Wray Herbert makes a very good case for critical thinking (hint, take my class – see http://hypnosistraininginstitute.org/practitioner-program/course-catalog/phi101/ for details) and why psychotherapy sometimes appears to work even when it doesn’t. You will note that I have taken liberties with the title of his piece at Huffington Post (here) by substituting hypnosis where he writes about psychotherapy. This is because many hypnotists suffer from the same logical biases that Wray describes within the field of psychology.
In fact, I would suggest my hypnotist friends read the following with that very substitution in mind. Every time the world psychotherapy comes up, just read it as if you see hypnotherapy and you will see what I mean.
As hypnotists, we need to learn to be more critical of our results and a step toward that is learning to spot fallacies in our own thinking. Some basic critical thinking goes a long way (seriously, see here).
As Herbert points out, one of the classic papers in the history of psychology is Hans Eysenck‘s “The Effects of Psychotherapy: An Evaluation,” published in 1952. The London-based psychologist examined 19 studies of treatment effectiveness, dealing with both psychoanalytic and eclectic types of therapy in more than 7,000 cases. His overall conclusion was damning: The studies, he wrote:
“fail to prove that psychotherapy, Freudian or otherwise, facilitates the recovery of neurotic patients. They show that roughly two-thirds of a group of neurotic patients will recover or improve to a marked extent within about two years of the onset of their illness, whether they are treated by means of psychotherapy or not.”
As Herbert continues, Eysenck noted, somewhat wryly, that these findings are encouraging for the neurotic patient — but not so welcome from the point of view of the psychotherapist. He also predicted that therapists would react emotionally to his proof, based on their strong feelings and beliefs in their effectiveness, concluding: “In the absence of agreement between fact and belief, there is urgent need for a decrease in the strength of belief, and for an increase in the number of facts available.”
He was right about the emotional reaction, although it probably would surprise him to know that it persists even today. The number of available facts about scientifically validated treatments has increased dramatically in the 62 years since Eysenck’s evaluation, yet many therapists still insist that their informal clinical observations and intuitions are proof enough of therapy’s power.
Eysenck did not attempt to explain why therapists’ beliefs are so resistant to proof — it was beyond the scope of his analysis. But now a group of psychological scientists are attempting to do just that. Emory University’s Scott Lilienfeld, working with colleagues at five other universities, argues that therapists are subject to the same cognitive biases that skew all human thinking. Rigorous scientific thinking does not occur naturally, so such biases cause therapists to infer and believe in outcomes that really have no proof.
Consider those two-thirds of neurotic patients who, Eysenck found, get well on their own. Lilienfeld and colleagues believe that Eysenck overestimated the rate of spontaneous remission, but the fact is that a fair number of people with psychological problems do get better on their own, for a variety of reasons. People mature, or tonic life events occur outside therapy — or people feel better for no apparent reason. This is all good for the patient — as Eysenck noted — but the spontaneity is rarely seen as such by therapists. Instead, they claim (and truly believe) that any improvement must be the consequence of something they did in the consulting room.
Misinterpreting spontaneous remission is one of what Lilienfeld and the others call “causes of spurious therapeutic effectiveness,” or CSTEs. Writing in the current issue of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, the scientists provide a taxonomy of 26 CSTEs, only some of which involve taking credit for changes unrelated to therapy. Others may be misinterpretations of real changes that result from incidental things in treatment. For example, patients may improve simply because they are excited about being in therapy — the “novelty effect”: Indeed, it’s said that 15 percent of patients improve between the initial phone call and the first session.
Still other CSTEs are misperceptions of change where none really occurs: For example, patients learn to verbalize their problems in richer detail, which may seem like improvement, yet the problems still persist and cause distress. Alternatively, patients may tell therapists what they think the therapists want to hear, leading to the (false) perception of therapeutic improvement.
The authors attribute all of these misinterpretations of effectiveness to four broad cognitive biases, well known in the social cognition literature:
Naïve realism. This is the ubiquitous assumption that the world is precisely as we see it. This heuristic, or mental shortcut, leads us to focus on what is most obvious and to ignore other, subtler facts.
Confirmation bias. This is the common, deeply ingrained tendency to seek out evidence consistent with one’s hypothesis, and to ignore or distort any evidence to the contrary. So a therapist may use a particular intervention, and mentally note only the sessions in which the patient showed improvement–forgetting those where the patient did worse.
Illusory causation. This is the powerful propensity to see cause-and-effect where none exists. This is what causes therapists (and patients) to misconstrue spontaneous remission as therapeutic effectiveness.
Illusion of control. This related cognitive bias is the tendency to overestimate one’s ability to shape events. It predisposes therapists to believe they possess more power than they do.
These four overarching cognitive biases lead to all sorts of irrational thinking, including the 26 specific types of CSTE listed in the article. Taken together, they underscore the need for rigorous scientific design and controlled research — and less intuition — in clinical decision making. The often lamented gap between science and practice is in essence a clash over these beliefs. The authors believe that the reluctance of some therapists to adopt evidence-based practices does not reflect low intelligence or willful disregard of the evidence. Rather, it stems from an erroneous belief that evidence from clinical observation is as trustworthy as evidence from controlled scientific study — or what Eysenck labeled beliefs and facts more than six decades ago.
Read more from Wray Herbert at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-herbert/.
Obviously, while Herbert certainly makes a strong case above, not all psychotherapeutic methods are insufficient nor are all hypnotists insufficience . . . quite the contrary as study after study have shown positive outcomes and effectiveness – particularly among hypnotists who use adaptive and focusing techniques.
However, we really need to be careful of falling into the trap of ascribing success to a particular process when something else can be happening.
Hypnosis is absolutely awesome but it’s not magick . . . at least not yet.
For more on experiential hypnosis, see Brian David Phillips Waking Dreams at http://www.BrianDavidPhillips.com and theSociety of Experiential Trance at http://www.TranceSociety.org – you can also join our Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/experientialtrance for even more. Join us today!
Be sure to click the subscribe button on Youtube! Don’t forget to send your friends over to http://www.youtube.com/user/briandavidphillips for even more nifty stuff too.
In Taipei and interested in learning about the joy of the MINDGASM? Head on over to http://briandavidphillips.net/2014/07/06/mindgasm201408/ and register now!
Interested in learning even more more about the authentic powers of the Imaginative Mind? Discover the power of Your Mind Ecstatic . . . erotic and otherwise. Understand THE MIND ECSTATIC via a number of my courses, products, posts, and more . . . or . . . take things to the next level at DEEP INSIDE THE MIND ECSTATIC and the very special seminar that guides you . . . BEYOND THE MIND ECSTATIC (HypnoTantric Erotic Hypnosis and so very much more).
Learn to let guide yourself and others into ecstatic, erotic, psychedelic, and other states . . . beyond pleasure, beyond what others deep possible. Become a bona fide pleasure engineer.
Check the local events in Taiwan here:
Speaking of the ecstatic mind, you can learn a whole slew of new techniques by checking out our EROTICATRANCE video training programs in erotic hypnosis which are in general release. If you don’t have the original set you can get it or perhaps the new advanced set or even go for the gusto go for the erotic gold and become an Ultimate Pleasure Hypnotist with our single most comprehensive program with twenty five video volumes that take you from the basics of hypnosis to erotic hypnosis through to very advanced erotic hypnosis work and more all courtesy the special package at http://briandavidphillips.net/2001/06/11/pack06-ultimate-pleasure-hypnosis-specialist-package/.
If you’re in Taipei and interested in hypnosis, check the services page linked to in the top left sidebar. Not in Taipei? Check the store for recordings in the same menu area as well as links to lots and lots of info and goodies. Of course, browsing this site will bring you to a digital ton of positive resources on a wide variety of topics as well.
Live Trance and Prosper,
Brian David Phillips
Beyond Ecstasy into
Easy hypnotic techniques to hypnotize yourself and others.
CORE HYPNOSIS SKILLS
Vanilla core skills for those with no previous hypnosis training or experience wishing a more solid foundation in basic to advanced hypnosis skills before exploring the erotic materials.
EROTIC HYPNOSIS FOR BEGINNERS
EROTIC HYPNOSIS SPECIALIST CERTIFICATION
ADVANCED EROTIC HYPNOSIS
ULTIMATE PLEASURE HYPNOTIST
Comprehensive Program toward True Mastery.