I know a stage hypnotist who has told me that there is no need to do the classic "in and out" style deepening.

i.e. wake the subject, telling him/her that when you send them back into trance/hypnosis/whatever you call it yourself, that they will go twice as deep as before. And repeat this procedure several times in succession.

The hypnotist in question told me that once they´ve gone to "sleep" then leaving them in that state for 2 to 3 minutes, they will "deepen" all by themselves.

Would people tend to agree or disagree with this theory? It goes against most of what I have read and heard to date, but I´d like to hear from practicing stage hypnotists on this one.

You've only mentioned two ways of deepening.
The first one is called fractionation.
And the second one? My only problem with that is what's happening on stage during those 2 to 3 minutes? Sounds a bit boring for the audience.
I just do a countdown deepener and the fractionation happens anyway during the first few skits, then throughout the show.

I only currently know two ways of deepening!
The second method (leaving the subject for 2/3 minutes) would involve working with another subject whilst the first one was "deepening". I have to admit you´re right about the fractionation happening during the first few skits and during the show.

I also use fractionation as apart of the show because it happens naturally when you make them open their eyes to do something funny and then go back in trance again.

But I have my doubts about leaving the subject without even saying deepening stuff, because I personally like to be aware of what is going on with my volunteers all the time during the show, and also I have noticed that sometimes when you leave them too long without any suggestions some of them can get distracted and even wake up partially, they can start to giggle about what is happening with the other volunteers and even open their eyes. The few times that that has happened I just send them back to "sleep deep", which is again an example of fractionation.


Giovanni.

Its not so much deepening but more conditioning. A subject won't go from zero to accepting direct waking suggestions in one setep. So I would say that hypnotist is wrong in my experience and understanding. Leaving someone in trance can have the opposite effect and bring them out.

Hi Guys,

I think that when we talk about depth of hypnosis what we a really talking about is the degree to which the subject is responding to suggestion.
As such I am of the opinion that the only way to increase responsiveness to suggestion is to give suggestions and allow the subject to respond to them, therefore in my opinion fractionation works well to increase responsiveness to suggestion because it involves giving suggestions and allowing the subject to respond to them.
In contrast I think that just leaving a subject to their own devices without any suggestion to follow would do nothing to increase responsiveness to suggestion and is in fact likely to reduce responsiveness to suggestion.
In my shows I try to keep my subjects busy responding to suggestion as much of the time as possible because I feel in this manner you can steadily increase the degree to which your subjects respond to your suggestions.

Regards.
Hypno

Hypno,

that is the most informative post I have read here in some time. Spanos would love that.

Anthony

I don't agree with hypno in the sense that the degree of responses is directly related to how deep the hypnosis state is, because I have had a couple of times people that were so deeply hypnotized that they barely reacted to some of the suggestions and in the end it took them longer to wake up and remember what happened.

I think that for a good show a medium level of trance would be the best, because if it is too light they won’t get most of the suggestions, but if it is too deep it would be like somnambulism and you might not get the reactions you want for the show. The same thought goes for therapy sessions.

Giovanni.

There perhaps different types of trance. How someone responds could be down to their own personal hypnotic talent. But they need to be in a "deep" trance to respond to wakened hypnosis. Deeply hypnotised = conditioned to respond to the wakened hypnotic state.

Deep trance could mean anything comatose or the above?

I would suggest that any generalization is necessarily false for everyone. Therefore, in some instances Hypno is correct and in others Giovanni is correct. It depends upon the person being hypnotized.

As I'm sure everyone here knows, hypnosis is not sleep. It uses increased, singular focus. Therefore, in many people fractionation is a great way to increase the focus. Following a series of suggestions leading repeatedly into trance tends to force a person to focus on the instructions and on entering the trance, resulting, of course, in increased trance. So Hypno is correct.

Being left alone with no instructions results in internalization and self-focus. In a stage setting overhearing others being hypnotized can lead a person to thinking "This is what I'm supposed to do" with intense focusing on listing for future instructions. This focus increases resulting in increased trance. So Giovanni is correct.

The key, IMO, is twofold. First, you have to believe in what you're doing. If you think fractionation will work, it will. If you don't believe in it, it won't. Same is true for leaving a person alone. Stanislavski, in An Actor Prepares, referred to this phenomenon as sending out "rays." Second, you have to observe the people you're hypnotizing. For stage work your response is easy. If they're following your suggestions keep 'em. If not, send 'em back to their seats. You don't really have time to individualize for everyone. Well, okay, I don't have time to do that. You may choose to do so. That's up to you. IMO people pay to see the show, not how you can work hard to get someone into trance.

Owen, Your friend is right. Leave them for a couple of minutes and they could become more adept at being hypnotised. Although they could also become less so and you could loose the lot. And as Reg says you'll loose the interest of a lot of the audience as well.

I think the term "Deepening" is what causes a lot of misunderstanding.

There are no 'levels' of hypnosis as such. You're either hypnotised or you isn't. On stage once you've done your testing, the Only people you are going to end up with are the very suggestible, usually called somnambulists. And you don't need to deepen them at all. But, even though you don't need too, you should.

These people once they are hypnotised can hallucinate anything right from the start. There is no difference between watching an imaginary film or being unable to see the hypnotist.

What you do with them is to steadily increase the intensity of their experience, bit like tuning in a radio. You are also training their imaginations, often they haven't used those for a while.

But the "One two wide awake" isn't for them, or for you. It's for the people who are the real point of the exercise, the great and, often totally forgotten by hypnotists, unwashed audience.

NOT doing the format everyone expects will either look impressive or just strange. The putting to sleep and rawakening is expected and when I experimented with not doing that sure, I got the same results with the hypnotees, but not with the audience who when I chatted with them, weren't quite sure what they had been watching because it didn't match their expectation. I guess it's a bit like billing yourself as a jazz pianist and giving them 2 hours of Brahms on a Cello.

I can see Dm's point. There are indeed several trances, but only one of those is hypnosis and especially on stage it can be generalised. But that's only in my experience.

Smiles
Jon Chase

http://JonathanChase.com

Some of the very best people I've had on stage didn't follow right away and fell into it further down the line. I have found the wakening and reinduction to be really useful way of testing where they are. Plus I have lost a lot of people trying it off bat that would've responded had they been conditioned. Plus if yuo have suggested each time they go faster and they go deeper its a compounding suggestion for keeping them there. So in many ways its a good thing to do. Not only for the audience I would've thought.

Its also less risky..

Hey Mind pusher,

I agree with testing but I would tend to do that before I get half way through a show so that I can entirely focus on the really good subjects who are going to be the ones you almost entirely focus on anyway.

As for whether one method being better than another well one has to ask the question how do we know? If you don't then you get a result. If you do then you get a result. We have absolutely no idea whether doing something we didn't do would get a different result from a single person because we didn't do it. It's a guess at best what would have happened.

I prefer to focus on what has happened.

MY experience is that regardless of what I do I get the same sort of numbers and reactions from the people on stage and a totally different one from the audience.

And the whole thing is entirely and absolutely for the edification and enjoyment of the audience. Nothing else at all matters. There is 1 target and 1 goal both in being the Hypnotist or the Magician and that is to entertain.

I'm lucky really having come to hypnosis through being an entertainer rather than a hypnotist who uses it on stage. I have never really bothered with the trying to impress an audience with my skills so don't care if the numbers on stage are huge or small, done both, doesn't matter.

There is no actual re-induction fractionation or any deepening. Even though my best selling book is called 'Deeper and deeper' it's really a poke. The thing is that the people who are going to come up, go under and stick will do so even if you try and stop them. The ones who don't stick won't no matter what you do. And no one can ever prove, or should ever waste time trying, that doing X instead of Y will make them.

I know loads of people teach all sorts of stuff that will improve the hypnosis et al, but the Only important thing is does it Entertain The Audience. Unless of course the point is to teach lots of unnecessary stuff to pad out a book or a course.

Purely in my Experience of course.

Smiles
Jonathan Chase

If you say that's the case for you then that's is the case. However its not been my experience. When I talk about testing I don't mean for suggestability I mean for cabability for following along (and star potential). Like I said my experience has been that some of the best subjects I ever had didn't drop in straight away and I f I had gone straight into the more direct suggestions I probably would have lost them. Infact I have lost dozens of great subjects doing it straight away.

I also feel there are different levels of shows. A theatre show with relatively expensive tickets is different from a small club or pub. in my view in order to get the right impact and carry out some of the more complex routines you need more good subjects on stage. It does matter. At least it does in the shows I have done but also seen.

We all have good and bad nights and although a good pro will make them entertaining enough to pull through the real great shows come from finding the real characters and bouncing them off each other. That for me is the main skill of a good stage hypnotist. On a big stage in front of a big crowd you need more people than you would in a small club. in fact the more real characters you can find the better the show. Although you can get by only finding one. I've done both I know what I and my audiences prefer.

Its not about the hypnotist it really is about the subjects. And being an entertainer isn't always a guarantee. There were some pretty awful failed entertainers that became failed hypnotists in the 90s. Which became part of the problem in the 90s.

Jon - thanks for your input, I´ll bear in mind the bit about the "one two wide awake"!

Mindpunisher - I agree, and I´ll leave the risky sh-t for later

I agree with mindpunisher when he says that every case is different and particular, so a lot of times you get volunteers like the ones described by Jon Chase but a lot of other times you need deepening.

It also depends on the size of the show, number of volunteers and how lucky you are in terms of them being "Somnambulists" or not. But if they are not you can still get a good show with some deepening techniques.

That’s my point of view, so everyone is right and maybe we cannot generalize everything that we are saying for all the cases.


Giovanni.

You also have to remember there are far more somnabulists around than ther are "characters" hypnotically talented people that make great shows.

To be honest I think most of us are somnabulists some just need a bit more coaching than others. But many of us won't let ourselves go on stage.

But its always about finding the talented subjects that will make or break your show no matter how much of an "entertainer" you are. They want to see them tap dance not you. Otherwise they would've gone to see a comedian.

On second thoughts Jon do you have a video of you taking someone without "deepening" or "conditioning" someone and taking them right into the more extreme suggestions?

I would like to see it since I've never seen it done. that's in 18 years of doing hypnosis and watching countless shows.

Can you shows us because you will be the first Ive ever known about. I would love to see it. In fact any video would be good to see.

Punisher, I do not know if you consider this more complex, but, I have a bit where people see my bare butt when I turn my back to them and laugh uncontrollably until I face them and then they stop ( sometimes they stop...sometimes they can't help but to continue laughing....which is even funnier ). Sometimes I will turn it straight to me being completely pantless with no issues.

I do this right out of the gate often with no fuss. Since this is an hallucination suggestion, maybe it counts for you.

I think something like this works because it is not crossing the boundries of the guests since they are not pantless in front of people ,but, I am. Pretty much, the joke is on me.-Shane

I do amnesia that's straight away. Then I go through the usual intitial stages with their eyes shut. Eyes open happens after they have accepted a few simple things like laughing etc. The wide awake stuff is where you can do anything with them. I would never attempt that straight off the bat. But if its possible would like to see it.

By complex I mean where you have numerous volunteers bouncing off each other to create something that's unique. And you need a few good character volunteers for that.