A_Personalised_Induction_Will_Always_Be_More_Affective

A Personalised Induction Will Always Be More Effective Discuss with constructive argument. “…the unconscious mental forces of the patient appear as the real active agent…” Sandor Fereczi 1916 1 Like every other aspect in life our conscious interpretation of our world and what we require from it, can be at odds with our subconscious demands of experience and people. We will with any given social setting adapt our speech and body language to best suit the recipient. We instinctually know how best to personalise our communication, and adapt to the differences consciously and sub-consciously resulting in dialogue that we want to hear, and perhaps what we think we want to hear. Understanding the relationship between these two very different aspects of the brain can help us to astatine what is required to induce a positive response, whether that be from friendly banter or the persuasive requirements of a hypnotic script. How can any one hypnotic theory inspire the masses' Are we during therapy aware of our honest mental states' Or do we choose to mask true emotions' In reality it is a complex mixture of both, but it does serve to suggest that we enjoy the concept of “difference”, perhaps to be unique, and often manage our responses to seem more complex. Not only are we physically unequalled but are our demands for stimulation also unique. Lets not forget most stimuli are processed internally. Our backgrounds, race, age, gender, cultural experiences and inclination serve up a convoluted mixture that results in us, individuals. But it is prevalent in life to be institutionalised diversely by choice and establishment, and often, both. Can a single model of personal therapy meet the needs of all this diversity, or in reality can we only pigeonhole' Individuation Carl Gustav Jung (26 July 1875 – 6 June 1961) an early pioneer of understanding the difference in us all, labelled the “processes of stabilising a personality… by varying influence and experience throughout life… as individuation”.2 But how far do these influences and desires truly shape and influence what we feel about ourselves and what inspires us' Are we different, as in a group understanding and philosophy' Or are we truly unique' Discussion On the whole I believe that we are closer to the former, we have different perspectives on life but we tend to share a lot of common ground with others, especially family and piers due to shared early life experience. We all process information as an individual so making sure that it will have a favourable outcome is heavily dependant on the way as therapists, we offer this information. Personalised screeds have much more chance of success if individualised. Especially when we consider the spectrum of the therapeutic requirements for hypnosis, let alone the personal demands from the clients that receive them. The real vehicle for change is the induction The initial consultation with any client is perhaps the most insightful meeting you may have, it will help you to determine and understand not only our clients needs and desires from the therapy itself but, how best to interpret and begin the session with the most affective screed possible. In hypnotherapy we describe the basic influence and nuances of a screed as its modality. Modalities help us direct our inductions to best suit our client’s basic physiology, language, behaviour, and preferences. As individuals we process the external experiences derived through our senses, internally. We may take preference for not only how we process or store this information. But we also take preference for the senses themselves. In hypnosis we divide the fundamental senses into three main or primary groups and three secondary groups. Primary Kinaesthetic - Our feeling system, both of external sensation and internal and emotional understanding. People that lean towards this style of communication enjoy activities with physical contact. This client would be the first person to touch in any given experience. They may not be bothered by clutter but prefer their immediate environment to possess a tactile quality. Some may consider this client as a touchy-feely person that shows body language best interpreted as physically relaxed. They may use phrases such as “I know how you feel…”1 and “Put your finger on it…”1 Visual – Someone aware of the aesthetic nature of the world around them. Visual thinking takes these clients to places of fantasy, often a metaphoric meaning of true desires. A screed of images and visual sensation is the perfect vehicle to contact with their sub-conscious. Interests in film, TV, design and art are very common. Regular phrases used by this group are “I see what you mean…”1 and “Looks good to me…”1 Visual clients commonly pay close attention to there image and posture. Auditory – These individuals are great listeners, they rely heavily on this sense to absorb important information from people that form the basis of emotional importance to them, as well as the political few that influence their lives. This group enjoys the significance of music and would always fine time for conversation, in particular on the phone. But they can be distracted by sound, and would easily construe obtrusive noise as interfering, and destabilising. Commonly heard using phrases such as “Loud and clear”1 and “I hear what you are saying…”1 You may fine auditory people involved with music, lecturing and languages. They will typically extenuate their head movement, specifically displaying the ears. Secondary Olfactory – Smell. Gustatory – Along with olfactory these usual determine careers in food or fragrance science, they typically enjoy cooking and the intervention of it in our lives. They use phrases like “the sweet smell of success…”1 and “Chew the fat…”1 And lastly… Auditory Digital – A rare group of clients that will be psychologically aligned by language and symbols. An assimilation of a mathematical mind and a respect for order. In reality a therapist may take the main philosophy of one of these sensory modalities and add a subtle combination of others in a script, this process is called compounding and although we may all lean towards one of the primaries, with the brain being made up of such complexity, a sophisticated amalgamation of stimuli will be far more affective. In any medium of therapy how the therapist communicates with us, and not just the content, will have significant difference to its importance and effectiveness. Hypnosis is divided into two main induction styles. Permissive and the authoritarian, they were both recognised (although named differently as Maternal and Paternal) by Sandor Ferenczi in 1916, he digested work by Freud, Charcot and Bernheim who came before him, they were attempting to understand what made hypnosis work and what influenced the degree of suggestibility in any given patient, they all misinterpreted that the controlling aspect, came from the therapist. Freud misunderstood suggestibility and hypnotic trance as a mechanism of neurosis, whilst Charcot advised it was perhaps due to “…psychopathology of hysteria”1 At least Bernheim apposed this philosophy stating, “…non-hysterics could be hypnotised effectively.”1 Understanding how to adapt your hypnotic style would be the single most important element to any therapeutic session. Ferenczi’ discovery helped change hypnosis forever. The two main induction styles utilised today due to Ferenczi’ work are; Permissive The permissive style was championed by Milton H. Erickson, he recognised that “…people must participate in their therapy…”1 he understood more than anybody of his time the importance of indirect suggestion and the influences on the sub-conscious. He mastered the creative imaginative screed that allowed his clients internal processes to assist the therapeutic outcome. Better than anybody he realised and respected the importance of the subjects own mind. In 1957 he became the president and founder of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis. This technique employs a softer kinder tone lulling the client into a relaxation. It’s a more insular, thought provoking, nurturing, and open style that allows for the client’s imagination to direct the creative internal images that assist trance. A greater responsibility is given to the subject. It is understood that the permissive screed ensues a mental condition of safety due to subtle non-challenging, and indirect use of stylistic grammar, aided by the use of metaphor and analogy. Is often a more successful style with clients that are creative and imaginative, and with clients wishing to reach goals, and perhaps a supportive and sympathetic induction, building confidence in fragile personalities. It also works very well in a group environment. Authoritative Dave Elman is recognised as the modern father of this style, born in 1900 and encouraged by his own fathers interest in hypnosis he from his youth honed his skills. He would practise and teach until his death in 1967. This is a more commanding technique, one that employs an element of control, direct repetitive language, and a lack of choice. It’s interesting to note that this style was the prevalent of the two in early Hypnotic use. This was mainly due to the misunderstanding that the therapist held all the power to change and influence. Surprisingly this can have a positive outcome if the subject views the therapist as a figure of authority, and feels comfortable with the subordination, for some this will fit with their learned behaviour. This induction is often used where the client is visiting a therapist or hypnosis for the first time with a heightened level of expectation or disbelief. Subjects that work in the armed forces, the police force and educational careers are often accepting of this style. The symptoms best treated by this induction tend to be related to repressed emotion found in abusive pasts and supressed feelings from damaged relationships and low self worth. It is often used successfully to regress patients back to childhood memories due to the need for a controlling parental figure whilst in trance. If an authoritative figure has caused anxiety, then another can help rectify issues. It is also affective with addiction, fear, phobias, dependency issues and co-dependant relationships. Authoritative does not work very well in-group sessions and is best kept to individual treatment. Selecting an Authoritative or permissive style further tailors the induction to best connect with your client in what will often be an anxious exposure of fragile emotions. Argument It is a matter of respect to treat clients as people and not subjects of work. Each session we spend with them will uncover a facet of personality that is new to us, and with that in mind how can we hope to conclude the make up of any individual of such complexity with an initial consultation. The complexity in ourselves is precisely why we revel in the splendour of uniqueness in others. With such diversity surely we cannot hope to assess and treat a client with such limited modalities. It is also important to recognise that clients modalities are not fixed, they will adapt and change as they respond to therapy. Group therapy is a victim of such personalised inductions as is the complication of varied issues shared by a single client. Even putting aside emotional considerations and studying the implications on a business plan, are personalising screeds just too time consuming' Conclusion It is possible to narrow the field of control, but not to set up a model that lends itself precisely to any given individual and their behaviour. We are all too diverse and too complex. During the process of therapy we will connect personally with our client on conscious and sub-conscious levels, not just because of modality, but also with experience and the fundamental humanity we possess to care. Ultimately the most affective tool we have as therapists is our own mind. Our most effective quality is to be able to adapt in any therapy session. So along with academic support not only will our clients progress, but as counsellors we will discover a deeper understanding of therapy and ourselves. Bibliography & Reference 1. Chrysalis – Hypnotherapy and Counselling skills – Module Two 2011 2. www.suite101.com - Sarah Viollet 2009 Hypnosis For Change – Josie Hadley & Carol Staudacher 1987 Training Trances – John Overdurf & Julie Silverthorn 1994 Hypnotherapy A Handbook – Michael Heap & Windy Dryden 1991 Hypnotherapy A Practical Handbook – Hellmut Karle & Jennifer Boys 1987 The Roots Of Hypnosis – David Reeve www.mindtec.co.uk November 2010 www.bsch.org.uk Word Count - 2029