Category: In The Media

Celebs and hypnosis.

25/4/2015

Well, ‘Hypno-Dog’ has just got through to the next round of Britain’s Got Talent (ITV1 – 25.4.15). All good, clean fun and if nothing else, I guess it might get people talking and possibly wondering “Is hypnosis real?” or “Does a state of hypnosis really exist?” even though it was pretty obvious (from this round of BGT anyway) that it was just a comedy act. Interestingly though, the judges put Princess the Dog through to the next round because they were actually quite interested, I think, in what else could be done by the owner (although I don’t think Paul McKenna really has anything to worry about just yet)! Ant and Dec were supposedly hypnotised to forget the number 7 when counting to 10 – did you believe that that’s what happened or do you think they were just playing along? Whether Princess’ owner is a bone fide (or should that be bone fido?!) hypnotist I don’t know but this was the one part of the act which could’ve actually been legit – one of the possible strange quirks of the human brain under hypnosis.

Did you know however, that over many years, a number of celebrities have sought the services of a hypnotherapist for much more life-enhancing reasons? Here are just a few, unashamedly found via Google whilst I was watching Britain’s Got Talent (that's my disclaimer anyway):

Stephen Fry once used a hypnotherapist so that he could sing in time with the music for a comedy performance with Hugh Laurie. You can see him talking about it here.

Mark Knopfler, Matt Damon, Drew Barrymore, Ellen Degeneres, and Ben Affleck all reportedly used hypnotherapy to help them quit smoking. You can see Paul McKenna working with Ellen here.

Sylvester Stallone used a hypnotist whilst filming the Rocky films back in the 70s.

And whilst filming Waterworld, Kevin Costner used hypnosis to ‘cure’ him of seasickness.

Both Gerri Halliwell and Sophie Dahl have used hypnotherapy to help them with weight management.

And David Beckham used it to deal with ‘personal issues’.

When he was a child, Orlando Bloom was hooked on chocolate so his mom asked a hypnotist to help out.

And apparently, The Duchess of Cambridge used techniques in self-hypnosis when she was expecting Prince George.

And it’s been reported that Jennifer Saunders saw a hypnotherapist when procrastinating about writing Absolutely Fabulous - The Movie in 2014. You can see her being interviewed by Jonathan Ross here.
On the Christmas radio show (2013), Dawn French had bet £100,000 that she would never get down to writing the script, knowing the difficulty she'd had over the years (apparently, she had started writing the script 20 years earlier)!
By March 2014, Jennifer was seeing a hypnotherapist in the hope of dealing with her procrastination and getting it written within the year.
And by January 3rd 2015 she announced that it was completed and should be filmed and released some time this year.

So, as you can see from these celebrity examples, hypnotherapy can be life-changing. Or it can simply make you forget the number 7.

I wonder what Hypno-Dog has in store for us next time? ;)

0 Comments

You're Back In The Room...

9/3/2015

2 Comments

Controversy abounds in the hypnotherapy world at the moment – and the programme hasn’t even been aired yet.

I’m talking about ITV1’s ‘You’re Back In The Room’ and the series starts its run this Saturday, 14th March. Hosted by Philip Schofield, it’s a brand new prime-time game show centred around a group of complete strangers who compete as a team in order to win money by completing very simple tasks. However - and this is where the programme sets its own unique agenda - the contestants’ efforts are thwarted by the fact they have been ‘hypnotised’ beforehand by ‘Master Hypnotist’ and ‘International Mentalist’ Keith Barry. And the results are apparently hilarious.

Incidentally, a mentalist (no, I didn’t know either) is “a magician who performs feats that apparently demonstrate extraordinary mental powers such as mind reading.” In other words, Barry is a hypnotist and, perhaps more importantly, a showman.

I first heard about You’re Back In The Room this time last year, and even back then there were mutterings within hypnotherapy circles that it might have the capacity to portray the profession in a less than positive light. Twelve months on, and with just a few days to go until broadcast, hypnotherapists across the land are awaiting with bated breath.

On the one hand you have people saying it’s just an entertainment show – pure and simple. Karen Smith, Managing Director of Tuesday’s Child, the production company responsible for You’re Back In The Room, said that it’s “Something completely unique that will provide genuine laugh-out-loud moments, perfect entertainment for all the family.”

On the other hand, you have people who may be a little more concerned about the notion, being put across in publicity for the programme, that Keith Barry ‘hypnotises’ people and is able to ‘hack into people’s brains’ and control what they do using this hypnotism.

Mark Powlett, who is a fellow hypnotherapist and has a thriving therapy business in Redditch, was recently interviewed by the Daily Mail and said contestants on the show “were not under Barry’s ‘control’, but playing along willingly.”
Even here, the media conjures up its own agenda. The headline being:
"Therapists savage ITV's You're Back In The Room over claims it could be exploiting 'vulnerable' people."
A new dictionary definition is perhaps needed?: Savage (verb) = simply putting your views and concerns across.

Last night Keith Barry himself tweeted that the programme was all set to divide opinion.

I’m looking forward to seeing the first episode of You’re Back In The Room. You can see an advert for it here.

My one concern is actually not for the contestants on the programme – they knew what they were going to see; they knew that the programme makers wanted willing volunteers; before they left the house that day they even knew, perhaps, that they themselves would be one of those willing volunteers.

My concern is that people who might’ve been thinking of going to see a hypnotherapist for genuine reasons – anxiety, depression, phobias etc - might well be put off by the erroneous thought that the hypnotherapist can somehow gain control over their thoughts and actions. We can’t!

So, is there anyone who can gain apparent ‘control’ over your thoughts and actions?
Well, maybe someone who is already renowned as an international figure, and describes themselves as a ‘mentalist and master hypnotist’ as well as a magician. In other words they already have the kudos, the reputation, the gravitas, that they can do this sort of stuff. But it’s not as simple as that.
You’re Back In The Room is a stage show with all that that entails. So, yes, hypnosis may well have been used. But it will have been used in conjunction with so many other ploys thrown in to the mix too – peer pressure, audience pressure, thrill of the moment, expectation. When the lights are on, the cameras are rolling, and the audience is waiting and expecting to be entertained, those willing volunteers are bound to perform.

Hypnosis works by inducing deep relaxation; hypnotherapy adds the power of positive suggestion into the equation too. Due to possible adverse affects on an unsuspecting tv audience (deep relaxation can cause epileptic seizures in susceptible people), it is against broadcasting regulations to show the hypnotic procedure in its entirety.
If perhaps we actually saw Keith Barry working with the contestants beforehand, we might hear him suggest that when they act along with everything – sticking their heads into cream cakes; thinking that their pants are too tight; or throwing their prize money away – they will hear laughter, people cheering, and they will be revered for what they do… and won’t that feel good?! He probably suggests that they visualise themselves doing this and feel how it feels to get that applause and adoration, making it as real in their imaginations as they can. They’d love it. That, I would imagine, is the extent of the use of hypnosis in this programme.

What people sometimes don’t get is that, at any point, if he asked them to do anything that went against the grain, then they would be completely free to ignore his suggestions. But then the show wouldn’t work. So a) it’s in his best interests to find out what the contestants’ limits are and b) it’s good for us to remember that the success of the whole show is on their shoulders – no pressure on them then!

Mental processes and their subsequent actions are hugely complicated. There is not one thing that can solely define or shape them. They form and play out as a result of complex interactions between the social, moral, and intellectual dimensions of our whole psyche. And it’s perhaps good to keep this in mind, especially if the game show you’re watching uses the magical word ‘hypnotism’ as a unique selling point.

Derren Brown (who is also known as a mentalist and hypnotist, as well as illusionist) uses this disclaimer at the beginning of his shows:
“This program fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship.”

Although it’s probably anticipated that it won’t be anywhere near as intellectually appealing, perhaps You’re Back In The Room should show something similar?

It will certainly be interesting to watch. I'm looking forward to Saturday!

2 Comments

Conventional science versus 'quackery'.

17/2/2015

0 Comments

I started reading a new book the other night, “Is Your Life Mapped Out?” by David Hamilton PhD (Hayhouse Publishing). You can check it out on Amazon here.
It delves into all sorts of fascinating things surrounding the ‘forces of destiny’ and the power of free will. The author, who I have been privileged enough to meet and chat with, originally worked in the pharmaceutical industry before embarking on writing books and giving talks around the world on his understanding of the links between quantum physics and the mind/body connection.

In the chapter I was reading the other night, he was explaining his understanding of quantum entanglement and how this, he believes, can lead to the experience of coincidence. But by this time I was beginning to drop off to sleep so decided to switch off the light. A few minutes passed and my mind had started to buzz again so I switched on the radio. The programme being broadcast on Radio 4 was The Infinite Monkey Cage with Professor Brian Cox and Robin Ince and they were talking about… quantum entanglement. Now that was a coincidence!

The programme is billed as “award-winning science/comedy chat” according to its podcast page and episodes are available indefinitely here. Any of them are well worth a listen.

The episode I was listening to was entitled “When Quantum Goes Woo,” and it raised some interesting and very funny points of view on the seemingly polar extremes of conventional science/medicine versus, in their words “quackery” meaning alternative ways of healing, the two they made reference to being crystal healing and homeopathy.

The quote from the programme that really got me thinking was “quantum mechanics is a totally outrageous affront to common sense… which is why it attracts all this stuff,” meaning the aforementioned ‘quackery’.

Hang on a minute, so quantum mechanics is a totally outrageous affront to common sense but is ok, and yet the workings of homeopathy (also a totally outrageous affront to common sense) is not?

Here’s the going-round-in-circles bit from my point of view:

I love science. I really do. I love the fact that Einstein could imagine himself sitting on a light beam and coming up with his theory of special relativity; the fact that machines have been developed that enable us to see which bits of our brain fires when we have particular thoughts; the fact that one element combines with another to make something completely different. But I also get a bit frustrated when scientists appear to scoff at stuff they don’t approve of, for whatever reason. But then again I understand why they do – a theory is put on the table and they set out to prove whether it’s right or wrong. And when they have proof, it’s the truth. And until they have proof, it’s not the truth - except in the case of ‘quackery’ which, because it is such an outrageous affront to common sense, is deemed ridiculous, even though that’s how they describe quantum mechanics.

I also love the fact that even though we know so much about science, we really know very little. We are limited to our own understanding at this very time in history even though that understanding is so huge. Flat World view progresses to Spherical World view - the seemingly impossible can be proved real… but only when you know how. And the more we know, the more we realise there is to know.

Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Science and one of the contributors on this episode said of these ‘quacks’ that they “create a barrier to understanding - it’s to deliberately make themselves unintelligible and difficult to understand in order to make themselves seem better and more powerful than you.”

Which led nicely on to the next wily observation made by Brian Cox: “So I think it’s worth interrogating why we find these people so spectacularly irritating… they’re giving us an incredibly ugly reflection of ourselves which we are adamant that we are not.” A very poignant observation I reckon.

The one person who seemed to consistently speak the most sense on this programme, in my opinion (and yes, I know it’s a science/comedy show and I’m not taking things too seriously) was comedian Sara Pascoe, making reference to the oft quoted research carried out on kittens: when a kitten is exposed only to horizontal bars for the first few months of its life, it loses the ability to see vertical bars and goes and bumps into any vertical bar put in its way. She, I think, was suggesting that the scientists can’t see the point of view of the ‘quacks’ and vice versa.

She went on: “People choose what works for them and that doesn’t mean that you guys don’t set out all of the facts as clearly as you can because that gives people the option all the time, and that’s the fairest and best thing you can do. Do you need to argue with them? Do you guys need to go and stand outside with placards outside [sic] a homeopathic clinic? No!”

There are a number of things that really intrigue me:

- As long as all the information is out there, why should people be ridiculed for choosing something that works for them and they obviously believe in? If they believe in something there is always a quantifiable chance of it being beneficial whether it’s indeed medication, homeopathy, crystals or whatever. And who knows what new techniques and methods may be developed in the future that show how these methods may indeed work. A few years ago, people would have scoffed at the idea that mind-calming techniques such as meditation had a real, quantifiable effect on the brain (that would’ve been seen as 70s hippy woo) and yet, with the development of EEGs, MRIs and other scanning techniques, this is now proven.

- The hold and influence of the pharmaceutical industry is never mentioned on programmes like this, and yet ‘the amount of money that people are willing to pay’ on stuff like alternative medicine always is. The UK pharmaceutical industry in 2013 was worth £2.8 billion (Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, 2015). Another way of looking at it is if it wasn’t for pharmaceuticals the country would have gone irredeemably bust a long, long time ago.

- When we look back on medicine and surgical practices in days gone by we often can’t quite believe how crazy and barbaric it actually was. It is, perhaps, a sobering thought that our descendants in 100 years time might just look back on us and wonder how we too could inflict such primitive methods on each other?

- Healing, allopathic medication, the sciences, marketing, alternative medicine, collective views of society, psychology, advertising, mixed up with our own individual beliefs – all are so incredibly wound up in each other, dare I say entangled?! It’s a vast area of understanding – and yet we are continually pushed into a limited and naive argument of ‘scientists versus quacks.’ Right versus wrong. Logical versus illogical. Like everything else in the world, if people could work together and respect each other’s point of view more then perhaps progress would be even quicker instead of people putting barriers up against ‘the opposition’ all the time.

Perhaps I’m too open-minded? Perhaps I’m being naïve? Maybe. But that’s just me. And I’m no expert anyway! I was just thinking out loud J

Check out the programme and the book for yourself. Have an open mind and a sense of humour and the world is a fascinating place!

On the next programme I believe they’re talking about whether we really need plants or not J I'll look forward to that then.

0 Comments

In defence of mindfulness.

3/2/2015

0 Comments

Giles Coren, contributor to various publications such as The Times, The Independent on Sunday, Tatler and GQ, has recently hit out at mindfulness, calling it “cynical twenty-first-century capitalist techno smegma” in an online London blog.

You can read his article here. It is quite funny.

http://now-here-this.timeout.com/2015/01/27/giles-coren-on-mindfulness-it-is-cynical-capitalist-techno-smegma/

His expertise enabling him to shed an educated light on the subject has apparently been gleaned from ‘reading the books’ and ‘downloading the apps.’ Well done Giles. A good few hours’ study there then.

The book he refers to (‘Mindfulness – a practical guide to Finding Peace In A Frantic World’) is written by, as he implies by association, ‘lunatic whack-jobs’. I would prefer to use the authors’ proper titles of Professor Mark Williams and Dr. Danny Penman, both of the University of Oxford. They quote and reference many studies that have been made on the effectiveness of mindfulness meditation, mostly concerning the efficacy on sufferers of depression, stress and anxiety. I hazard a guess that NICE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence would not have been recommending mindfulness for sufferers of depression relapse for well over 10 years now if it was, as Mr. Coren describes it a “massive. Pile. Of. Bollocks.”

When referring to mindfulness being used in the corporate world he says of bosses: “They want their drones pacified, and they’re using meditation because they are not allowed to use drugs.” I’d just like to clarify, mindfulness does not turn people into walking zombies. On the contrary, they may actually become more creative, think ‘outside of the box’, and be more confident in their own abilities. Not, you would think, qualities of ‘pacified drones’.

“You wouldn’t start a course of chemotherapy if you didn’t have cancer, would you? It’s ridiculous” he continues. This is correct. But in making a comparison such as this, Mr. Coren really doesn’t have the first clue about how thought-processes and mindfulness work. From his comments, I would imagine that he perhaps needs to thank his lucky stars that he has never suffered with severe depression relapse. Perhaps instead he should be praising a method that can help such sufferers. And yes they, in particular, are often advised to begin to learn mindfulness techniques when they are not at the bottom of ‘the black hole of depression.’ You can’t, and shouldn’t, really compare two such vastly different treatments now should you… unless you’re lacking in a real, intelligent argument in the first place of course.

So, Giles Coren gets a great bit of publicity whilst knocking mindfulness. Good for him. As I said, it was an entertaining article.

In response, I’d like to put a few more points across. So…

Mindfulness is a great form of relaxation. If you attend a mindfulness group, the chances are that you’ll come away from it feeling a lot less stressed than when you went in.

However, if it’s really going to make a difference in your life, and the way you live your life, then mindfulness can be seen as so much more than just ‘relaxation’. Yes, it’s good to go and get your ‘fix’ of mindfulness on a regular basis, maybe once a week in a group - some mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) techniques may involve you being guided on a pleasant mental journey - and this is all well and good. But it’s the mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) techniques that, I feel, are even more important and lie at the centre of you being more at ease with things as they happen in your everyday life.

We all are liable to get so caught up in our own thoughts - judgements, insecurities, worries, plans, interpretations - that rarely do we have a full awareness of what is actually going on in the present moment. And yet that is the only point in time where we can really live our lives. The past has gone. Even the second it took you to read that sentence… and that one… gone. Left only in your memories and imagination. The future is yet to happen and cannot be lived in physically, and although you can imagine what it might be like you never really know for sure until it happens, by which time, all too soon, it’s in the past. Living can only take place right here, right now – and we often miss so much of it because we’re caught up in our thoughts and judgments.

The more we can become aware of our thoughts and our thought processes, the more chance we have of being able to detach ourselves from those that are less than helpful. This is why mindfulness has a proven track record for helping people who suffer with depression relapse. These people are actually encouraged to learn mindfulness techniques when they’re feeling good about things, before they slip into that proverbial ‘black hole’. They are then more likely to recognise their thought processes unravelling in the direction of an episode of depression, and ultimately may have more control before slipping completely. NICE recommends mindfulness as a treatment for people who are prone to episodes of depression for this very reason.

It was recently suggested to me that mindfulness is a technique that relaxes you and makes everything appear hunky-dory but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the real world and all the sadness, upset and pain that it is so often fraught with. How wrong this interpretation is. Mindfulness, at its best, should focus on every aspect of life, whether perceived as good or bad. Whatever we happen to be going through at any particular time, is life unfolding. And often it’s far from easy. Jon Kabat-Zinn, a recognised authority on mindfulness techniques in the western world, has a saying: “You can’t stop the waves… but you can learn how to surf.” Life is not straight-forward. Hurt happens. But recognising the fact that things can and do pass, may help just a little. Being mindful of the fact that the good times come to pass as well may also be helpful. We are then more able to ride the waves – the troughs as well as the crests.

Physical pain is another aspect of life in which mindfulness may be able to provide some relief. Instead of trying to block it out, in rather a contradictory fashion, bringing your awareness to your experience of the pain may actually help to transform it into something a little more manageable.

So, yes, please do go along to a mindfulness session purely for a nice bit of relaxation once a week. But please recognise the fact that it can offer so much more than this if you’re willing to invest a little time and effort to take the cognitive techniques back into your everyday lives.

Oh and enjoy reading articles by Giles Coren. He’s entitled to his opinion and may articulate it as he sees fit. But remember, when he’s passing comment on mindfulness, that he’s first and foremost a restaurant critic and newspaper columnist, not a professor or doctor from the University of Oxford… or indeed, someone who, I would be surprised to find, has ever suffered from depression.

0 Comments

In2 minds

Celebs and hypnosis.

You're Back In The Room...

Conventional science versus 'quackery'.

In defence of mindfulness.

Author

Categories

Archives