Milton H Erickson The Reverse Set in Hypnotic Induction

[@lawrencebolt3540]

The first 35 seconds was legendary. I invite everyone therapists/causal fans, to study the first 35 seconds. Paying attention to Erickson's introduction and moving into disassociation, so subtle.

[@WhiteCamry]

He doesn't even sit down and start until 0:35

[@weronikajakubczak]

can You please make a citation it is hard to hear bc of the brum.thanks

[@joeyhorror4749]

@@WhiteCamry He uses a little bit of mirroring with both what appears to be the host, to the girl who comes in. To be honest though, "legendary," is an overstatement. Erickson is clearly a great, but it was the context that took him there, and still today. If say you, or anyone you knew had this very reputation, people would fall into a trance around them/you as well. Hypnosis is probably 80% the client 20% the Hypnotist/"guide", meaning that when someone comes to see a Hypnotist, with the intention to see a hypnotist they are already in a trance. The hypnotist just uses that to guide the subconscious through the point needed to adjust what could be adjusted. The client still, must also allow that to happen. Erickson here is building a quick rapport with the client, mirroring her nervous/shy behavior, and gaining her trust.

[@thomasdymowski5848]

Utterly fantastic. I’ve been a student of his teaching for 30 + years 😂

[@gekiryudojo]

My unconscious mind liked this video,

[@judichristopher4604]

Subtitles or Closed Caption would have been nice.

[@arthurmurfitt7698]

lol

[@samantha-kemp-therapy]

Amazing

[@naouriawali3445]

أرجو منكم ترجمة هذا فيديو بلعربية

[@foresthill8462]

Does anyone know what year this is from?

[@jamesmilner7042]

ASMR

[@CEDtalks85]

lol

[@OmarCapital]

@@CEDtalks85 Just outta Curiosity, how did a person such as yourself come across a video as such ?

[@user-user-user-user.]

Can someone explain what I am watching here?

[@naouriawali3445]

Please translate this video in Arab

[@hili467]

Well... at least she wasn’t cheating. Did she ever really go into trance? She made my boy Milton WORK lol

[@kenmccready2870]

There is no such thing ,,,,as difficult clients ,,,,only inflexible therapists ,,,,,, ....Milton as you know communicates indirectly with the unconscious ,,,,whatever it presents ,,,,he is quite simply brilliant ,,,,

[@MarkDavis--ukhypnosis]

See my comment in the main discussion. No she doesn't look she's in hypnosis and those filming it confirmed this. Erickson is struggling. And his later explanation (2 years later to Haley) that it was a "reverse set induction" seems to be made up.

[@Bushcraft242]

Daily hypnosis study

[@MarkDavis--ukhypnosis]

Professor Andre Weitzenhoffer, who filmed this - discusses this in his work - The Practice of Hypnotism. He casts serious doubt as whether Erickson achieved anything here. Weitzenhoffer was Professor of Psychology at Stanford University where he and Ernest Hilgard set up a hypnosis research lab and developed "The Stanford Scale". "“Erickson was particularly adept at capitalizing on anything the subject did and building it up into something more than it was. In not a few cases it has been my impression that he very subtly enticed and encouraged subjects in to role play. Erickson was also quite adept in turning failures into successes in the eyes of the onlookers. The well-known “induction of Ruth” which was filed in one of the laboratories at Stanford University in the lage 1950s and later used by Erickson as an example of the “reverse-set” (Erickson & Rossi 1981) was possibly one such failure. Ruth was Hilgard’s and my secretary. She was a relatively poor subject by Stanford Scale standards. I did not know this when I asked her to be a volunteer subject for Erickson. By any standards as a demonstration it was anything but inspired. I felt more than once that Erickson was at a loss regarding what he could do with Ruth but was not going to admit it. Unfortunately, allowance had not been made for a discussion period, so whatever Erickson might have said was never said. On the basis of what I saw and my interview with Ruth the following day, Ruth was questionably in a hypnotic state. Erickson’s retrospective, much later explanation to Haley that he had demonstrated with Ruth, a “reverse set induction”, a method he had never previously alluded to, has always seemed to me to possibly have been invented under the pressure of giving Haley an explanation. It must be said that Erickson redeemed himself later the evening of the demonstration when gave an impromptu demonstration at Hilgard’s home of superb use of nonverbal suggestions in the production of complex hallucination, this using a subject who, unknown to him, was a high scorer on the Stanford Scales.” Page 420-421, The Practice of Hypnotism, 2nd Edition - Andre Weitzenhoffer, Published by Wiley & Son, New York, 2000. What is interesting is how many people uncritically view this and accept the myths around Erickson.

[@TheKitchenerLeslie]

Sounds like a hater and a never-was coming at King Kong after he's dead.

[@espositogregory]

I think that a trademark quality of Ericksons, which redeemed him in this curious field of work, and someone exonerates him from your criticism, is that he actively, and overtly involves the subject in his methodologies. he was a strong proponent of ethically, ensuring that anyone who used such talents with was aware and consenting to my knowledge. Furthermore, the actual inductions may be more along the traditional lines of subtle suggestion, but his substantial dialogue throughout gives a clear indication, that he is neither fool hearted enough to believe hypnotism is stronger than it is, nor was he so crass as to insinuate to others that it could be

[@MarkDavis--ukhypnosis]

@@TheKitchenerLeslie No Weitzenhoffer was a serious researcher, unlike Erickson. He very much respected Erickson's hypnotic skills (they were both adepts) but criticised the hagiography around Erickson. In terms of research Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard made far higher contributions than Erickson - and it's notable that Erickson also fell out with Professor Clark Hull (who put scientific hypnosis on the map via his research lab at Berkely in the 1930s)

[@TheKitchenerLeslie]

@@MarkDavis--ukhypnosis And nobody cares about him

[@lasv69]

@MarkDavis--ukhypnosis It appears from these statements that if something does not fit into a specific and invariably limited scientific research model, that the phenomenon of the infinitely questioned, debated and truly undefinable "hypnotic state" or "trance state" does not exist in this presentation based on the researchers own preconceived bias and notions about what hypnosis is. As a scientist he did have an investment in protecting his own concepts by rejecting others, this is normal...he did have a human ego that existed in the context of Stanford academia after all. Erickson had and ego too, however it existed in a vastly different context and could be scrutinized under vastly different standards. Perhaps the critical thinking should begin before Weitzenhoffer and Erickson as we interpret and define hypnosis for ourselves based on the multitudes that have come before us sharing their subjective thoughts and experiences and filter it though our own as we all learn and grow our capacity for understanding of such a lovely and vast topic.