supports my earlier claim of 5-10%. The science speaks for itself, unlike your arrogance.

http://www.institute-shot.com/images...tizability.JPG

'but only 5-10% of people are highly hypnotizable to the point that they will act out a suggestion.'

False. I think what you mean is that only 5-10% reaches the somnambulistic depth. responses include amnesia, hallucinations, bizarre post-hypnotic actions.

And those 5-10% are just from the INITIAL induction.

There is also the concept of conditioning a subject to achieve a deeper depth of trance.
Milton Erickson himself said that almost anyone can reach somnambulism as long as exposures to the trance effort continue. sooner or later the subject will achieve somnambulism.

the 5-10 percentage can be disputed too.

Study by Hull found 22.26 to reach somnambulism
Study by LeCron and Bordeaux found 25 percent

And then there the guy who wrote Instant Self-hypnosis. he claimed, I think it was like 2-5 percent or something, not sure.

What I said is not "False." 5-10% actually score at least an 11-12 on standardized scale of hypnotizability, which INCLUDES posthypnotic suggestion. There may be some people who can do the posthypnotic suggestion but not the previous tasks, but this is rare. The twelve items are presented in order of difficulty, based on previous research. If you're able to do items 11 & 12 (posthypnotic suggestion and amnesia) its highly likely that you can do the previous 10 items as well because they're a lot easier.

Yes, you can condition the subject to go to deeper states of trance, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will make someone act out a post-hypnotic suggestion when they previously were unable to. Furthermore, this depends on the skill of the hypnotist, while a standard induction is "standardized" to assess the individual's level of hypnotizability, and not the hypnotist's "skill."

The problem is that you're using a vague term of "somnambulism," which simply means a deep working state of hypnosis. I'm using a specific task (posthypnotic suggestion) as the criteria. 5-10% holds true for a standard induction and successfully acting out all hypnotic tasks including and up to posthypnotic suggestion.

If you've actually practiced hypnosis, you'd know that those figures are way too high. 1 in every 4 people is NOT hypnotizable to the point that they will act out a posthypnotic suggestion automatically without conscious realization that they are doing so.

Once again, stop making unfounded claims.

Actually. You're wrong. The exact quote that I was responding to

"but only 5-10% of people are highly hypnotizable to the point that they will act out a suggestion."

from post no.8

made no mention of post-hypnotic suggestion. suggestion could have meant any input that produces a response. for all we know you could have been talking about eye catalepsy.


Oh. And I never said 25 percent is hypnotizable to carry out post-hypnotic suggestion in initial induction. I said to 'somnambulism' I'm not sure what responses they consider within the range of 'somnambulism' or deep trance if you will. But if it's according to the Davis-Husband scale then I think the percentage comes pretty close.

Also, are the responses in the After Hilgard scale the same as the ones in the Stanford scale accordingly to the scores or at least close?

Quote you: "Yes, you can condition the subject to go to deeper states of trance, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will make someone act out a post-hypnotic suggestion when they previously were unable to."

But you do agree that almost everyone have the capacity to act on post-hypnotic suggestion if trance depth is deep enough right?

Quote:

---

Don't speak out of your ass and pretend to know something about a topic in which you don't. Just because you've read some shoddy websites or books doesn't make you an expert, or give you the right to make blatantly false corrections of what I said.

---

Jesus Christ.

First of all, if you thought I was being arrogant, you were mistaken and misinterpreted my post. So there was really no need for the snide remarks. Calm down no one's insulting you... I don't do hypnosis, per se, but I'm decent enough at "conversational hypnosis" if you will or perhaps NLP is the right term, I don't know. All I know is that WAY more than 5-10% respond to the subtle suggestion I use. In my experience, almost anyone becomes suggestable (even if only for a few minutes) when you use things like pattern-interrupts.

If that's not what you meant, then I am sorry. There's no need to get defensive.

By suggestion, I was specifically referring to "post-hypnotic suggestion" as I clarified in my second post (and before you16 posted, so it was at least clear to him/her). I apologize to Rainman, I realize now that we were talking about two different types of suggestion.

So you see, somnambulism is too general to be talking about posthypnotic suggestion.

Yes, I believe the Hilgard study either uses or closely approximates the Stanford scale.

NO, I do NOT agree that everyone has the capacity to act on post-hypnotic suggestion if trance depth is deep enough. People who are either very low in hypnotizability, very anxious, or defensive/resistive will never get in a deep enough trance to do so.

Maybe after dozens and dozens of sessions of conditioning can you improve their trance depth significantly, but I doubt it will be enough to respond automatically to posthypnotic suggestion, if they are extremely unresponsive to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REMemberDreaming

Don't speak out of your ass and pretend to know something about a topic in which you don't. Just because you've read some shoddy websites or books doesn't make you an expert, or give you the right to make blatantly false corrections of what I said. I'm actually trained in hypnosis and have actually read the scientific research on it.

In controlled scientific studies, you have to be able to act out "posthypnotic suggestion" to get a score of 11 on this standarized scale. If you look at the chart, only 5% of people scored an 11, and 3% scored a 12. So 5% + 3% = 8% total are considered "high hypnotizables," which empirically supports my earlier claim of 5-10%. The science speaks for itself, unlike your arrogance.

[IMG]http://www.institute-shot.com/images/hypnosis%20
graphics/hypnotizability.JPG[/IMG]

---

Your a freaking dumbass! Hes just trying to help!

Oh, look at me, I can insult people! Just cause he doesn't agree with your totally stupid awsner (Like myself) Doesn't mean you have to make yourself dumber as you already look.

Sorry guys, thats just my opionion!

Nahh....I appreciate your support, but all that isn't necessary man ;). I'm sure it was just a misunderstanding.

REMemberDreaming knows a great deal more about hypnosis than I do, I think we were talking about two separate things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xyn

Oh, look at me, I can insult people! Just cause he doesn't agree with your totally stupid awsner (Like myself) Doesn't mean you have to make yourself dumber as you already look.

---

I already apologized for the misunderstanding. I felt it was irresponsible to spread misinformation to the public, but I overreacted.

By the way, criticizing me for insulting him and then insulting my "totally stupid awsner" is being a tad bit hypocritical. :D

Meh. Yes, I read it. I guess I must have gotten confused between suggestions that are put into effect during the trance state and continue to be in effect after. and post-hypnotic suggestions that are triggered outside the trance state.

And... I guess you're right about how 'somnambulism' is too vague since there isn't a consensus on the range of responses that it is characterized on.

And... one question. are you saying that no matter what the amount of conditioning a person receives the percentage will never exceed 20-35% tops? or do you happen to have an exact quota?
preferably to the last decimal.

HI, im no expert at Hypnosis like you guys, but rememberDreaming's "science" is from 1965... Don't you think there have been more recent studies?

well I practice hypnosis and it fixed a dryspell I've been having. If it doesn't help w/ LD's itll sure get you relaxed at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

HI, im no expert at Hypnosis like you guys, but rememberDreaming's "science" is from 1965... Don't you think there have been more recent studies?

---

I don't appreciate your snide remark, suggesting that the science I'm referencing is pseudoscientific by putting it in "quotes". If you knew anything about hypnosis research, you'd know that the '60s were a big heydey for hypnosis research and that there were active labs at Harvard, UPenn, Stanford, etc. that do not exist nowadays.

Of course, there has been a lot of research done since that time, but not as much as was being produced back then. Furthermore, once you've established the distribution of hypnotizability in the population, you don't need to replicate it more than a few times. It's accepted, and you move on, so the study from 1965 is just as valid today as it was back then.

That being said, research on the distribution of hypnotizability still goes on, but its usually done in other countries to see what the norms are for other cultures. Two such studies were done in 1996 and 1999 (i.e. Finnish & Danish samples).

Please don't disparage science if you're not familiar with it. That's why science exists--to rely on data instead of unsubstantiated lay opinion.

Don't bash REMember. I thought it had been cleared up that REM and I were talking about two different types of suggestibility, and his information actually is correct. If you want to know about doing successful post-hypnotic suggestions, you should pay attention to that chart, because although it is from 85, it's still accurate, as most people's social tendencies/schemata about etiquette don't change enough to effect overall statistics about suggestibility.
If you're interested in subtle suggestion, advanced language patterns, (NLP) and such, those sorts of "covert hypnosis" (if that's what they're considered) are more likely to work on average everyday people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rainman

If you want to know about doing successful post-hypnotic suggestions, you should pay attention to that chart, because although it is from 85, it's still accurate, as most people's social tendencies/schemata about etiquette don't change enough to effect overall statistics about suggestibility.

---

Actually that is not true. As our culture evolves over time, social tendencies may change a great deal. However, the point I am trying to make is that every day new studies are overturning results from old research. And any scientist who just considers old studies as accepted is not a very good scientist.

PS. I am NOT disparaging science in general, only that which is 42 years old and posted on a forum as (quotes again) "proof."