www.myhypnosisnews.com

To say that suggestion is one of the most significant elements of a hypnotic experience is, perhaps, an understatement. Indeed, many hypnotists, including the late Dr. Milton Erickson, have defined hypnosis as a state of heightened suggestibility. While this is not my personal definition for hypnosis, I do believe that response to suggestion is essential for any hypnotic experience, that suggestibility itself is one of the central factors in this type of work.

In order to discuss suggestion, and the inverse property which I speak of in this sections title, we must first look at what it is, not only in terms of defining it, but also the structure of the phenomenon itself. The Oxford English Dictionary offers two definitions that are relevant here: first, “The action of prompting one to a particular course of action; the putting into the mind of an idea, an object of thought, a plan, or the like…”; second, “The process by which an idea brings to mind another idea by association or natural connection…”. These are useful and relevant ideas, but in terms of hypnosis, I think we can offer a better definition: suggestion is any communication from the hypnotist which creates or alters an experience, idea, attitude, belief, or state within the subject.

Note that this need not be a verbal communication, for even the simple act of looking and pointing in a direction can act to guide a subject. Realize also that this need not be direct, but can be done without the subject even recognizing the process involved. For example, firing an anchor can create a state change that a subject experiences without knowing the cause(depending on whether the subject recognizes the anchor consciously, of course). Similarly, one can utilize pattern recognition in the unconscious to guide a subject towards a specific action or thought. If, for example, you know that a certain person experiences attraction first as a visual phenomenon, than as auditory, then as kinaesthetic, and then as auditory again, you might guide them through the first three and allow the last to occur on its own.

Now that we have an (admittedly broad) definition of suggestion, let us consider the process at work. The first step, of course, is that the hypnotist communicates something to the subject, which the subject then(step two) interprets. Third, the subject responds to the suggestion. While this may sound like a complete picture of the process, I would like to stipulate that there is a fourth step wherein the subject recognizes the impact of the suggestion, which can result in a reevaluation of the suggestion, the hypnotic experience, or various other related phenomena. This last step does not occur in every instance, but, when it does(which I believe is more often than not), it is an essential part of the process.

In order for this process to work the subject has to have two things, one is the experience of responding to the suggestion, and second is a belief in the suggestion. What’s interesting is, the order at which these two are experienced is arbitrary for the purposes of hypnosis. The belief in the suggestion may only come after the suggestion is experienced. For example, if I say that you will feel something and you feel it, you will then believe in the power of my suggestion(and in the power of future suggestions I might make). On the other hand, you may already believe in the power of the suggestion and the experience that comes afterwards acts to prove the suggestions validity.

It is this inversion of belief and response which I call the inverse quality of suggestion, and it is this concept that is at the heart of why Major Deceptions are so useful. If you offer a person a suggestion and they doubt that it will occur, but experience it anyway, they now believe in the suggestion. If they believe in the suggestion first, any experience they have which can be labeled as the result of that suggestion will become proof for the belief.

One of the primary purposes for Major Deception is as a way to create belief in the subject. Thus, if you can suggest an experience to a person which they would not normally have, and can then offer proof of that experience, they will believe in the power of the suggestion, whether the experience results from it or not. If you look back at some of the examples offered in Section One of this work, you will see precisely what I mean.

The use of suggestibility tests which rely upon physiology to create the response is a perfect example of this principle in action. In the eye closure test the hypnotist labels the experience of being unable to open your eyes as a hypnotic response, thus, when you experience this response, you accept the suggestion as the true cause. This creates other suggestions, primarily the suggestions that you are responsive and that you are hypnotized. Now, whatever further suggestions the hypnotist puts forth will be accepted as valid, because you already believe in them. Thus, by using a hypnotic deception in concordance with the inverse property of suggestion, you can lead the subject to become more accepting and thus more suggestible.

Let me point out as well that the proof of validity needn’t be direct. For example, in the case of the Gypsy, the disappearance of the cloud is not direct proof that the subject’s luck has or will change. However, the subject experiences something which suggests that the ritual being performed has had real impact, and accepts that the whole ritual must have worked. By providing proof that part of the process has worked, the Gypsy creates the belief that the entire experience is valid, and thus the suggestion can go further into the subject’s mind.

The Fakir’s push this even further, by utilizing illusion to display magical capabilities in general. The belief in these abilities causes community members to accept the Fakir’s work, even in areas where no illusion is utilized. Essential to any hypnotic working, whether the subject ascribes the results to the hypnosis or to another cause is the factor of the subject’s belief. Yet, as we’ve seen, it does not matter whether the subject believes at the time of suggestion. The belief can be solidified after the fact, or it can be a preexisting factor. The Fakir uses illusion to solidify the belief in his ability well before he ever performs the hypnotic ritual, and does not directly connect the presented illusion with the ritual. By contrast, a person who undergoes a suggestibility test may not believe that it will work at the time that the suggestions are made. The experience then creates a belief in there ability to enter trance and respond to suggestions.

To make this simple, we can use a simple formula:

Responsiveness = Suggestion + Belief.

In other words, a hypnotic response occurs when the subject hears a suggestion and believes in it. Looking at this formula mathematically, it is easy to understand the inverse property which we have been discussing. For example, if a person responds to a suggestion, belief will necessarily be added by the subject to explain their response to the suggestion. This contrasts with the typical notion of responsiveness, wherein a subject is lead to believe in the power of a suggestion so as to create the response.

Notice also, there is a third structure possible: if the subject believes in the power of suggestion and experiences something which they label as a hypnotic response, they will assume that there is a suggestion at work. For example, Israeli mentalist Uri Geller, famous for his performances of metal bending, has often received credit for bent cutlery found in the homes of TV or radio audience members after his appearances. These people believe in his power to bend metal and experience something which they take as a response to his work, and thus assume that it was his power which caused this to happen. This particular variety of suggestion structure can be quite powerful. Many hypnotists and other healers have had the experience of being credited with solving problems other than those directly addressed.

In some cases these additional changes are the result of the specific interaction, fringe benefits that come about as mental and physical changes occur, but a significant number of such experiences result when a subject, after a successful hypnotic experience, undergoes an unrelated positive change afterwards and then assumes that it is the result of a suggestion. Later, we shall discuss ways to purposefully utilize this phenomenon to create powerful and positive effects in the minds of those we communicate with. In some ways, this third permutation is the most powerful, but it is also reliant upon the ability to first create belief in the power of suggestion, so it shall be left for last.

At this point, the careful reader will recognize that hypnosis is dependent upon a three part structure consisting of a client’s responsiveness, there belief in the process, and the suggestions themselves, and furthermore, that only two of these three phenomenon needs to be supplied in the experience. Indeed, I would say that it is necessary for the subject to supply the third element, for it is the act of supplying that third element which constitutes a hypnotic experience. It needn’t matter which of the two you supply, they will create the third within the subject’s mind on there own. So, now that we understand this general concept, we can turn our attention to how we, as hypnotic communicators, can utilize this principle in our work. In the next section, we shall start looking at the practical application of these ideas by exploring what I call the suggestion gambit, wherein a suggestion is offered that guarantees responsiveness for the purpose of generating belief in the subject.

source: hypnoticmindtraining