Firstly – thank you for the emails and messages in response to my posts on Common Misconceptions of Hypnosis (Part 1, Part 2). It’s always good to get feedback (even constructive criticism) and I enjoyed writing the posts. Thanks.
It occurred to me, whilst reading some emails from fellow hypnotherapists in response to my posts, that there are also misconceptions of hypnosis held by practitioners in the field. For example, I often read that hypnotherapy “works with the subconscious mind”… This is the sort of thing that hypnotherapist say without really thinking “What does that mean?”
(Check the websites of practitioners out there, and you’ll see this written time and time again).
So – lets ask: what does that actually mean?
I’m currently writing an essay on Sigmund Freud (or “Sick Man Fraud” as Richard Bandler likes to say) for a diploma course in hypno-psychotherapy. Freud was an interesting character (to say the least) and, despite the fact that I disagree with many of his ideas – both in terms of theory & practice – it would be useless to discount his contribution to human understanding.
One of the key ideas he developed was the idea of a dynamic unconscious which influences our experience of life. Our unconscious desires can be expressed symbolically, through dreams, mistakes (Freudian slips), and the like. Presumably this is the subconscious mind that hypnosis works on…
But what is a subconscious mind? (Or, my preferred term, an unconscious mind – they are (most often) used interchangably, the only difference being that “subconscious” suggests lesser importance.) Well, I explained here how “the mind” is the process of our experience of being alive, dependent on the functioning of our brain, and not an object to which you can ascribe characteristics, abilities, or functions. Some therapists seem to believe there is a strange little guy in there making people do crazy things.
This model of conscious and unconscious minds is very simplistic, particularly in light of more complex models that take into account ‘ego states‘ and the like. I imagine many, many hypnotherapists believe statements like:
- The unconscious mind is the storehouse of our memories, our skills, learnings and emotions (etc).
- The unconscious mind has great wisdom, and is concerned with protecting us, ensuring our survival.
- The unconscious mind processes information differently to the conscious mind: it isn’t rational, but emotional.
Etc, etc… It’s no surprise that many therapists subscribe to these attributions – most of the books relating to hypnosis will talk about the unconscious mind in this way. For example, from Michale Yapko’s excellent Trancework book:
“The unconscious mind is, metaphorically, a reservoir of all the muti-dimensional experiences squired throughout your lifetime, inclding your historical experience, personal and social learnings, manner (drives, motivations, needs) for interaction with one’s world, and your automatic functioning in countelss behaviours each day. The unconscious mind, in contrast to the conscious mind, is not as rigid or analytical. It can respond to inferences between the lines, it is capable of symbolic interpretation, and tends to be global in view.”
Note the key word: metaphorically… I’m not going to quibble with Yapko, he is rightly regarded as a powerhouse in the field of hypnosis. However, I wish that the word ‘metaphorically’ had been repeated, underlined, bolded and then repeated some more… just for good measure…
(The problem of reifying metaphorical concepts in the mind stretches way back to Freud himself, with his tripartate model of the mind – the id, the ego, and the superego).These are just metaphorical concepts – there is no ego, there is no superego, and again, as Richard Bandler likes to ask, “Have you in your life ever met an id?”
So, because of this historical tendency to turn concepts into real things, hypnotherapists often believe they are using “a state of trance” to communicate with a person’s “unconscious mind”. However, there is no such thing as an object named the unconscious mind, except metaphorically…
(You could argue that there is no such thing as a “state of trance” either, but I’ll save that for another post!)
Now – just to confound you! 
When practicing hypnosis, I will often ask a person’s “unconscious mind” to make changes, or give an unconscious signal, or to bring a memory into conscious recall, etc… How can that be, given my comments above?
The point is, although the unconscious mind doesn’t exist as an object, there are, within us, processes that are not conscious, yet which profoundly affect our experience of life. As you read these words, you recognise them instantaneously – there is a process taking place between the act of looking and your recognition. That process is happening at an unconscious level…
So let’s be clear, when I (or any other therapist) refers to “your unconscious mind” they are referring to the collection of these many, many, unconscious cognitive process, like the one mentioned above. That’s what an unconscious mind “is”.
To be fair, in practice, whether the unconscious exists or not isn’t particularly important to therapeutic outcomes. However, I think it’s important that hypnotherapists realise the difference between scientific research vs the accepted dogma that exists within the field, particularly if they want to improve as therapists.
That is the most important thing to me.
Any comments or questions leave a message.
Adrian
http://twitter.com/adriantannock
Adrian, I tend to use the terminology the other way around – I say “subconscious” to imply that the material is not conscious but might become so, whereas “unconscious” suggests that it is permanently outside consciousness.
It doesn’t really matter too much what words we use, of course, as long as we have a clear idea of what we are working with.
By: Mike Reeves-McMillan on September 22, 2008
at 8:27 pm
Your definitions were good to read. keep writing for more.
I strongly believe that subconscious mind exists and I also experience the things happening in my life in the way I want.
see you later
By: jaky on September 24, 2008
at 6:03 pm
Thanks for your comments so far:
Mike – yes, I have heard that distinction before. It is nice and logical, but you are also right when you say that it doesn’t matter what words we use providing that we understand what we’re actually working with! (I fear that many hypnotherapists don’t realise this.)
Jaky – thanks for the comment – I will definitely keep writing more! It’s not that I don’t believe that the subconscious exists, because I have seen what it can do, I just know that it’s not real
Thanks for the comments,
Adrian
By: lastingchange on September 25, 2008
at 12:20 pm
I loved your latest post too.
The consiousness,unconsious mind, id,ego,sperego…..I know these kind of stuffs,but I guess we love too much to classficate many things in various categories.
More likely,we are the Totality of every memories and the past to me.
You have your memories ever since you are born for this time,but all of us definately have more. We classificate this sensation(memories) as such stuffs,but,well,for me it’s the same.
I mean,,,,from begining of this world,though we are far and forgot many things,anyway we still remember many things,right?;-)
It’s like the gravity,farther=weaker but never disappered.
Anyway Thanks for your great post!
By: Maya on September 27, 2008
at 1:51 am
I think it’s really important to both acknowledge that’ given’ definitions of unconscious / subconscious and the like are often based on rubbish / heresay / peole reading too many self help books, but also that supposedly ‘scientific’ measures aiming to look at the same are also just as likely to be problematic – it’s all based on cognitive modelling at the end of the day, and the model that has the current flavour may be denounced as tripe in 50 years time and a topic such as consciousness, to my mind, is one that will never be pinned down to scientific explanation. That’s not to say that studying it is pointless however, all theories come from somewhere and are built upon, you can’t have a house without foundations etc etc…
I think you’ve got it in one with them being just words and it being better to know what you’re working with. It’s also great to recognise that common phrases get churned out again and again with no conscious thought going into them, yet these phrases just get ‘accepted’.
All good stuff
By: Janine on September 29, 2008
at 11:57 am
PS – can I have a new icon please – I’m not keen on that colour. Pink, purple, red, bright blue or orange will suffice (or all at the sametime)
By: Janine on September 29, 2008
at 11:58 am
“So let’s be clear, when I (or any other therapist) refers to “your unconscious mind” they are referring to the collection of these many, many, unconscious cognitive process, like the one mentioned above. That’s what an unconscious mind “is””.
Although you say this with some authority, could I remind you it is only your opinion, unless of course, proven with statistically significant, repeatable scientific experiments.
So, is there any reason why these unconscious cognitive process, as a gestalt, wouldn’t form what could be regarded as an entity, the ‘unconscious mind’?
I would be interested to hear your comments on what constitutes the ‘Higher Self’ or in Freudian terms: The Uber Ego/Super Ego’.
Another level or collection of ‘cognitive process” perhaps or a higher conscious entity existing beyond the unconscious and conscious minds?
By: Donne on March 17, 2009
at 3:34 am
Hiya, and thanks for the comment.
You are right of course – my opinion is only my opinion. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the ‘mind’, unconscious or otherwise, exists as an entity. Rather, this is a reification – something abstract turned into something concrete. This nominalised idea of the ‘unconscious mind’ serves as a great short-hand for therapists, but qualities and attributes are routinely ascribed to it as if it truly exists. To me, that’s (at best) mythology, or (at worst) dogma…
In terms of the ‘higher self’ (is that really the same as the ‘super ego’?) – well, yes, viewed through this reductionist paradigm, I’d consider that a constructed hypostatisation of an array of processes found in the brain/central nervous system.
That said, I’m not completely reductionist, I see humans as being spiritual beings, and with that the answer to your questions, and my original post, can only be “Maybe so, maybe not!”
Thanks for the interesting comment,
Adrian
By: lastingchange on March 17, 2009
at 9:56 am
I am of the view that while there may be an unconscious mind, I do not believe that hypnosis is of the same calibre to communicate with it. I regard the patient as albeit unconsciously ‘consciously pretending’ to be in a trance. It is the therapist and the patient who are being fooled into believing they are receiving unconscious responses. Let’s face it – closing your eyes and counting back from 10 to 1 is hardly a foolproof method of being able to talk with your inner mind! You are not unconscious under hypnosis and there is definitely a conscious influence of the ‘awake’ patient. I think the unconscious mind deserves more respect.
By: Simon Barclay on December 22, 2010
at 12:04 pm
Simon – thank you for an interesting comment. The eminent researcher, TX Barber, was of the view that hypnosis was social roleplaying, involving expectation arrived at via hypnotic ritual. However, this is only one view, and there are equally eminent researchers positing very different, equally valid views of hypnosis. For example Hilgard, Woody & Bowers, and the like:
http://www.hypnosisandsuggestion.org/scientific-theories-of-hypnosis.html
“Counting back from 10 – 1″ isn’t recognisably hypnosis in my years as a practitioner; I’d consider alternative views before writing off hypnosis; it is gaining more & more recognition as a valid topic for heavyweight research, particularly as fMRI technology advances.
Here are some interesting articles, offered just as further reading. No axe to grind
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/sep/30/hypnosis-neuroscience-psychology
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1142
http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/brain-scans-reveal-effects-hypnosis
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hypnotism-is-for-real-scientists-say-after-brainscan-study-of-volunteers-661134.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21239.php
http://www.hypnosisunituk.com/research.html
http://www.healthimaging.com/index.php?option=com_articles&view=article&id=17880:fmri-sheds-light-on-hypnosis-impact
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hypnosis-memory-brain
http://www.hypnosisunituk.com/publications.html
I hope you find the articles interesting reading.
Thanks for the comment.
Adrian
By: lastingchange on December 22, 2010
at 5:42 pm
Thanks for the reply Adrian. I failed to mention that I enjoyed reading your article and found it interesting and informative.
Simon.
By: Simon Barclay on December 24, 2010
at 12:06 am
You say, ‘Or, my preferred term, an unconscious mind – they are (most often) used interchangably, the only difference being that “subconscious” suggests lesser importance.’ Yes, you are quite correct to say that the terms ‘unconscious’ and ‘subconscious’ are (most often) used interchangeably, but I’d like to make two points for your consideration and inspection. Like most people, I used to refer to the ‘subconscious mind’ until I realized, quite by accident, that the subconscious is not a part of the mind at all. Rather, it is a—force (for lack of another word)—that moves through nature and is experienced moving through our thoughts. It seems to be a part of our mind, but actually exists quite separate from our minds and our brains. Instead, we see it moving through our mind just like we see vistas, clouds, trees and the other things outside of us with our eyes. The subconscious is not a part of our thoughts, but rather, are thoughts arising from outside of us that we perceive as they pass through us. Unlike our own thoughts, subconscious thoughts are not a result of our own creation. Also, the term “unconscious” is quite incorrect. Even though the terms are generally used interchangeably, a practice Freud tried to change by eliminating the term ‘subconscious’, the two terms express two quite different situations and refer to two quite different things. The ‘unconscious’ state arises when an individual suffers brainstem damage. In such situations, they cannot breathe and lose the ability to continue other maintenance functions of the body. They are literally unconscious (i.e., not conscious)! Subconscious means “below the level of conscious awareness.” An unconscious person has no subconscious at all! Unlike the unconscious condition, the subconscious is related to the the autonomic and peripheral nervous systems rather than the brainstem. In other words, they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS and should never have been interconnected in the first place. In fact, they are opposites. The subconscious maintains involuntary body functions whereas an unconscious individual loses the ability to maintain involuntary body functions! And so, the states are not the same and the terms cannot be used interchangeably. The use of the words ‘unconscious mind’ is quite incorrect. ‘Unconscious mind’ implies no mind, and while the subconscious actually is not a part of the mind as it is so often referred to be, it is also quite different from the unconscious state that occurs when the brainstem sustains damage. The subconscious is only maintained when there is no damage to the brainstem. Therefore, the subconscious ‘mind’ and the unconscious condition never co-exist together! There are no ‘unconscious desires’. They are ‘subconscious desires’ (i.e., below [sub] the level of conscious awareness). A person who is ‘unconscious [un means not whereas sub means under or below] has no awareness or desires at all!
By: Angaza on June 2, 2011
at 8:15 pm