The True Nature of Hypnosis

by Tim Brunson, PhD

What is hypnosis? And, does having an accurate definition really even matter? For the past several years I have attended courses and conferences in which the more forward looking organizers decided to include the topic of hypnosis or hypnotherapy presumably lest critics feel that they were not up-to-date with the latest innovations. Similarly, there continues to be a parade of medical, psychotherapeutic, and self-help books in which the authors – many of whom are very respected colleagues, friends, and even very influential mentors – have chosen either to dedicate an entire book to the topic or at least throw in a relevant chapter or a few pages. Even so, I cannot help but be dismayed at the inaccuracy of some of their comments and/or their omissions of some of the more relevant discoveries in related fields. Specifically, my present concern is regarding the lack of an effective and accurate definition of the word hypnosis.

The hypnosis definitions used by these experts rotate through a gamut of variations, which interchangeably refer to it as either a state or a process. Frequently it is improperly regarded as a condition in which a person has achieved focused attention. Almost always it is assumed that it requires a trance – or an altered state of mind (although I dare say I am not sure from what it is altered). Others choose rather to focus on the act of hypnotizing someone, which almost always refers to achieving a non-distracted condition by getting the subject to stare at an object until eye fatigue is achieved. Then some use more direct suggestions to produce what is called a hypnotic state. The members of the Ericksonian crowd insist that a series of permissive suggestions, which are PERHAPS coupled with some rather complex yet effective linguistic patterns, can create the same condition. (Of course, I am not leaving out the use of dramatic verbal shock promoted by Henry Munro, MD, in the late nineteenth century. Such techniques are often seen being employed by stage hypnotists.) Indeed, all of these perspectives describe some aspect of hypnosis without adequately or accurately providing us with an authoritative definition.

When seeking to define any phenomena, there are a couple of rational approaches. First, one may seek to describe either its static or dynamic characteristics, which can be easily derived from empirical observations. In other words, they can declare what something looks like or what it does – or what it does not look like or does not do. They can also provide an explanation of its role in society and culture to include what activates its functions and what results follow. Therefore, it is safe to say that hypnosis is something that does something in response to something and thus creates something. Unfortunately, I am not sure that explanation does anyone much good. This means that if a definition is to be valid and meaningful, it must both lend itself to accurate observation as well as explain the dual aspects of how and why.

I have already mentioned actions that are normally associated with the word hypnosis. While their results may or may not create a cognitive ability and/or an emotional feeling, which did not precede such action, there normally are measurable physiological changes, a declaration of either an altered feeling or modified thought process, an action that was performed differently, or belief that a person's relationship to a goal or other desired condition has been significantly altered. Therefore, by focusing on the end result, I think that we can come closer to finding a more functional definition that actually establishes meaning – which again can be rephrased as achieving the how and why answers.

The acts associated with hypnosis produce a result. What I am referring is not an intermediate state such as focused attention or trance. Rather I am primarily concerned about the ultimate outcome of the encounter with a hypnotic operator or the self-application of the hypnotic action. Thus, if this end objective is accomplished, it is somewhat immaterial what technique is used and what intermediate states of mind are achieved. Even so, as methodology is important, I have explored each of the often diametrically opposed protocols – which range from authoritarian to permissive, fast to slow, and direct to indirect – to ascertain their similarities. What does each of these have in common? Are there any regularly occurring reactions within hypnosis subjects? It is also very enlightening to overlay any conclusions with some of the more recent and relevant research concerning neurology and artificial intelligence – of which I will only address rather vaguely in this article.

In order to understand where I am going with this, you may wish to learn where I have been. My training started off with years of formal Neuro-Linguistic Programming training, the use of long wordy guided imageries, and then a pretty intensive study of the methods of Dr. Erickson. Even though I was producing consistent results, I was clueless as to why I was successful. (Also, note that I was regularly espousing a whole lot of doctrine and jargon, much of which I found out later was substantially baseless.)

Strangely enough, for many years I pretty much ignored a whole set of techniques and an entirely different way of thinking. Topher Morrison, DCH, one of my first instructors, briefly mentioned to me the work of Dave Elman, a stage hypnotist who taught numerous medical and dental doctors in the 1950's and 60's. Although I had quickly acquired Elman's book, for over a decade I only occasionally opened it. Later I came across a complete set of audio recordings of Elman's original classes. Fortunately I later found time to read his book multiple times, and then eventually listen to, transcribe almost entirely, and exhaustively study his original classes. And, I had the brief opportunity to take a workshop with Gerald Kein, the highly talented hypnotist who actually studied with Elman.

What I found was startling to say the least. I found that Elman was extremely credible. He had dedicated much of his life to examining the ideas of several medical and psychological greats, who previously contributed to the field. This allowed him to give us a fundamental theory that explained not only his approaches but even those of Erickson, his rival, and every other hypnosis authority.

By focusing on Elman I discovered that the results I was achieving really came down to two things. First, it is necessary to bypass a person's critical faculty and then allow him or her to selectively think. Secondly, I was being shown how to achieve what came out of my NLP and Ericksonian training without having to create focused awareness and even trance. Yes, if you emphasize the results achieved by hypnosis, relatively denigrate the importance of the actual technique and observable characteristics, and instead emphasize the essential principles of the hypnotic process, I feel certain you will gain a sudden epiphany as to why all hypnotic methods work.

Essentially, I concluded during my analysis that if a physiological, behavioral, or self-actualization result is to be achieved using any of the myriad of hypnotic techniques, a person's ability to direct the process through thought must occur. The more efficiently thought produces such result – a process which we can then call hypnosis – the more effective the transformation. My current theories underline Elman's concern about what he called the Critical Faculty, which can best be described as an aspect of human personality that leads us to resist change. Again, my ability to understand and explain this process comes from an avid interest in neurology and artificial intelligence – from which emanates the Neurology of Suggestion concepts that provide the foundation of Advanced Neuro-Noetic Hypnosis^TM. Here is what I found:

If the goal is to enhance a person's ability to use thought – which from this point I am going to refer to as suggestion and imagination – it is vital that we seek to unfetter and enhance the parts of the brain that facilitate those functions. I will rephrase this in layman's terminology. We must deactivate the part or parts of the brain that provide stability and resistance to change – and more importantly – activate the areas that directly emphasize the human ability to direct simulation and anticipation in the form of suggestion and anticipation. I rather simplistically state to my students that the former is the left frontal cortex of the brain and the later, the right orbitofrontal cortex.

Essentially, hypnosis is a process, which activates a vital part of the brain while simultaneously inactivating others. It changes the set of currently active functions. Some are activated, such as increased awareness due to increased activity in the Reticular Activating System, and others relatively inactivated, such as the Anterior Cingulate Cortex, which plays a significant role in anxiety, worry, and obsession. Other parts of the brain, which were previously deprived of energy, are subsequently enhanced by the process. This is why many hypnosis subjects feel more aware. Some frequently refer to these mental changes as improved awareness and even trance. However, these are collateral byproducts of the process rather than causes or definitional conditions.

Activating the suggestion and imagination center of the brain is predominately achieved by calling upon those functions. In other words, as you allow your brain to react to a suggestion or imagine an action or condition, that specific part of the brain begins to require more energy – which is supplied by oxygen-carrying blood flow. As the brain has only a limited supply of blood, its major substrates undergo an economical distribution, which requires some substrates to become idle or inactive when others are turned on. Again, one of the major areas affected by the activation of the right orbitofrontal cortex is its neighbor to its left, namely the left prefrontal cortex, which I believe to be the center of resistance to change. Nevertheless, while deactivating the brain's resistance center may lead to an enhancement of selective thinking, this is not a requirement for a successful end result. Increased focused attention may likewise create a redistribution of the brain's energy so that selective thinking ability is improved and other areas are simultaneously activated – thus creating a trance-like experience – that process is also not a requirement – and is a rather clumsy and inefficient way of creating a hypnotically induced effect.

The ONLY universal requirement is that the brain's suggestion and imagination center – again, the right orbitofrontal cortex – should be significantly activated so that it may have an effect on the subject's neurological and physiological functioning. Mitigating the resistive tendency of the nearby left prefrontal cortex is a desired – but not required – objective. My earlier definition described hypnosis as a process during which pattern resistance is reduced and selective thought becomes more efficient. This is still valid. However, the emphasis needs to be on the latter. Therefore, in clinical situations my stress is predominantly on providing the subject with a series of antithetically effective suggestions designed to significantly activate the anticipatory and simulation abilities of their powerful frontal lobes. Should my methods create further beneficial reallocation of cranial energy in such a way as to mitigate resistance, quell unfocused thought, and enhance other heretofore dormant substrates, I am grateful. However, those benefits are ancillary to my purpose of enhancing the subject's capability to use selective thought to orchestrate transformative changes.

Even though the emphasis up to this point has been on the defining the mysterious concept of hypnosis, I will now propose that this should not be our major concern. The essential point is that the superior frontal lobe of the human brain has a strong natural tendency to simulate and anticipate. Those functions in turn can be deliberately activated through the use of suggestion and imagination. This has a precipitous effect of altering mental and physiological functions. The implications here are tremendous. What I am describing is a situation in which we as human beings can shape our destiny merely by choosing our thoughts. I have been saying this for a very long time. Even though there are numerous techniques, which we categorize as hypnosis - and when used by hypnotists are highly effective in creating efficient selective thought - it is the products of these actions that warrant the most interest.

Juan Enriquez and Steve Gullans recently began promoting the idea that humanity is in the process of morphing into a new species – moving from homo sapiens to homo evolutis. This new version of humanoids is believed to be directly involved with their own evolution. As we continue to develop techniques that allow us to empower our natural ability to use suggestion and imagination to change our brains and bodies, we are manifesting this new species of humanity to which they refer. Nevertheless, if we are to fully understand and accept the potential of what we have come to know as hypnosis and hypnotherapy, we must finally begin to more accurately describe what we are talking about.