This topic is one that has come up recently on uncommonforum and much of this post is lifted from my contributions on there, so apologies to any readers who find parts of this familiar.
Consider why is it that only 1 in 5 people will respond strongly enough to hypnosis to, in the words of Kev Sheldrake, "do anything and forget everything", and indeed what is it that prevents the other 4 in 5?
My understanding of this is that it is all about neurology. For the sake of argument consider that all human thinking is made up of a mixture of critical and uncritical thinking. Some people naturally think predominantly in a way which exercises the uncritical parts of the brain, needed for deep hypnosis, much more so than others and thus when they meet a hypnotist the right neurology exists for good response to hypnotic suggestion. This way of favouring a particular way of thinking is a preference a lot like whether or not someone favours their left or right hand; most people naturally favour critical or uncritical thinking to a greater or lesser extent.
To draw an analogy, imagine asking a right handed person to write calligraphy with their left hand and regardless of their eloquence, vocabulary, wit, style and indeed their finesse writing with their favoured hand, the result of their efforts on the paper will be less than impressive. My point is that one will get a similar result when trying to hypnotise someone with a notable preference for critical thinking.
However, given enough time and practice, any right handed person can learn to write with their left hand. If the right hand is especially dominant this may take a long time, but it is always possible. This is why I believe that anybody can be deeply hypnotised given enough practice. It's simply a case of exercising that part of the brain and building up the required neurology.
Now of course I have only been a hypnotist for a year, so it would be extremely arrogant of me to push the above reasoning as any kind of objective truth. I have to stress that this is merely my model, which is based on my limited experience and understanding.
There are those who disagree with this model. For example, Ben White insists that there must be an easier way for someone to improve as a subject; truth be told I want to believe his argument because if it were true it would get me where I want to go a lot faster.
Then of course there's the argument that my model holds true for me, of course it does, merely because it's what I believe.
Joe, on uncommonforum, puts the argument that the reason I do not respond well to hypnosis is that I perceive it as losing my rationality and critical thinking, which is a part of myself that I treasure so deeply it makes me quite unwilling to turn that part off even temporarily. He suggests that I might even be afraid to do that. In this case presumably the belief that I need to learn how to be hypnotised in order to go deep is a mechanism that my subconscious has conjured up that would allow me to, using an analogy, lower myself into the cold water gently.
Given the way the mind works I have to say that I cannot discount this as a possibility. I am skeptical though.
For starters I know of other people who have developed their ability to be hypnotised over time. People who are far less restrained than me, and certainly much more willing to be submissive to another given the nature of their interest in hypnosis.
Secondly, Joe cited a line I wrote in a recent blog post:
"When I first tried to be a hypnotic subject I really wanted it to work, I will also confess that I was afraid that it would too, which was part of the excitement of it."
This line, separated from the context I wrote it in, can easily be taken out of context. Even so, I will admit that perhaps there is an element of fear in the excitement that I associate with the idea of experiencing deep hypnosis. There's an element of fear in my feelings about rollercoasters too; that's why I have a deep seated desire to go and ride on them, as many as I can!
There's a ride at Drayton Manor Park in Staffordshire called Apocalypse that, once you're helplessly locked into the harness, will lift you 54 metres above the ground, tilt you forward and have you plummet earthwards in a terrifying freefall. It scares the crap out of me, and yet I lose count of how many times I've gone back for more!
I do not believe that fear is an inhibiting factor for me.
I do value the way in which my mind works, including my critical and analytical nature, because over the years I have learned to feel good about who I am. In my opinion to do so is crucial to living a happy life. That, however, does not mean that I am not interested in or driven by the prospect of expanding the scope of my abilities and bettering myself.
So I may be building neurology I don't yet have, or I may be learning to trust a part of my mind that already exists, maybe I really am slowly overcoming some alleged inexplicably well hidden deeply held fear, or even something else yet again. Perhaps this is all just a question of terminology. At the end of the day whatever the label I or others choose to attach to the way in which my abilities as a hypnotic subject are developing what it is that really matters to me is that they are developing.
Friday, 25 September 2009
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Expectation
Yesterday evening I had another look at youtube to see if I could come across any other videos of people watching Derren Brown's "control the nation" show.
Derren had said during the show that his video wouldn't work if it was recorded or posted online, but it seems this hasn't deterred a lot of people from watching the show again, and getting stuck again. Needless to say if someone believes the video will work again it will, even though as I've already pointed out the video is just a piece of empty window dressing.
Most impressive though were a couple of videos I found where the individual was watching only the subliminal film, and so skipping all of Derren's vocal suggestions from before and after that were in the original program. In one case this was someone who hadn't gotten stuck the first time around, and yet just believing that the video would work was in itself enough to stick her to her chair!
All of this without hypnosis even being mentioned or any formal induction or trance. Absolutely incredible!
What I think this illustrates is that the suggestions that subjects give to themselves are just as important as those being given by the hypnotist. Build the right level of expectation and you don't even need to say or do anything to hypnotise someone.
Derren had said during the show that his video wouldn't work if it was recorded or posted online, but it seems this hasn't deterred a lot of people from watching the show again, and getting stuck again. Needless to say if someone believes the video will work again it will, even though as I've already pointed out the video is just a piece of empty window dressing.
Most impressive though were a couple of videos I found where the individual was watching only the subliminal film, and so skipping all of Derren's vocal suggestions from before and after that were in the original program. In one case this was someone who hadn't gotten stuck the first time around, and yet just believing that the video would work was in itself enough to stick her to her chair!
All of this without hypnosis even being mentioned or any formal induction or trance. Absolutely incredible!
What I think this illustrates is that the suggestions that subjects give to themselves are just as important as those being given by the hypnotist. Build the right level of expectation and you don't even need to say or do anything to hypnotise someone.
Saturday, 19 September 2009
Control the nation
Last night Derren Brown went on UK television and performed a routine where he stuck viewers to their seats using a subliminal message video.
I have a great deal of admiration for Derren Brown as a performer and what I saw last night was no exception. What I thought was most impressive though was the way in which he was able to exploit the general ignorance of the vast majority of people to perform a waking hypnosis routine on television, which technically shouldn't be legal.
The program was quite long and the first half was devoted to a couple of "subliminal suggestion" routines, in which he was apparently able to influence the free choice of the people he was talking to. These were very impressive tricks, and I was especially impressed by the one set in Hamley's toy shop in London.
The second half featured the subliminal message video, in which he talked about the technology had been developed and fine tuning the effects of the video, etc. He then gave instructions on how to watch it and played the video. About half of the studio audience were stuck, and he recieved calls from people who had called in and were also stuck to their chairs.
Anybody who knows anything about hypnosis would recognise the incredibly simple way in which this trick was achieved, although hats off to Derren Brown for the delivery. It was very well done.
My understanding of how the trick worked was as follows. The subliminal message video probably didn't contain anything special at all because this trick was actually based on waking hypnosis. The program did a very good job of setting the context and builing anticipation. Derren then delievered all of the suggestions when he gave the instructions on how to watch the video under the guise of "you can expect the following...". The video itself was a useful tool in building expectation, but nothing more.
This routine is little different to the suggestibility tests used by all stage hypnotists and like those tests would not significantly affect the majority of people. A small percentage however (10%-20%) would take on board these suggestions simply because they are just that suggestible. Even 1% of an audience of millions calling in is enough to jam the switchboards. Most impressive was the high percentage (50%) of the audience who responded to the suggestions, although of course we don't know how they were selected or what pre-show work was done with them.
My understanding is that it is illegal to broadcast hypnosis inductions and suggestibility tests in the UK, but as he doesn't mention the H-word he can get away with it. He even asks one of the women in the audience "you're not hypnotised are you?" and she says "no". Of course she's hypnotised, but how would she know that? Few people recognise hypnosis even when they're in it, especially when there's not been a formal induction.
All very well done though, I take my hat off to him.
The show is currently available on 4oD and is all over youtube; definitely worth a watch, as are the videos of peoples responses to it.
I have a great deal of admiration for Derren Brown as a performer and what I saw last night was no exception. What I thought was most impressive though was the way in which he was able to exploit the general ignorance of the vast majority of people to perform a waking hypnosis routine on television, which technically shouldn't be legal.
The program was quite long and the first half was devoted to a couple of "subliminal suggestion" routines, in which he was apparently able to influence the free choice of the people he was talking to. These were very impressive tricks, and I was especially impressed by the one set in Hamley's toy shop in London.
The second half featured the subliminal message video, in which he talked about the technology had been developed and fine tuning the effects of the video, etc. He then gave instructions on how to watch it and played the video. About half of the studio audience were stuck, and he recieved calls from people who had called in and were also stuck to their chairs.
Anybody who knows anything about hypnosis would recognise the incredibly simple way in which this trick was achieved, although hats off to Derren Brown for the delivery. It was very well done.
My understanding of how the trick worked was as follows. The subliminal message video probably didn't contain anything special at all because this trick was actually based on waking hypnosis. The program did a very good job of setting the context and builing anticipation. Derren then delievered all of the suggestions when he gave the instructions on how to watch the video under the guise of "you can expect the following...". The video itself was a useful tool in building expectation, but nothing more.
This routine is little different to the suggestibility tests used by all stage hypnotists and like those tests would not significantly affect the majority of people. A small percentage however (10%-20%) would take on board these suggestions simply because they are just that suggestible. Even 1% of an audience of millions calling in is enough to jam the switchboards. Most impressive was the high percentage (50%) of the audience who responded to the suggestions, although of course we don't know how they were selected or what pre-show work was done with them.
My understanding is that it is illegal to broadcast hypnosis inductions and suggestibility tests in the UK, but as he doesn't mention the H-word he can get away with it. He even asks one of the women in the audience "you're not hypnotised are you?" and she says "no". Of course she's hypnotised, but how would she know that? Few people recognise hypnosis even when they're in it, especially when there's not been a formal induction.
All very well done though, I take my hat off to him.
The show is currently available on 4oD and is all over youtube; definitely worth a watch, as are the videos of peoples responses to it.
Friday, 18 September 2009
Wizard's first rule
Over the last few weeks I have found myself hooked on the music of a band called Nightwish, for which I can thank the influence of my girlfriend importing her music collection onto iTunes on my computer.
Those familiar with my musical taste may be surprised that I might like a heavy metal band as it's really not my thing. However, I do make an exception for Scandinavian symphonic power metal, and in particular I have been listening to their Once album. This is what happens when you mix a metal band with a philharmonic orchestra and a classically trained female singer and overcook the music to almost cliche levels, and the result is frankly awesome in my opinion. Throughout I find myself thinking that perhaps they had forgotten it was a mere album they were working on and thought they were actually making the soundtrack for some epic fantasy film.
This brings me onto something else that I've been hooked on, and Nightwish seems to engender in me, which is reading fantasy novels.
I've recently finished the Black Magician Trilogy by Trudi Canavan, which are pretty good, and spurred on by the mental images of epic journeys across strange lands engendered by Tarja Turunen's singing, decided to embark upon the doorstop that is Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind.
It is clear to me that Goodkind must have a large house with many doors to prop open because having written this book he has produced a further ten volumes to this saga, presumably to allow air to blow all the way through. This is as good a deterrent as any to starting out on the first book, but then I didn't realise this until I was half way through.
Anyway, unsurprisingly the plot of the book turns upon the concept of the the wizard's first rule, which is as follows:
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
I'm not sure how much I agree with the term "People are stupid", but it does remind me of when someone once told me that "the person is intelligent, but people are stupid". I would say that a definition of this generalised stupidity is the rule itself; there is no need to state the stupidity explicitly.
I do think this rule speaks volumes about how people in general behave. The recent events with Dr Chicken Royale, as we now know him, and his letter to Westminster Council show very clearly how this rule can be employed to manipulate people. If one knows how to press the right buttons by using words and phrases that are anchored to the desired feelings within a person it is incredibly easy. Make someone in the council afraid of all the horrible things that their mind, in ignorance, can think of a street hypnotist doing and they will desperately want it to be illegal. Of course fear street hypnosis might be illegal and getting into trouble for failing to act to enforce it as such is just as likely.
I'm reminded of a line from Terry Pratchett's Discworld book The Truth, which is a satire and parody of newspaper journalism:
"A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on."
For a significant number of people resolving that something should be a certain way because of how they feel about it is the first step down the road of proving themselves right through a carefully biased selection and interpretation of the facts available.
As an aside this is why I believe religion will never be eliminated by scientific reasoning, even though the question "does god exist?" is undoubtedly one with a scientific answer. There is an utter absence of any scientific evidence at all for the existence of a supreme being, and all the logical arguments that follow place the odds of one actually exsiting at vanishingly small (it is impossible to completely disprove the existence of anything). However, a great many people want to believe in a personal god giving purpose to their life, want to believe in Heaven and everlasting life, and of course are afraid that hell might exist. For these people the debate is closed before it even starts, their mind is already made up, and as a consequence all the evidence they see subsequently points to their god being real.
Anyone trying to counter the influence of a wizard using the first rule with alternative information expressed in rational terms, regardless of how objectively true those facts may be, will find themselves facing a difficult and sometimes impossible task.
The last part of the first rule is the part that rings most true to me. It states that people "can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool". This to me reads as saying that the more certain somebody is that they are right, the easier it is for them to believe something that is untrue.
The Theism-Atheism debate is quite often mistaken as being one between those who believe devoutly in a god, and those who believe with equal conviction that there isn't, most people being on a scale somewhere between. In fact this is greatly misrepresents the position taken by the vast majority of atheists, which is that they will believe something for which there is evidence; their belief in a god is as strong as their perception of the weight of rational evidence for one.
I think that a more representative scale is based on critical thinking about the matter. People who are willing to believe something purely on the strength of their conviction would be at one end, and those who have no conviction and seek irrefutable objective proof for everything would be at the other. Most people are somewhere in between. It's a scale between two entirely different mindsets, as opposed to opposite ends of the same kind of conviction. On this scale the atheist who is 100% convinced of the non-existence of god is grouped with the hardcore theists, but good luck to you if you try to find one.
Now, moving on to hypnosis, I personally see hypnosis as a naked demonstration of the nature and power of belief over rational thought; without belief hypnosis does not exist. Possibly one reason why so many religious organisations are against it. Pot. Kettle.
Stop me if I'm being a bit controversial. I do enjoy it.
Now, when we turn the wizard's first rule the subject of hypnosis we see a similar spread of approaches in the way people think about it. For example, there are people who really want hypnosis to work on them, and therefore it does. There are arguably people who believe that hypnosis is all powerful are afraid it will work on them, and therefore it does.
I also believe that the better someone is at believing something, at being right as far as they are concerned, the better a subject they are. Sometimes in stubborn individuals this may only take the form of a sort of covert self-hypnosis, and these individuals are able to convince themselves of all sorts of weird and wacky things.
All of this tends me toward consideration of my own beliefs and my behaviours in relation to them. So begin my problems as a hypnotic subject.
When I first tried to be a hypnotic subject I really wanted it to work, I will also confess that I was afraid that it would too, which was part of the excitement of it. My trouble, I think, was that I was and still am someone who is by nature uncertain. I am not certain that I can tell a lie from the truth, and so I investigate further and look for evidence to settle the matter. Much to my indignation my mind appears to be quite unwilling to be fooled through the process of hypnosis, directly at least.
In spite of this however, the biggest lesson I think there is to learn from the wizard's first rule, for someone used to critical thinking, is that a significant number of people do not usually think in the same way and certainly nobody does all of the the time. No matter how much you value intelligent discussion and criticality, it is an unfortunate fact of life that such rational processes do not sell products or ideas half as well as manipulating the irrational part of other person's mind. This is something which anybody in advertising can tell you.
If you want to influence others, or indeed hypnotise them, appealing to their irrational side is the way to get results. Given this kind of motivation almost anyone will believe almost anything, and they probably won't even realise it's happening.
Hmm, perhaps Nightwish signed a covert deal with the publishing companies...
Those familiar with my musical taste may be surprised that I might like a heavy metal band as it's really not my thing. However, I do make an exception for Scandinavian symphonic power metal, and in particular I have been listening to their Once album. This is what happens when you mix a metal band with a philharmonic orchestra and a classically trained female singer and overcook the music to almost cliche levels, and the result is frankly awesome in my opinion. Throughout I find myself thinking that perhaps they had forgotten it was a mere album they were working on and thought they were actually making the soundtrack for some epic fantasy film.
This brings me onto something else that I've been hooked on, and Nightwish seems to engender in me, which is reading fantasy novels.
I've recently finished the Black Magician Trilogy by Trudi Canavan, which are pretty good, and spurred on by the mental images of epic journeys across strange lands engendered by Tarja Turunen's singing, decided to embark upon the doorstop that is Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind.
It is clear to me that Goodkind must have a large house with many doors to prop open because having written this book he has produced a further ten volumes to this saga, presumably to allow air to blow all the way through. This is as good a deterrent as any to starting out on the first book, but then I didn't realise this until I was half way through.
Anyway, unsurprisingly the plot of the book turns upon the concept of the the wizard's first rule, which is as follows:
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
I'm not sure how much I agree with the term "People are stupid", but it does remind me of when someone once told me that "the person is intelligent, but people are stupid". I would say that a definition of this generalised stupidity is the rule itself; there is no need to state the stupidity explicitly.
I do think this rule speaks volumes about how people in general behave. The recent events with Dr Chicken Royale, as we now know him, and his letter to Westminster Council show very clearly how this rule can be employed to manipulate people. If one knows how to press the right buttons by using words and phrases that are anchored to the desired feelings within a person it is incredibly easy. Make someone in the council afraid of all the horrible things that their mind, in ignorance, can think of a street hypnotist doing and they will desperately want it to be illegal. Of course fear street hypnosis might be illegal and getting into trouble for failing to act to enforce it as such is just as likely.
I'm reminded of a line from Terry Pratchett's Discworld book The Truth, which is a satire and parody of newspaper journalism:
"A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on."
For a significant number of people resolving that something should be a certain way because of how they feel about it is the first step down the road of proving themselves right through a carefully biased selection and interpretation of the facts available.
As an aside this is why I believe religion will never be eliminated by scientific reasoning, even though the question "does god exist?" is undoubtedly one with a scientific answer. There is an utter absence of any scientific evidence at all for the existence of a supreme being, and all the logical arguments that follow place the odds of one actually exsiting at vanishingly small (it is impossible to completely disprove the existence of anything). However, a great many people want to believe in a personal god giving purpose to their life, want to believe in Heaven and everlasting life, and of course are afraid that hell might exist. For these people the debate is closed before it even starts, their mind is already made up, and as a consequence all the evidence they see subsequently points to their god being real.
Anyone trying to counter the influence of a wizard using the first rule with alternative information expressed in rational terms, regardless of how objectively true those facts may be, will find themselves facing a difficult and sometimes impossible task.
The last part of the first rule is the part that rings most true to me. It states that people "can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool". This to me reads as saying that the more certain somebody is that they are right, the easier it is for them to believe something that is untrue.
The Theism-Atheism debate is quite often mistaken as being one between those who believe devoutly in a god, and those who believe with equal conviction that there isn't, most people being on a scale somewhere between. In fact this is greatly misrepresents the position taken by the vast majority of atheists, which is that they will believe something for which there is evidence; their belief in a god is as strong as their perception of the weight of rational evidence for one.
I think that a more representative scale is based on critical thinking about the matter. People who are willing to believe something purely on the strength of their conviction would be at one end, and those who have no conviction and seek irrefutable objective proof for everything would be at the other. Most people are somewhere in between. It's a scale between two entirely different mindsets, as opposed to opposite ends of the same kind of conviction. On this scale the atheist who is 100% convinced of the non-existence of god is grouped with the hardcore theists, but good luck to you if you try to find one.
Now, moving on to hypnosis, I personally see hypnosis as a naked demonstration of the nature and power of belief over rational thought; without belief hypnosis does not exist. Possibly one reason why so many religious organisations are against it. Pot. Kettle.
Stop me if I'm being a bit controversial. I do enjoy it.
Now, when we turn the wizard's first rule the subject of hypnosis we see a similar spread of approaches in the way people think about it. For example, there are people who really want hypnosis to work on them, and therefore it does. There are arguably people who believe that hypnosis is all powerful are afraid it will work on them, and therefore it does.
I also believe that the better someone is at believing something, at being right as far as they are concerned, the better a subject they are. Sometimes in stubborn individuals this may only take the form of a sort of covert self-hypnosis, and these individuals are able to convince themselves of all sorts of weird and wacky things.
All of this tends me toward consideration of my own beliefs and my behaviours in relation to them. So begin my problems as a hypnotic subject.
When I first tried to be a hypnotic subject I really wanted it to work, I will also confess that I was afraid that it would too, which was part of the excitement of it. My trouble, I think, was that I was and still am someone who is by nature uncertain. I am not certain that I can tell a lie from the truth, and so I investigate further and look for evidence to settle the matter. Much to my indignation my mind appears to be quite unwilling to be fooled through the process of hypnosis, directly at least.
In spite of this however, the biggest lesson I think there is to learn from the wizard's first rule, for someone used to critical thinking, is that a significant number of people do not usually think in the same way and certainly nobody does all of the the time. No matter how much you value intelligent discussion and criticality, it is an unfortunate fact of life that such rational processes do not sell products or ideas half as well as manipulating the irrational part of other person's mind. This is something which anybody in advertising can tell you.
If you want to influence others, or indeed hypnotise them, appealing to their irrational side is the way to get results. Given this kind of motivation almost anyone will believe almost anything, and they probably won't even realise it's happening.
Hmm, perhaps Nightwish signed a covert deal with the publishing companies...
Friday, 28 August 2009
The August Meet
Well once again the last Thursday group met up in central London and of course I was there.
Given the recent business with the legality of hypnosis being raised, and most people being a bit on edge, the atmosphere was more social than hypnotic for a little longer than usual to start with. Dr Chicken Royale, as I shall henceforth refer to him, and his rather significant unpopularity being one of the main topics of discussion.
Soon however we came back to our senses and we were zapping away as happily as we have always done. For me the highlights were coming back from the bar to find the way blocked by Ben sprawled on the floor having been used as a demonstration subject for a drop-back induction, Darren demonstrating to me how to do the Cerbone butterfly induction, and performing an Anthony Jacquin inspired "if you can unstick and grab the money you can keep it" routine. I also had fun performing an Erickson Handshake induction on Will.
What a wonderful bunch of people. Looking forward to next month!
Given the recent business with the legality of hypnosis being raised, and most people being a bit on edge, the atmosphere was more social than hypnotic for a little longer than usual to start with. Dr Chicken Royale, as I shall henceforth refer to him, and his rather significant unpopularity being one of the main topics of discussion.
Soon however we came back to our senses and we were zapping away as happily as we have always done. For me the highlights were coming back from the bar to find the way blocked by Ben sprawled on the floor having been used as a demonstration subject for a drop-back induction, Darren demonstrating to me how to do the Cerbone butterfly induction, and performing an Anthony Jacquin inspired "if you can unstick and grab the money you can keep it" routine. I also had fun performing an Erickson Handshake induction on Will.
What a wonderful bunch of people. Looking forward to next month!
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Legal update
I have just heard from Chris that Westminster Council have decided that the 1952 Hypnotism Act also applies to private residences. This effectively means that they're saying all hypnosis everywhere is illegal unless the hypnotist has a license issued for that venue at that time.
As it happens I'm sat on the train heading into London now. I do not have a hypnosis licence for any of the locations I shall be visiting or travelling through so I shall endeavour to avoid all human interaction, lest I accidentally induce a trance and break the law.
In addition - 28/9/09
In one of their messages to Chris they paraphrase the Act somewhat stating.
"Section 2 of the 1952 Act states that no person shall give an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism on any living person... whether on payment or otherwise, at any place... unless the controlling authority have authorised that exhibition, demonstration or performance."
They emphasise that "at any place" is key.
I see this as a great example of somebody interpreting the world in such a way as to satisfy the criteria of their own existing reality; someone working for the council will want to try to regulate everything, lest private individuals be able to make decisions for themselves god forbid. Notice that the crucial line "at or in connection with an entertainment to which the public are admitted" is omitted from their statement.
Consider if we gave a similar treatment to a possibly better known directive, erring on the side of the dramatic in order to make a point.
"Thou shalt... kill thy neighbour"
Quite a significant change in meaning can be engendered by the removal of parts of a statement.
Just because I'm in a controversial mood, and it's interesting demonstrating how people will paraphrase statements to find what they want to see, let's consider another. This one is from the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now notice how the way in which we might interpret the meaning of this changes somewhat in light of the, less well known, complete statement.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I'm not stating a political view on firearms control, just seeking to illustrate how two parties might see different meanings in a single statement.
The council clearly want to interpret the meaning of section 2 of the 1952 Hypnotism act as a requirement to regulate everything, and it is in doing so that they have opened up a huge can of worms for themselves. For example, without the qualification "in connection with an entertaiment" this also applies to hypnotherapy, should it be unsuccessful, and criminalises all hypnotherapists working in Westminster, including those on the payroll of the NHS.
It remains to be seen if, in light of this, Westminster Council will go back to their original sensible position, which was indeed that Section 2 only applies to hypnosis at or in connection with an entertainment to which the public are admitted.
As it happens I'm sat on the train heading into London now. I do not have a hypnosis licence for any of the locations I shall be visiting or travelling through so I shall endeavour to avoid all human interaction, lest I accidentally induce a trance and break the law.
In addition - 28/9/09
In one of their messages to Chris they paraphrase the Act somewhat stating.
"Section 2 of the 1952 Act states that no person shall give an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism on any living person... whether on payment or otherwise, at any place... unless the controlling authority have authorised that exhibition, demonstration or performance."
They emphasise that "at any place" is key.
I see this as a great example of somebody interpreting the world in such a way as to satisfy the criteria of their own existing reality; someone working for the council will want to try to regulate everything, lest private individuals be able to make decisions for themselves god forbid. Notice that the crucial line "at or in connection with an entertainment to which the public are admitted" is omitted from their statement.
Consider if we gave a similar treatment to a possibly better known directive, erring on the side of the dramatic in order to make a point.
"Thou shalt... kill thy neighbour"
Quite a significant change in meaning can be engendered by the removal of parts of a statement.
Just because I'm in a controversial mood, and it's interesting demonstrating how people will paraphrase statements to find what they want to see, let's consider another. This one is from the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now notice how the way in which we might interpret the meaning of this changes somewhat in light of the, less well known, complete statement.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I'm not stating a political view on firearms control, just seeking to illustrate how two parties might see different meanings in a single statement.
The council clearly want to interpret the meaning of section 2 of the 1952 Hypnotism act as a requirement to regulate everything, and it is in doing so that they have opened up a huge can of worms for themselves. For example, without the qualification "in connection with an entertaiment" this also applies to hypnotherapy, should it be unsuccessful, and criminalises all hypnotherapists working in Westminster, including those on the payroll of the NHS.
It remains to be seen if, in light of this, Westminster Council will go back to their original sensible position, which was indeed that Section 2 only applies to hypnosis at or in connection with an entertainment to which the public are admitted.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Legal issues
The last couple of weeks, following the meet up in Covent Garden, have been a bit manic for the London Magic Mental and Hypnosis group, and to some extent this has included me and my own ambitions as an amateur hypnotist. The "Last Thursday Group", as our monthly HypnoMeets are now knows, has also been affected but to a lesser extent.
Following the meet up the week before last, which everybody enjoyed, including the members of the public that were hypnotised, questions were raised about the legality of what was going on. It turned out that much of this controversy was down to the actions of a hypnotist who goes by the name of Jonathan Royle and it was plain from the outset that although he hadn't been present he did not approve of what had gone on.
The particular issue which Royle raised was whether street hypnosis is legal under the 1952 Hypnotism Act, which is the law that regulates hypnosis for the purpose of entertainment in the UK. He insists that street hypnosis is illegal and that anybody who performs hypnosis on members of the public without a license is breaking the law.
As someone who knew little about Royle and thus previously had a neutral opinion of him I have to say that I have seen little about this individual over the last couple of weeks that endears him to me. A cursory glance at his blog may imply that his reasons for trying to discourage the LMMH meets are due to his concern for the safety of the public and for the good name of the profession of hypnosis. I'm not convinced of this however, and I believe that as one reads on the real motives for his trouble stirring become clear.
There's much about Royle's character that I find objectionable. To start with a lot of his blog post is centred around demeaning the work and character of other hypnotists for whom I have some respect, most notably Anthony Jacquin, Kev Sheldrake, Amit Badiani, and Vince Lynch. However despite being willing to publish such negative comments he has no reservations about sprinkling keywords such as "reality is plastic" all over his own work, presumably to bump up his hit rate. He also lectures the LMMH group about the morality and legality of performing street hypnosis, whilst at the same time anyone who visits his youtube channel can see him performing examples of exactly what he's railing against, indeed using significantly more violent and potentially dangerous methods.
In my opinion he is acting purely out of misguided self-interest. His self promotion is shameless and yet so far the only person I've heard saying that he's good is him. He's quite willing to try to leech off the popularity and work of others, rather than generate new and original content of his own that sells off its own merit. Indeed, despite his continuous torrent of self-affirmation, I don't think he can be said to regard his own work and expertise too highly if he feels that the only way to sell it is to try to kick down everybody else.
It did not surprise me to find out that he has spent time in prison for fraud.
Joe, on Uncommonforum, did some interesting webtrawling and found a couple of links regarding Royle (aka "Alex LeRoy" or "Alex Smith"), which make for interesting reading. Links here and here. He also indicates that a google search for "alex smith hypnosis jail" is also an education in itself. I like Joe, he's brilliant!
Unfortunately when it became clear that communications had been opened with Westminster council, who replied that they believed street hypnosis was not covered by the 1952 Act and thus would not require their approval, Royle made it his business to send a message to them to put his point across. Clearly spooked by his email, the council then did what authorities everywhere do when there is a speck of controversy and it's impossible to separate the good from the bad, which is to ban everything. Or at least try to; they have stated "no exhibition, performance or demonstration can take place" and threaten to fine anybody who does. Scary sounding stuff, but I'm not convinced they have the power to do that. As of tonight that is how things stand.
So on to the legal stuff.
Anybody who is interested can find the 1952 hypnotism act here. If you intend to perform hypnosis on the public in the UK I would encourage you to read through it, take some time to understand it and decide on your own position in relation to it.
Note that, whatever Royle may claim, there is no definitive interpretation of this document and nobody has ever been prosecuted under these laws in 57 years.
What follows is my interpretation. I think section 2 of the act is most relevant.
2 Control of demonstrations of hypnotism at other places
(1) No person shall give an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism on any living person at or in connection with an entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, at any place in relation to which such a licence as is mentioned in section one of this Act is not in force unless the controlling authority have authorised that exhibition, demonstration or performance.
For me the crucial line here is "in connection with an entertainment to which the public are admitted". This is what satisfies me that I am acting within the law if I hypnotise a stranger in the street or even in a pub; I cannot see how either are examples of "an entertainment to which the public are admitted".
It is also my opinion that it would take much more than simply practicing hypnosis on the street to prompt the authorities to take action. No council is likely to want to bear the expense of being the test case; indeed not only would they would have to prove that what is essentially a conversation between two private citizens is "an entertainment to which the public are admitted", but they would also have to prove that it was for the purpose of entertainment, that hypnosis was actually intended, that hypnosis was actually taking place (how do you prove that?), that hypnosis actually exists (many people believe it doesn't) and indeed if it did exist that it wasn't "self-hypnosis", which is permitted under section 6, and as many hypnotists believe that all hypnosis is self-hypnosis this could be difficult.
This said however, the bottom line is that any interaction with the general public, whilst not to be shied away from, should be approached with due restraint and caution. Subjects should be treated with complete respect, and consideration should always be paid to their health and safety. The hypnotism act may be little known, tenuous and open to interpretation, but it is also in my opinion the least likely charge one would face, and quite frankly deserve, for bad conduct in any case. More likely offenses would be examples such as causing an obstruction, public order, assault, or sexual harassment, which frankly a sensible hypnotist is unlikely to be guilty of.
My personal conclusion is that as far as I am concerned street hypnosis is legal and that nobody is likely to care anyway unless you make a scene, assault someone, or make inappropriate sexual approaches, none of which are things that are in my character.
Following the meet up the week before last, which everybody enjoyed, including the members of the public that were hypnotised, questions were raised about the legality of what was going on. It turned out that much of this controversy was down to the actions of a hypnotist who goes by the name of Jonathan Royle and it was plain from the outset that although he hadn't been present he did not approve of what had gone on.
The particular issue which Royle raised was whether street hypnosis is legal under the 1952 Hypnotism Act, which is the law that regulates hypnosis for the purpose of entertainment in the UK. He insists that street hypnosis is illegal and that anybody who performs hypnosis on members of the public without a license is breaking the law.
As someone who knew little about Royle and thus previously had a neutral opinion of him I have to say that I have seen little about this individual over the last couple of weeks that endears him to me. A cursory glance at his blog may imply that his reasons for trying to discourage the LMMH meets are due to his concern for the safety of the public and for the good name of the profession of hypnosis. I'm not convinced of this however, and I believe that as one reads on the real motives for his trouble stirring become clear.
There's much about Royle's character that I find objectionable. To start with a lot of his blog post is centred around demeaning the work and character of other hypnotists for whom I have some respect, most notably Anthony Jacquin, Kev Sheldrake, Amit Badiani, and Vince Lynch. However despite being willing to publish such negative comments he has no reservations about sprinkling keywords such as "reality is plastic" all over his own work, presumably to bump up his hit rate. He also lectures the LMMH group about the morality and legality of performing street hypnosis, whilst at the same time anyone who visits his youtube channel can see him performing examples of exactly what he's railing against, indeed using significantly more violent and potentially dangerous methods.
In my opinion he is acting purely out of misguided self-interest. His self promotion is shameless and yet so far the only person I've heard saying that he's good is him. He's quite willing to try to leech off the popularity and work of others, rather than generate new and original content of his own that sells off its own merit. Indeed, despite his continuous torrent of self-affirmation, I don't think he can be said to regard his own work and expertise too highly if he feels that the only way to sell it is to try to kick down everybody else.
It did not surprise me to find out that he has spent time in prison for fraud.
Joe, on Uncommonforum, did some interesting webtrawling and found a couple of links regarding Royle (aka "Alex LeRoy" or "Alex Smith"), which make for interesting reading. Links here and here. He also indicates that a google search for "alex smith hypnosis jail" is also an education in itself. I like Joe, he's brilliant!
Unfortunately when it became clear that communications had been opened with Westminster council, who replied that they believed street hypnosis was not covered by the 1952 Act and thus would not require their approval, Royle made it his business to send a message to them to put his point across. Clearly spooked by his email, the council then did what authorities everywhere do when there is a speck of controversy and it's impossible to separate the good from the bad, which is to ban everything. Or at least try to; they have stated "no exhibition, performance or demonstration can take place" and threaten to fine anybody who does. Scary sounding stuff, but I'm not convinced they have the power to do that. As of tonight that is how things stand.
So on to the legal stuff.
Anybody who is interested can find the 1952 hypnotism act here. If you intend to perform hypnosis on the public in the UK I would encourage you to read through it, take some time to understand it and decide on your own position in relation to it.
Note that, whatever Royle may claim, there is no definitive interpretation of this document and nobody has ever been prosecuted under these laws in 57 years.
What follows is my interpretation. I think section 2 of the act is most relevant.
2 Control of demonstrations of hypnotism at other places
(1) No person shall give an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism on any living person at or in connection with an entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, at any place in relation to which such a licence as is mentioned in section one of this Act is not in force unless the controlling authority have authorised that exhibition, demonstration or performance.
For me the crucial line here is "in connection with an entertainment to which the public are admitted". This is what satisfies me that I am acting within the law if I hypnotise a stranger in the street or even in a pub; I cannot see how either are examples of "an entertainment to which the public are admitted".
It is also my opinion that it would take much more than simply practicing hypnosis on the street to prompt the authorities to take action. No council is likely to want to bear the expense of being the test case; indeed not only would they would have to prove that what is essentially a conversation between two private citizens is "an entertainment to which the public are admitted", but they would also have to prove that it was for the purpose of entertainment, that hypnosis was actually intended, that hypnosis was actually taking place (how do you prove that?), that hypnosis actually exists (many people believe it doesn't) and indeed if it did exist that it wasn't "self-hypnosis", which is permitted under section 6, and as many hypnotists believe that all hypnosis is self-hypnosis this could be difficult.
This said however, the bottom line is that any interaction with the general public, whilst not to be shied away from, should be approached with due restraint and caution. Subjects should be treated with complete respect, and consideration should always be paid to their health and safety. The hypnotism act may be little known, tenuous and open to interpretation, but it is also in my opinion the least likely charge one would face, and quite frankly deserve, for bad conduct in any case. More likely offenses would be examples such as causing an obstruction, public order, assault, or sexual harassment, which frankly a sensible hypnotist is unlikely to be guilty of.
My personal conclusion is that as far as I am concerned street hypnosis is legal and that nobody is likely to care anyway unless you make a scene, assault someone, or make inappropriate sexual approaches, none of which are things that are in my character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)