At the Hypnosis Technique Exchange, the issue of the relationship of hypnosis course length and competence has been raised. The original author voiced is concern that five day courses in hypnosis may not be enough to really prepare folks to face the public while those of seven years or more as in psychotherapy may be just too long to be of any use and midrange courses of a year or so may be more appropriate.

The issues brought up are not really issues related to how long one spends in training . . . as the original poster says, he knows folks who’ve taken very little time to get their head around this stuff and he knows folks who have had a long instruction period who don’t seem to have understood even the basics.

The thing is, it’s not really how long you spend at something but how much you learn. Recently, I discussed a year-long program in hypnotherapy with a young man who after four months had only learned the progressive relaxation induction and a guided imagery for folks to go to a “park” . . . they had learned no other direct hypnotic methods and upon asking the teacher, discovered they would not be covering many hypnotic techniques which many of us who would consider basic minimum experiences . . . after a year’s study, they would be coming out with a competence in one induction and one therapeutic approach (an approach that is considered less effective by most and which is very inappropriate for a number of people who have negative associations with such imagery with no real learning on how to avoid such negative associations and maximize effectiveness in even that simple approach).

I know, there are folks who are incompetent fools who are doing single weekend courses which certify folks based upon tuition but there are folks doing the same thing with the year or more courses.

The issues of competence and wrapping your head around what the real working techniques are with real people are not really issues of time . . . they are issues of competence.

While I would agree that folks should be competent when meeting members of the public for real changework, I disagree that a year course is going to guarantee success better than a short course . . . all things being equal, it would . . . however, all things are not equal.

The successful courses . . . long or short . . . are based upon the competence model. That is, the principles are explained clearly and students are given ample opportunity to have supervised practice in class so that they can master the skill which many courses (short or long) do not allow (I know of MANY folks who took a course in hypnosis where the general theory was explained but they were never actually given an opportunity to DO IT. The real kicker though, is that folks must demonstrate competence in the knowledge and the skill sets before they are allowed to “graduate” and receive their so-called certification.

Ideally, a strong course . . . long or short . . . has a narrowly defined skill set and target outcome for the students that is appropriate to the time allowed for the course. Ideally, the instructor would test each and every student on competence for each and every major skill within the target set. Those who do not demonstrate competence do not pass. Period.

Of course, a good instructor will understand how to motivate and teach folks so that they actually learn the skillsets appropriately so that the majority of the students will have mastered the skills to a level that qualifies them for such certification. Paying money to attend a course is not strong enough a demonstration of competence. Actually demonstrating the skills by hypnotizing a number of folks and explaining the processes as well as the theory does. Live demonstration and testing based upon competence in the skill sets. That’s the ticket. Length of a course may or may not be related to this, but it is not the same thing.

All the best,
Brian