#hypnosis practice

[yumedesutrance]

What if being a “great hypnotist” starts with acting like one

✦ Before you continue: This space is for observation, not operation. We are studying the architecture of the hypnotist✦

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

When the hypnotist is an artist.

There is a classic phrase in medicine:

"Medicine is the science and art of healing."

So we could ask something similar.

Is hypnosis the science and art of getting someone into trance?

We often talk about hypnosis… but we rarely stop to define what it actually is.

And that's understandable.

Some mental things are difficult to define. Perhaps as difficult as defining the soul.

But back to the artist.

If the hypnotist is an artist, then the stage matters. Presence matters. Narrative matters.

And here one of the protagonists of the debate appears:

Anthony Jacquin.

Anthony Jacquin is a British hypnotist, son of hypnotist Freddy Jacquin. He began practicing in 1995, became professional in 2001, and by 2004 was already deeply involved in stage and magic performance.

On his personal blog there is a 2008 post titled "Being The Hypnotist", which later appeared as an excerpt from his book.

There he writes:

"To be a great hypnotist it is of key importance that you become The Hypnotist. Not a hypnotist. Not someone who knows a bit about hypnosis. But The Hypnotist. You must express absolute confidence, congruence and expertise in your skills, knowledge and abilities."

And then he adds something even more interesting:

"In the beginning this takes a certain amount of front. Pretend and master it."

Or in other words:

Act like the hypnotist… until you become one.

He summarizes it even more directly:

"Believe you are the best, believe you are a natural and behave like you are."

This is the artist paradigm.

The hypnotist as a stage figure. A character that creates expectation. An authority that partly produces trance because the audience believes in it.

Which brings us back to the original question:

Is prestige merit?

Or is it simply a very refined form of conjuring?

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[hypnosistrainingacademy]

The 5-Minute Guide of Using Contradiction Blowout

Have you ever imagined of being able to flip someone’s old or worn-out mindset on its tired head in a time span of short conversation?

Here’s a technique that you can use to drill down core into a subject’s problem in just around 5-10 minutes and then blow it right out of the park, simply by exposing a contradiction to their values and beliefs. This technique is so effective and used by many hypnotists.

Enter The Contradiction Blowout! Download this free report to discover how to grasp this advanced Mind Bending Language technique.

This advanced-level technique not only provides you with a new meaning to the saying “packs a proverbial punch,” but is also incredibly easy to apply to your day-to-day hypnosis practice once you are acquainted on how to use this language as leverage.

Source: Hypnosis Training Academy

[yumedesutrance]

Hypnosis was never about the hypnotist alone

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

So let's return to the beginning.

Prestige.

That word that started everything.

It can mean merit. It can mean authority. It can mean fascination.

And it can also mean something far less noble:

illusion.

Maybe that’s why it appears so often in the history of hypnosis.

From Mesmer, who literally spoke of animal magnetism and conducted almost theatrical sessions…

to more modern approaches where trance is explained as a shared psychological process.

There has always been tension between two things:

the real experience

and

the way we present it.

The artist builds the stage. The explorer studies the phenomenon.

One needs presence. The other needs curiosity.

But both depend on something that is rarely mentioned enough:

the subject.

Because trance doesn’t occur in a vacuum.

It doesn’t happen just because someone has a deep voice or an impressive reputation.

It happens because another person chooses to participate.

Chooses to imagine. Chooses to follow instructions. Chooses to explore their own mind.

And maybe that’s the most interesting point of all.

If the hypnotist’s prestige depends so much on the subject’s expectations…

then hypnosis has always been, in a sense,

a collaboration.

Not a trick. Not a power.

But something simpler and stranger at the same time.

Two people using words to modify the experience of one of them.

Some may prefer the artist model. Others may prefer the explorer model.

And both probably have some truth to them.

But personally I still prefer something fairly simple:

A hypnotist who practices, a subject who doesn’t pretend, and enough curiosity between them to see what happens.

Without needing to pretend to be The Hypnotist.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

What if hypnosis doesn’t need a performance at all

✦Before you start: this isn’t an attempt at hypnosis. I just have a head full of theories and felt like sharing them out loud.✦

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

But not everyone agrees with this idea.

Here enters the other protagonist of this small philosophical war inside hypnosis:

James Tripp.

Another British hypnotist, but with a very different stance.

If Jacquin represents the artist, Tripp is closer to the explorer.

Instead of building a character, Tripp insists on something far more uncomfortable:

authenticity.

Not the hypnotist as a stage figure. Not the hypnotist as a charismatic authority.

But the hypnotist as someone investigating a phenomenon together with another person.

For him, trance doesn’t appear because someone has a magnetic presence or an imposing reputation.

It appears because two people participate in a psychological process.

Expectation can help, of course.

But it’s not magic. It’s not prestige. It’s not an aura.

It’s human interaction.

In that model, the hypnotist doesn’t need to act like The Hypnotist.

They can simply say something like:

"I want to try something. Do you have a few minutes?"

And interestingly, in many contexts that works perfectly.

Especially outside the stage.

Among friends. In recreational communities. In environments where nobody expects a performance.

And this is where the debate becomes truly interesting.

Because both models work.

The artist can generate trance through expectation, presence, and narrative.

The explorer can generate it through curiosity, collaboration, and process.

Two paths. Two styles. Two philosophies.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

If hypnotists can fake it… so can subjects

Fake it until it happens

✦ Before you start: this isn't hypnosis. Just thoughts I needed to get out of my head and onto the page.✦

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

Let's continue with the prestige issue, because it gets interesting.

On the internet it’s very difficult to know who is who.

We don't see the process. We don't see the practice. Often we don't even see the face.

For example, you don't see me writing this. You don't know if it's me writing, my cousin… or the fashionable tool of the moment: artificial intelligence.

So an argument appears:

For the subject to have a good experience, they need to believe in the hypnotist’s prestige.

And that creates a problem.

How does the subject know that prestige is real?

How do they know that this person is a respected and admired hypnotist? How do they know they should admire them?

The solution some propose is simple:

If you don't have prestige, create a character. Fake it until it happens.

The word to fake (from Latin fingere) means:

To give ideal existence to something that does not actually possess it.

And that’s where things become interesting.

Because if all of this becomes a game of characters, like a theater play…

do you know who else can fake it?

The subject.

Personally, I prefer an honest subject. Not someone pretending to enter trance just to make me feel good.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[hypnokink]

I wish I had a girl nearby who I could practice with after work.

[yumedesutrance]

The worst part of modern research is that the authors are still alive

✦Wait… He’s Alive? A brief academic crisis ✦

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

I come from science.

So when someone cites an authority, my brain follows a very normal academic process.

Step 1: Who is this person?

Step 2: When did he die?

This is not disrespect.

This is standard procedure.

For example in medicine, most names attached to theories are… well.

Dead.

Pasteur. Alzheimer. Parkinson.

You see the name. You check the years. You check the discovery.

Maybe the Nobel Prize. Maybe the syndrome named after them.

Very normal.

So imagine my situation when I started reading modern hypnosis discussions.

Someone writes:

“According to James Tripp…”

My brain goes:

Wait.

Who?

Did I miss something?

How did I spend months reading about hypnosis and somehow skip a major figure?

So I do the responsible academic thing.

I look him up.

And then I discover something deeply inconvenient.

He’s alive.

Not “recently deceased.”

Not “historical figure.”

Alive.

Currently alive.

Possibly online.

Possibly reading Tumblr.

This creates a new and unexpected research problem.

Because criticizing dead scholars is easy.

They cannot appear in your notifications.

But criticizing living hypnotists?

Now that requires diplomacy.

Strategy.

Possibly disguise.

So for the moment, I will return to the safe territory.

Mesmer (dead). Braid (dead). Erickson (dead).

Very respectable gentlemen.

Very historically stable.

And if someone new appears in the literature…

I will simply follow the traditional academic protocol.

Step one:

Check if they are dead.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦

[yumedesutrance]

Maybe the question isn’t which one is right

Art or exploration?

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

So we return to the question that started all of this.

When we talk about hypnosis…

are we talking about stage art?

Or about shared psychological exploration?

Maybe the answer isn’t one or the other.

Maybe it depends on the context.

On the hypnotist. On the subject. And on what both expect to find when they begin playing with the mind.

✦ᛉᛋᛇ✦