Does Obama use hypnosis?

Does Obama use hypnosis?

Okay, I admit it. On this post, I am doing no astrological sorcery. This time, it is all hypnotic sorcery. If you are interested in this topic (hypnosis), read on and stay with me, because I plan to do more posts on it. It is a topic too little talked about -- and when it IS talked about, it is out of ignorance or paranoia. I am going to tell you what hypnosis is and how it works.

Here is a post I came upon on a radical left listserve, which I have divided up into sections with titles, and interspersed with my comments (subtitles in red, my comments in blue):

**Someone posted a message claiming that Obama's wild popularity is the result of a hypnosis technique developed by Milton H. Erickson back in the 1970s. I checked him out on Wikipedia and the following article is a bit dense but what it describes is frightening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_H._Erickson**

Erickson is indeed considered one of the master hypnotists of all time. See below for my comments about Obama.

The Handshake

**Especially disturbing was a method of hypnotizing a victim via a casual handshake. Start off with a normal expected handshake, then breaking off the shake gradually by gently stroking the victim's fingers in succession. This arouses the victim's attention and then you distract him with a casual but expected comment, distracting his attention again and putting him into a mild trance.
Once the victim has been entranced by the handshake, the victim can be manipulated verbally. Speak in somewhat vague terms and let the victim fill in the blanks unconsciously. Confuse the victim by using words with more than one meaning, double negatives, etc., which deepens the trance by occupying his conscious mind with word definitions instead of critical thought. Finally, if the victim resists a suggestion, suggest something else because once a suggestion is accepted, it weakens resistance to other suggestions.**

(It is true that Erickson was able to hypnotize a woman, who spoke no English, via a handshake, but it was not a "causual handshake." And the fear of being "manipulated verbally" is a bit misplaced. See more below.)

Without Consent or Knowledge

**Erickson believed his technique had therapeutic value, on the grounds that most people were frightened by the idea of hypnosis and would resist it, so this indirect technique would be useful in "psychotherapy" to hypnotize people without their knowledge or consent. Although Erickson is the first to document this brainwashing method, I'm sure he is not the first to employ some or all of the techniques described. Salesmen and cult leaders have long had this ability, suggesting that their victims buy a rusty old Pinto or drink poison Kool-Aid.**

The first sentence above is inaccurate. Erickson never advocated using hypnosis without his clients' consent or knowledge, nor did he practice it. Here's my reply:

**Well, despite the pooh-poohs others have posted, I can attest to the power of Ericksonian hypnosis, since my father used it (both on his family members and on others). Obama doesn't use it, but it does exist.

See Therapeutic Trances: The Cooperation Principle in Ericksonian Hypnotherapy, by Stephen G. Gilligan -- http://www.amazon.com/Therapeutic-Trances-Cooperation-Ericksonian-Hyp....

Since I grew up with this, even though I was subjected to it and didn't know what it was for most of my life, I learned how to do it. It's quite real and quite powerful.**

So, here are some secrets of Ericksonian hypnosis:

A hypnotist cannot simply zap the "subject" and attain control over him or her. This was one of Erickson's main points: it is a collaborative relationship.

You (the hypnotist) must develop rapport with your subject. This is sina qua non. Hypnosis is generally almost impossible to generate without rapport.

The second key element is disorientation. You disorient your subject. You do this by any number of means. One of the easiest is via nonsequiturs. These are sentences and thoughts that simply don't follow -- but you state them as logical and sensible. This throws the subject out of linear/logical/cause-and-effect thought processes into nonlinear/"both-and" trance "logic."

"Both/and logic" is not really logical. It means we are able to accept both sides of polar opposites, we accept incongruencies and contradictions without having to resolve them. This can, as Erickson discovered, be highly beneficial to healing processes where a person was stuck in unfruitful psychological feedback loops.

I don't think it would be far-fetched to say that most so-called highly creative people use hypnosis frequently (usually self-hypnosis). In my Archetypes for Writers book, I discuss this under the term "artistic trance." There have been studies done on this and I'm sure I've written about it in other places.

Okay, but now back to Obama and the possibility of nefarious uses of hypnosis. Obama doesn't use it, I'm certain -- and I don't believe he has to, although one could argue (I think fairly) that Obama does know how to use persuasive techniques, such as benevolent facial expressions, gentle concessions to his opponent, strong sunny demeanor in his delivery. He's a great orator and persuasion is part of good oration.

Can it be used nefariously? Yes, absolutely. But, I would say that it would have to be used in one of two contexts: (1) either with a child or other person whose life is in your hands, or (2) in a social, cultural context where the content is already widely acceptable and accepted.

More on these two elements in hypnosis in a future post.

And friends, please email me at jennifer.vanbergen(at)gmail.com or post here to let me know what you like and what you would like to hear more about. :-)