General Discussion of the Use of the ROperator and 4Tuple in Hypnotic Inductions

Black Ops Hypnosis 2

Online Hypnosis Training Course

Get Instant Access

In Volume I of the Patterns series, the process of hypnotic induction was described in terms of pacing and leading. The advanced student of hypnosis and communication will find it useful to understand these processes in terms of the R operator over the 4-tuple. Let us begin with the notion of pacing. Essentially, pacing is the process by which the hypnotist makes contact with the client, or in terms of Patterns I, the hypnotist meets the client at the client's model of the world. Overt pacing usually involves the hynotist's offering verbalizations which match some portion of the client's ongoing experience. Covert pacing, a very powerful induction technique will be considered later in the section on meaningful communication with an incongruent client — the so-called "resistant client".

In traditional ritualistic verbal hypnotic inductions, the hypnotist offers a series of suggestions verbally which represent to the client in language some portion of their ongoing experience. As the client hears the hypnotist's verbalizations, he checks his experience to determine whether or not the verbalizations by the hypnotist are, in fact, an accurate representation of his ongoing experience. Once this verified biofeedback loop has been accomplished, the hypnotist may come to link the pacing verbalizations with leading verbalizations to lead the client into an altered state for the purposes of the hypnotic encounter (see Patterns, volume I, pages 15-20, 137-152, 209-215 for details of the linking techniques). Much of the more graceful aspects of the traditional ritualistic verbal hypnotic induction can be understood in terms of the R-operator on the 4-tuple. If the hypnotist has the ability to detect what specific portion of experience the client has access to, then he knows precisely which set of pacing statements will be an immediate effective pace for the client at that point in time. Thus, for example, if a client offers a series of statements which include phrases such as:

I feel I would benefit greatly. . .

So many people are insensitive and callous. . .

the hypnotist detects that the client is attending primarily in consciousness to the kinesthetic portions of his experience. Thus, when beginning his induction the hypnotist will offer a series of suggestions which presupposes a kinesthetic representational system. Since the client has access to those portions of experience, he will immediately be able to verify that the hypnotist's verbalizations are accurate for his ongoing experience. In terms of the R operator on the 4-tuple, the hypnotist understands that the client's experience can be represented as follows:

Consequently, the hypnotist, in order to establish an effective pace with this client, will select verbalizations which use kinesthetic predicates. A hypnotist who fails to make the representational system distinction and who offers suggestions to assist the client in developing internal visual images will frequently find himself with a confused and possibly a resistant client. Once the representational system distinction is made by the hypnotist, such mis-communication is easily and comfortably avoided.

This initial movement, common in our experience to all successful communication whether for the purposes of hypnosis or not — the meeting of the client at the client's model of the world — insures that the hypnotist has tuned him or herself to the client adequately. Once this initial biofeedback loop is established, the hypnotist can display some of his or her creativity. As we have mentioned, even within the representational system which each of us selects at a moment in time as primary, there are an infinite number of experiences available which lie outside the bounds of our rather limited consciousness. By offering a series of pacing verbalizations within the representational system of the client but outside their usual awareness, the hypnotist can gracefully lead the client to new experiences. Erickson presents several excellent examples of the employment of pacing verbalizations based on the representational system distinction in his superb article Further Techniques of Hypnosis — Utilization Techniques. Note as you read through these that Erickson seizes upon the information offered by the client as to which portion of the world of ongoing experience is available to them and utilizes the representational system information by directing their attention to experiences within that representational system but outside of the client's present awareness. In both of the cases cited, Erickson notes that the visual dimension of ongoing experience is the relevant representational system to establish contact in, and he immediately utilizes by offering pacing verbalizations in that system.

There are patients who prove unresponsive and resistant to the usual induction techniques, who are actually readily amenable to hypnosis. They are encountered more frequently in the psychotherapeutic practice but are also seen in general medical and dental practice and judged to often be unsuited to the use of hypnosis. These patients are those who are unwilling to accept any suggested behavior until after their own resistant, contradictory or opposing behavior has first been met by the operator. By reason of their physical condition, anxiety, intense interest, concern or absorption in their own behavior, they are unable to cooperate actively or passively to permit an effective alteration of it. For these patients, what may be termed Techniques of Utilization frequently serve to meet most adequately their special needs. These same techniques serve to facilitate in both rapidity and ease the process of trance induction in the average patient. They are, in essence, no more than a simple reversal of the usual procedure of inducting hypnosis. Ordinarily, trance induction is based upon securing from the patient some form of initial acceptance and cooperation with the operator. In Techniques of Utilization, the usual procedure is reversed: There is an initial acceptance of, and a ready cooperation with, the patient's presenting behavior by the operator, however seemingly adverse it may appear to be in the clinical situation.

These various Techniques of Utilization will be clarified and illustrated by the following clinical examples:

Example 1: This patient entered the office in a most energetic fashion and declared at once that he did not know if he was hypnotizable. He was willing to go into a trance if it were at all possible, provided the writer would approach the entire matter in an intellectual fashion rather than in a mystical, ritualistic manner. He declared that he needed psychotherapy for a variety of reasons and that he had tried various schools of psychotherapy extensively without benefit. Hypnosis had been attempted on various occasions and had failed miserably because of "mysticism" and "a lack of appreciation for the intellectual approach."

Inquiry elicited that he felt an "intelligent" approach signified, not a suggestion of ideas, but questioning him concerning his own thinking and feeling in relation to reality. The writer, he declared, should recognize that he was sitting in a chair, that the chair was in front of a desk, and that these constituted absolute facts of reality. As such, they could not be overlooked, forgotten, denied or ignored. In further illustration, he pointed out that he was obviously tense, anxious and concerned about the tension tremors of his hands which were resting on the arms of the chair, and that he was also highly distractable, noticing everything about him.

The writer immediately seized upon this last comment as the basis for the initial cooperation with him. He was told, "Please proceed with an account of your ideas and understanding, permitting me only enough interruptions to ensure that I understand fully and that I follow along with you. For example, you mentioned the chair but obviously you have seen my desk and have been distracted by the objects on it. Please explain fully.

He responded verbosely with a wealth of more or less connected comments about everything in sight. At every slight pause, the writer interjected a word or phrase to direct his attention anew. These interruptions, made with increasing frequency, were as follows: "And that paperweight; the filing cabinet; the pictures on the wall; the changing focus of your eyes as you glance about; the interest of the book titles; the tension in your shoulders; the feeling of the chair; the disturbing noises and thoughts; weight of hands and feet; weight of problems, weight of desk; the stationery stand; the records of many patients; the phenomena of life, of illness, of emotion, of physical and mental behavior; the restfulness of relaxation; the need to attend to one's needs; the need to attend to one's tension while looking at the desk or the paperweight or the filing cabinet; the comfort of withdrawal from the environment; fatigue and its development; the unchanging character of the desk; the monotony of the filing cabinet; the need to take a rest; the comfort of closing one's eyes; the relaxing sensation of a deep breath; the delight of learning passively; the capacity for intellectual learning by the unconscious." Various other similar brief interjections were offered, slowly at first and then with increasing frequency.

Initially, these interjections were merely supplementary to the patient's own train of thought and utterances. At first, the effect was simply to stimulate him to further effort. As this response was made, it became possible to utilize his acceptance of stimulation of his behavior by a procedure of pausing and hesitating in the completion of an interjection. This served to effect in him an expectant dependency upon the writer for further and more complete stimulation.

As this procedure was continued, gradually and unnoticed by the patient, his attention was progressively directed in inner subjective experiential matters. It then became possible to use almost directly a simple, progressive relaxation technique of trance induction and to secure a light medium trance.

Throughout therapy, further trance inductions were basically comparable, although the procedure became progressively abbreviated.

Example 2. Comparable to the first patient was the woman who presented a somewhat similar problem. She stated that, in all previous attempts to secure therapy, she had been defeated in her efforts by a compulsive attentiveness to the minutiae of the immediate environment. She invariably had difficulty in completing her history and in attending to what was said to her because of an overpowering need to attend and to comment upon what she saw about her. (Even this small amount of history was interrupted by her inquiries about or simple mention of various objects in the office.) A psychiatrist and a family friend had suggested that hypnosis might enable her to cooperate in therapy and had referred her to the writer.

Since she had impressed the writer as a possible candidate for hypnotherapy and because little progress was being made in the interview, hypnosis was attempted by utilizing her own behavior in the following fashion:

As she inquired about a paperweight on the desk, reply was quickly made, "It is on the corner of the desk just behind the clock." As she flicked her gaze to the clock and asked urgently, "What time is it?" she was answered with, "The minute hand indicates the same numeral as does the desk calendar."

There followed a whole series of comments and inquiries by her without pause for any replies and with a rapid shifting from one object or subject to another. Her behavior was similar to that of an unhappy small child, warding off questioning by directing the interrogation into irrelevant, distracting avenues.

It was not possible to interrupt her verbal flow except with difficulty, and then fruitlessly. However, the measure of extending a paper knife compelled her to make mention of it. As she responded and then continued in her monologue, the writer polished his glasses, again forcing her to make a Comment in accord with her pattern of behavior. Next she was interrupted by a placing of the glasses in their case; then the desk blotter was shifted, a glance was directed at the bookcase, and the schedule book opened and closed.

Each of these acts was fitted by her into her compulsive stream of utterances. At first, these various acts were performed by the writer at intervals and rather quickly. As she developed an attitude of expectation for the writer's silent interruptions, his movements were deliberately slowed and made with slight hesitant pauses. This compelled her to slow her own behavior and to await the writer's utilization of her conduct. Then the writer added to his silent indication of objects an identifying word or phrase of comment.

This continued procedure had a progressively profound inhibitory effect upon her, so that she began to depend more and more exclusively upon the writer to indicate either verbally or by gesture the next object she was to comment upon or to name. After about 40 minutes of this, it became possible to instruct her to close her eyes and to name from memory everything that she had seen and to do this until she developed a deep hypnotic sleep. As she obeyed, she was prompted, "And now, 'paperweight' and deeper asleep; and now 'clock,' go even deeper into the trance." etc., until in another 10 minutes, a profound somnambulistic trance state was secured.

Thereafter, through this measure of utilizing as an induction technique her own pattern of resistant behavior, ready cooperation in therapy marked the clinical course of this previously "impossible" patient. Initially, each therapeutic session began her compulsive behavior which was immediately utilized for the induction of another therapeutic trance. Later, a simple gesture indicating the chair in which she was to sit sufficed to elicit a trance state.

Milton H. Erickson, Further Techniques of Hypnosis—Utilization Techniques, Haley (ed.), 1967, pp. 32-34.

In the visual representation — the 4-tuple and the R operator — we are developing here, Erickson understands that for both of these clients

Thus, his effective and graceful induction begins with a series of pacing verbalizations directing the client to more and more experiences within the representational system available to them. There are two additional comments of use derived from these examples. Note first that the suggestions Erickson offers lead systematically from experiences with an e superscript (experiences externally generated) to experiences with an i superscript (experiences internally generated). Secondly, both these examples demonstrate a second major way in shich the R-operator is useful in the hypnotist's organizing his behavior in the context of hypnotic inductions.

As Erickson establishes an effective pace within the clients' own representational system, he begins to shift from their representational system to another variable in the 4-tuple. He does this specifically by what we refer to as the principle of representational system overlap. (See The Structure of Magic, volume II, page 24 for more discussion.) More specifically, this principle states that once an effective pace is established within the client's own representational system, the hypnotist may begin to lead the client to an altered state of consciousness by finding the point of overlap between some experience in that representational system and that same experience in one of the associated representational system not normally a part of the client's ongoing experience. For example, when working with a client who is capable of detailed internal visual imagery and with whom an adequate pace has been established, we created a vivid, rich, detailed image of a forest of trees. Once this visual image is focused, we call the client's attention to the fact that he can see the trees swaying, their branches moving gracefully, and then to the fact that,

"... as you watch those trees swaying in the wind, enjoy the sound of the wind rushing through the trees..."

Once we receive verification from the client that he is hearing the sound of the wind rushing through the trees (typically by the unconscious head movements or one of the accessing cues typical of an auditory internal experience), we may choose to extend the experience into another of the variables of the 4-tuple,

". . now the sound of the wind rushing through those trees as you watch them sway is quite pleasant,. . .as pleasant for many people as the refreshing feeling of coolness as the wind blows on your face,. . . and through your hair..."

. . .breezes which carry the warm pungent odors of fresh-cut grass on a warm summer afternoon..."

This powerful maneuver can be easily represented in terms of the 4-tuple and the R-operator as :

Rtime (Ad < V, K, At, O > )------>Aed & V1

1 (seeing the trees)

Rtime (Ad < V, K, At, O > )-->A§ & V1 & A}

2 (hearing the wind)

Rtime (Ad < V, K, At, O >)------>A§ & V1 & A{ & K1

(feeling the air)

Rtime fAd < V. K, At, O >)------>A§ & V1 & A[ & K1 & O1

(smelling the odors)

Notice that the client's 4-tuple after this maneuver is one which is composed entirely of variables with i superscript; the only e superscript belonging to the A d variable — in this case the hypnotist's words.

A close examination of the Erickson examples will reveal precisely the same principle. For example, in the first case cited, Erickson begins by directing the client's attention to various objects in his visual field such as . . .the desk. . .the objects on the desk. . .the paperweight... the filing cabinet... Next Erickson directs the client's attention to a special class of objects in the client's visual field — specifically, parts of the client's body which he can see: your foot on the rug. . .your right hand on the arm of the chair. . .Next Erickson overlaps representational systems from V into K the changing focus of your eyes as you glance about... the tension in your shoulders. . .the feeling of the chair. . .

The two principles concerning the utilization of the R-operator in hypnotic inductions we have been discussing presuppose the hypnotist's ability to detect what the client's representational system is. We present specific ways in which you can train yourself to detect your client's representational system so as to respond creatively by utilizing that information.

When each of us selects the words we use to communicate to one another verbally, we typically select those words at the unconscious level of functioning. These words, then, indicate which portions of the world of internally and externally available experience we have access to at that moment in time. More specifically, the set of words known as predicates (verbs, adjectives and adverbs) are particularly indicative. Secondly, each of us has developed particular body movements which indicate to the astute observer which representational system we are using. Especially rich in significance are the eye scanning patterns which we have developed. Thus, for the student of hypnosis, predicates in the verbal system and eye scanning patterns in the nonverbal system offer quick and powerful ways of determining which of the potential meaning making resources — the representational systems — the client is using at a moment in time, and therefore how to respond creatively to the client. Consider, for example, how many times you have asked someone a question and they have paused, said:''Hmmmmm, let's see" and accompanying this verbalization, they move their eyes up and to the left. Movement of the eyes up and to the left stimulates (in right handed people) eidetic images located in the non dominant hemisphere. The neurological pathways that come from the left side of both eyes (left visual fields) are represented in the right cerebral hemisphere (non dominant). The eye scanning movement up and to the left is a common way people use to stimulate that hemisphere as a method for accessing visual memory. Eye movements up and to the right conversely stimulate the left cerebral hemisphere and constructed images — that is, visual representations of things that the person has never seen before (see Patterns, volume I, page 182).

Developing your skill in detecting the client's most highly valued representational system will give you access to an extremely powerful utilization tool for effective hypnotic communication. There are two principal ways which we have found effective in teaching people in our training seminars to refine their ability to detect representational systems.

(1) attending to accessing clues which may be detected visually. Specifically (for the right handed person):

accessing cue eyes up and to the left. . . eyes up and to the right. . . eyes defocused in position. . . eyes down and to the left. . . telephone postures. . . eyes left or right, same level of gaze. . . eyes down and to the right. . .

representational system indicated eidetic imagery (V) constructed imagery (V)

imagery (V)

auditory internal (A)

auditory internal (A)

auditory internal (A)

kinesthetics (K)

(2) attending to the choice of predicates selected (typically, unconsciously) by the client to describe his experience (see Patterns, volume I, pages 68-76, 82-86, and The Structure of Magic, volume II, part I). When describing experiences, each of us selects words to describe the portions of experience we attend most closely to. Thus, as communicators, when we train ourselves to detect which representational system is presupposed by the words selected by our clients to describe their experience, we have information which we can utilize effectively in our communication with them.

These are, of course, only two ways of learning to detect representational systems — there are many others. We have found, for example, that breathing patterns are an excellent indicator of which representational system a person is using at a point in time to organize and represent their experience to themselves. During visualization, for example, the person's breathing tends to become shallow and high in the chest. Other equally useful indicators in our experience are the shifts in the tonal qualities of the person's voice, the tempo of speech, the color of the person's skin. . .We have presented two specific ways of detecting representational systems in sufficient detail to allow the reader to train him or herself to detect the representational system being used by a client at a point in time. Once you have comfortably mastered these two techniques — refined your ability to make these sensory distinctions — we suggest that you explore for yourselves other indicators which allow you to gain the same information. Such exercises in making sensory distinctions will not only increase your ability to be effective and graceful in your hypnotic communication but will increase and refine your ability to have the sensory experience which is, in our experience, the very foundation of effective communication and hypnosis.

With this in mind, we offer the following exercise: select a specific set of clients and spend the first 5 to 10 minutes in the session with them asking questions which will, by presupposition, direct their attention to the various representational sytems. For example, if I were to ask you how many words there are in the title of this book, there are a number of ways you could access and represent to yourself that information. You might visualize (V*) the cover of the book and literally count the words; you might say the title of the book to yourself and keep count of the number of the words with finger movements (K). If, however, I were to ask you whether the color of the letters in the title of the book were the same colors as the letters in the authors' names, I have presupposed by use of the predicated color in my request that you will access and represent visually. Thus, by a judicious choice of predicates, I can direct your attention to one or another of the representational systems. This is of particular value to the reader who is interested in having these tools available to him or herself. By systematically selecting the predicates you use in asking questions, you can reduce the complexity of the communications to a point where you can easily learn to detect the accessing cues being offered to you non-verbally as the client attempts to respond to your questions. This simple exercise will in a very short period of time tune you to making the sensory distinctions necessary for the powerful utilization of representational systems. In addition, by asking such directed questions at the beginning of a session, you are systematically accessing the very resources within the clients which will form the foundation to make the change he or she desires. Below are listed some sample questions with associated typical responses you may easily detect — we recommend that you adjust the content of the questions to whatever is appropriate to your situation.

Eidetic images:

What color are your mother's eyes?

What color is your car?

Where did you first see me?

People will typically look up and left, some will also use tonal access (tonal distinctions are also mediated by the non-dominate hemisphere). Some people who are extremely fast at visualizing won't look up to the left, they will simply defocus their eyes slightly in position., make an image and then re-focus.

Constructed Imagery:

Can you imagine a purple cow7

What color should I paint my House?

Can you see yourself forty pounds lighter?

Typically people will look up and right with slight variation from person to person.


Have you ever felt really alert?

Does your right hand feel warmer than your left?

Do you feel more comfortable now than when you first arrived?

Typically people will shift their gaze down and to the right, and when you ask a question like "how do you feel about feeling depressed" people will typically touch themselves somewhere on their body if they're responsing kinesthetically.


When was the first time you heard me say your name?

Can you say (any sentence) inside your head?

Can you hear music in your head?

How do you know when you have internal dialogue?

The most commonly occurring auditory internal positions: postures where the persom is making contact with his hand and the side of his head; usually his temple area— the hand position is highly variable and can be used effectively to understand something of the kind of auditory internal which is occurring (e.g. index finger extended). In terms of eye scanning patterns, the client who is accessing auditory internal will typically glance slighly down and to the left, or to either side at the same level of eye fixation as obtained prior to beginning accessing: all three of these cases of eye scanning cues, the person's eyes are typically defocused. Often accompanying these accessing cues, you will notice a tendency for the person to cock his or her head as though presenting one or another ear.

Lead System — The L-Operator on the 4-Tuple

It is our understanding that at any moment in time there is an infinitely rich set of experience available to each of us as humans. These experiences may derive wholly from external sources (the e superscript on the 4-tuple) or wholly from internally generated experience (the i superscript on the 4-tuple), or may be some interesting mixture of the two. As we discussed previously, out of this constantly fluctuating world of experience, we select (usually unconsciously) some portion which we become aware of — the R operator on the 4-tuple. Our experience leads us to believe that although only a small portion of our ongoing experience is available to us at a moment in time, the information coming in through our sensory channels is being processed and represented at the unconscious level of functioning. Parallelly, our experience has indicated that, with the possible exception of organic insult to the nervous system, at any moment in time, each of us is engaging unconsciously all of the representational systems which we have presented here. Thus what we have been calling a person's representational system is simply the portion of the complex and integrated cognitive processes being used which is accessed into consciousness.

This way of understanding the complex processes each of us use to create the maps or models we guide our behavior with, makes available a distinction which we have found to be extremely powerful in our therapeutic work. Since consciousness is a limited phenomenon, the situation could logically arise where the representational system which a person uses to access/organize their experience is different than the represen tational system which they use to bring the information into consciousness. For example, if I were to ask you which of the doors in your house sounds the loudest when slammed, you might respond by first accessing visually (V) each of the doors in your house, then perhaps you would make some implicit muscle movement (K) corresponding to the movement of slamming the doors, and finally, you would compare the sounds ( At )of each of the slammed doors and respond verbally ( A^). Now, if the initial systems you used (either the V or K) had occurred without entering your consciousness, there would have been a difference between the system you use to access with (your lead system) and the system you use to bring the information requested into consciousness. Thus we make a distinction between the system the client initially uses to access the information requested and the system he uses to bring the information into consciousness: the first, the one used to access, we call the lead system; the second, the system used to represent the information in consciousness, we will continue to refer to as the representational system — the client's R operator. In terms of the exercise we presented previously (Exercise A), the predicates that a person uses will identify the representational system (the R operator) while the accessing cues will identify the lead system (the L operator).

In the visual representation for the 4-tuple we have been developing, we can easily define a new operator over the 4-tuple — the L operator which identifies the client's lead system:

It follows then, quite naturally, that the case where there is a split between a person's lead and representational system can be represented visually as the case where the R-operator and the L-operator across the 4-tuple yield different outcomes:

where X* Y

Perhaps several examples from the reader's experience will assist in making the distinction clearer. One of the most frequent examples of a situation in which many people have a distinction between their lead system and their representational system is the experience called jealousy. Typically, when a person is jealous and cannot "get control over their feelings," they are making visual images and/or auditory internal tape loops about what could be happening between the person they are jealous of and someone else. They then become aware of feeling angry, sad, uncomfortable or whatever feeling would be appropriate if what they are imaging and/or hearing internally were occurring right before them. Thus the visual and/or auditory portions of their experience generated internally lead their K system or feelings. When those visual images and/or auditory internal tape loops are outside of consciousness, they are aware only of the feelings, and typically have great difficulty coping as they have no idea where the feelings are coming from or how to response to as to have some choice in the matter (see fuzzy functions, part III, The Structure of Magic, volume II for further discussion).

Many therapists and hypnotists we have had the privilege of training mention early in their contact with us that many of the distinctions which we offer in our models "make sense" out of some of the intuitions which they have developed and found useful in their work. Upon exploring those intuitions with them, the typical result is that they have learned to detect minimal cues visually and auditorially (especially, A t — the tonal and tempo portion of the A system) which they represent as body sensations. They know by the "feel of things" when a client is ready for some particular change, or when they are being incongruent or when the session has reached a natural finishing point or when the client has some "unfinished business". This is another example of the distinction between lead and representational system. These therapists and hypnotists are leading with their ability to make fine visual and auditory distinctions unconsciously and are representing the result of making those unconscious sensory distinctions in their K systems in consciousness.

The situation so frequently encountered in psychotherapeutic uses of hypnosis or with so-called "impossible" clients who desire hypnosis in conjunction with dental or medical work but do not respond appropriately to the more ritualistic approaches to hypnosis —the situation where there is a difference between lead system and representational system — can be usefully understood as a special case of incongruity. Specifically, it is the failure to match representational system and lead system. This form of incongruity is particularly powerful as it is a form incongruity — as opposed to a content incongruity. The actual patterns of making meaning are involved in the incongruity. As with all of the patterns we have presented, there is nothing inherently positive or negative about organizing your experience with fuzzy functions. In the context both of the psychotherapeutic applications of hypnosis and with "impossible" clients in the dental and medical applications of hypnosis, checking to determine whether there is a match or mismatch between the client's lead and representational system will yield important information as to how to usefully proceed effectively and creatively with such clients.

In terms of the hypnotist's response to clients who have a split between their lead system and their representational system, typically assisting them in having the choice both of bringing any system they choose into consciousness and using any system as lead resolves not only the specific "problem" they come to us for help with, but gives them choices which allows them to make pervasive change in any content area of their lives they choose. More limited therapeutic goals involve arranging for signals from representational systems outside of consciousness to the client's representational system (the one in consciousness) so that the client comes to have some choice regarding the "problem" involved. When you as a hypnotist encounter the situation where there is a distinction between the client's lead and representational system, there are a number of powerful ways to utilize this situation. One very dramatic choice is to mark analogically in the lead system; thereby passing instructions to the lead unconscious system for the purposes of, say, inducing a profound trance. Since the messages analogically presented are directed to the lead system which is outside of consciousness for such clients, their unconscious response is immediate and profound, and, of course, they have no consciousness of what has occurred. Such is the stuff from which what has traditionally been called magic is created.

We present a transcript of a client seen by the authors which includes some of the relevant procedures for detecting and utilizing representational systems and lead systems.

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Hypnosis Plain and Simple

Hypnosis Plain and Simple

These techniques will work for stage hypnosis or hypnotherapy, however, they are taught here for information purposes only. After reading this book you will have the knowledge and ability necessary to hypnotise people, but please do not practice hypnosis without first undergoing more intensive study.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment