When asked what hypnosis is, a number of folks will tell you it’s deep relaxation or trance or the like. There are a number of hypnotists who disagree. I’d like to jump on the “Trance does not equal Hypnosis” bandwagon if I may.

Part of the problem is that trance and hypnosis have been defined by some as being the same thing or others have said that trance is a requisite part of hypnosis. Erickson called what he did trance. It all really depends upon what you mean when you use the words. Unfortunately, the meanings have become so dilluted and so generalized that they have very nearly become almost meaningless as a way to describe states of mind.

Here’s my take . . . and I am not alone in this understanding.

While I do believe that someone in a hypnotic state may or may not be in trance, I don’t think they’re quite the same thing.

Trance is usually characterized as either focused attention or unfocused attention . . . that loopy daydreamy feeling many folks have accompanied by deep relaxation is often the description given. As an example, meditation can be done as emptiness wall gazing or focused mantra . . . neither of these are hypnotic states, albeit they are trance states.

So, what is hypnosis? I don’t know about some folks, their idea of what hypnosis really is could involve juggling small kittens and large vats of jello filled with bikini models . . . well, I suppose I’d go for that as well but skip the kittens . . . um, jello . . . um, bikini . . . um . . . right, snap out of it . . .

FOR ME . . . and those who buy into the same definition . . . I accept basic concepts taught by the likes of Dave Elman but with a rider . . . “Hypnosis is the bypass of the critical factor of the mind and the establishment of acceptable selective thinking” . . . the same model Gerry Kein teaches and it works quite well for what I need . . . I would also add “imaginative involvement” on the part of the hypnotic subject which I borrow and modify from Don Gibbons, albeit the model works without it (I just find that bit ties up loose ends rather well).

This working definition and model of hypnosis is rather clearcut and easy to use while allowing one to see how it the state can be used in the so-called waking state as well as in trance.

I’ve nothing against trance, I enjoy “trancing” quite a bit and find that as most folks expect it when entering hypnosis, I go right ahead and use it. Don’t need to, but it is a helpful FRAME for hypnosis . . . but it isn’t the hypnosis itself.

In my opinion.

Of course, the next question is really . . . now that you believe you have a working model (not objective reality, just a model that helps one do the actual work) . . . what then? How does it help one do hypnosis and how does one actually do the hypnosis, anyway?

Good question . . .