New Models of Hypnosis – Are they real? It’s happening again. Every now and then in the decades I’ve been in hypnosis someone or some new school of thinking arises that tries to fix what isn’t broken and change what doesn’t need changed.


Let’s get something straight first. Just because a hypnotist is on stage, or doesn’t write reams of research, or change his mind every five minutes, doesn’t mean he isn’t paying attention or logging what happens to the thousands of people he takes into hypnosis.

Some of us care about learning hypnosis to the point where we can conduct hypnosis training to the very best of our abilities.

Now the newest ways of thinking about and trying to sell hypnotism, they call them models instead of theories nowadays,  appear to create the condition and connection of hypnosis without ‘trance’ and without ‘induction’ and – well without hypnosis at all really.

And this is new to the last 3 years since 2009. The FACTS ARE

    • 1964 The Amazing Kreskin proves in an American court that hypnosis is simply the result of suggestion.
    • 1969 – 74 Stage Hypnotist Robert Halpern proves that hypnotic hallucination can be created prior to a formal induction routine with his handclasp ‘test’ on tens of thousands in theatres.
  • 1989 Jonathan Chase demonstrates Past Life regression with no formal induction on radio Beacon in the UK

And some of us have been doing everything that is  apparently ‘new’ ever since.

Now the new wave of hypnosis models say that if someone responds to suggestion without induction of hypnosis and imagines a phenomena or altered reality  for a few moments, even though they are fully aware and in control of their reaction, then this is the same as full blown Hypnosis.

And I can see how someone who has never been hypnotised or who has only hypnotised the  odd friend or relative for a couple of minutes could be persuaded to think this is really hypnosis.

Although it’s stretching the understanding of the word and it’s dictionary definition so far you could attach a Moon elevator to it.

Fact is really hypnotised people will describe – whilst hypnotised – what they are experiencing as real and react in every single physical and mental  way as if it were real.

We are not talking some peripheral imaginative thing when we talk about ‘HYPNOTIC Hallucination’, although to a layman they may appear similar.

And we are not, well at  least  *I* am not, talking about getting the subjective logical conscious explanation after the event either and thinking that’s what happened during the hypnosis.

It’s the job of the conscious to ignore what the illogical subconscious thinks and to apply common sense or logic to the events in retrospect.

The thing is during the now common ‘confuse them a bit or do a magic trick then give them a suggestion’ routine the phenomena or hypnosis is never really tested and has no longevity.

These oddities of confusion and applied imagination are what real hypnotists use as convincers prior to getting a full blown testable hallucinatory hypnotisable condition or state.

It’s what I call the peripheral stuff which, whilst mildly interesting and momentarily workable, would be useless outside of a very quick dip into things as we often see on Youtube as ‘street hypnosis’.

For 2 hours or more on a real stage, or for use in the consulting room, these little psychological tricks are not viable in the long term because they bounce too quickly as soon as the confusion or distraction is over.

Hypnosis is about creating or rather inducing a sustainable and provable connection between hypnotist and hypnotee, a lasting hallucinatory event which doesn’t just  fade but actually becomes more vivid and real as time goes by and which, when challenged, maintains it’s internal reality and external behaviour.

So models aside, if you think hypnosis is any event that gets someone to momentarily loose their name, which of course happens all the time anyway, then you are subscribing to the theory that hypnosis has changed, it hasn’t.

If you think hypnosis needs a modern explanation or understanding to make it better then you’d better tell the 100,000s of people alive today who have experienced life, reality and behavioural changing hypnosis, and the 10,000s of people who have learnt hypnosis training that we are all wrong and need to redo from start.

The fact  is that most of the new models of hypnosis have as much to do with real and original hypnosis as a child’s lego model has to do with Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace.

To get some real model-free, hypnosis training, why not join me and the team on one of our Online MasterClasses or Tutorials


  • JaneB

    Dear Steven, You can always learn a lot from DVDs and books but it really depends on the reasons for wanting to learn. Hypnosis is an art and it's always better to be able to experience doing it to others and experiencing it yourself to really get a feel for it. The Hypnosis Installed DVD will teach you how to do rapid hypnosis inductions, effectively and efficiently and it will show you how to do Hypnotic Symbolism Jonathan's fast and effective rapid intervention. This you would get free on the weekend workshop so that you can continue to refresh your experience.

    Although the more costly alternative being in a room with other people, practising, interacting and getting feedback from other hypnotists would always be my first choice in learning something as rewarding as Hypnosis and of course it has the advantage for you in that the experience is yours as well.

    I hope this helps to answer your question.


  • Steven Cairns

    Very interested in one of your courses. I've looked at a few places. Is it posible to train myself using your DVD'S. Or would it be easier to go on one of your courses. I live just south of Glasgow so I am a bit. Away from you. Look forwards to your reply

    Thanks Steven Cairns.

  • Brian H

    I note that you appear to like the unscientific and ineffective NLP nonsense. I will take your comments with the gravity that they therefore deserve. I think Jon would probably agree with me.

    Have a good day.


  • Brian H

    I have to Agree with Jon here. There is nothing new in hypnosis apart from repackaging. I find it amusing that some of these newbies don't really understand the basics of hypnosis. asking someone to imagine is an induction. An induction is merely a set of steps or process that makes something happen. If it elicits very basic phenomena then it is a hypnotic induction.

    But putting aside all the silly arguments you have to ask yourself what is the point of these inane "demonstrations" of hypnosis? They are pretty boring really and there are various levels and quality of phenomena. Making someone forget their name for 30 secs is completely different from someone having full amnesia for being on stage for a full two hours. You are comparing apples with oranges.

    Its what you create with hypnosis that matters and where the real skill lies. And with regarding this the "new wave" of hypnotists are severely lacking.

    Hypnosis is just a tool it is never the outcome itself. In the right hands or the right mind can create amazing changes and experiences for both individuals and large groups. Unfortunately these newbies just don't understand that and spout academic research constantly in order to hide the fact that they can only do half a dozen basic stage routines very badly and come across as amateurs.

    And after listening to the AI model (induction) cd and taking a few headache pills I am glad I don't live inside Kev's head. Talk about packing a peanut in a giant crate packed with bubble wrap?….

  • Margaret

    Kev / Jon
    So therefore what would I be looking for if I need hypnotherapy
    Do I look at qualifications if so what ones
    Or do I have to look at years of experience of the Hypnotherapist
    Very confusing to find the right one.
    Have been to a couple previously and worked for a short while but then I went back to my old habits

  • Hello Jon

    The figures I quoted were from academia, based on results from standardised studies – the variance in hypnotist accounted for through decades of research into finding methods that achieve the best results possible. If you are claiming that you could achieve amnesia and hallucinations with 80% of random subjects then let's set up an experiment so you can demonstrate this ability.

    As to whether Automatic Imagination is hypnosis or not, that depends on whether you're defining hypnosis as product or as process. As a process it is clearly different: avoiding inductions, giving instructions to imagine rather than giving suggestions, and employing strategies to deal with reminders of reality.

    As product, though, we appear to be able to achieve the same phenomena as traditional hypnosis, to at least the same degree, for what appear to be the same periods of time. It isn't about confusing someone for a few moments, it is about making their imagined scenario become real to them with no awareness that they are doing anything to cause it, nor that they can do anything about it.

    I think you may have been focusing too heavily on our initial exploration of getting Anthony to hallucinate, leaning on his statements about using his peripheral vision and how the hallucinations were semi-transparent. We did indeed start with his peripheral vision, but within 5 minutes he was looking directly at his balloon arm and the dancing fairy and they real to him. They did look semi-transparent, but they felt real – a report that fitted with the reports of over 50% of highly responsive (hypnotisable) subjects in hypnosis studies that asked what the hallucinations looked like.

    Our approach to understanding hypnosis is to read as much reliable science on the subject as we can and to look for the strategies that appear to work the best. Through this we have found techniques that appear to work on many of those that do not respond to traditional approaches to hypnosis. You can decide that this isn't hypnosis, but hundreds of satisfied subjects and dozens of satisfied hypnotists would probably disagree with you. 🙂 Yes, more testing is required, and that is precisely what we intend to do.


  • Hi Kev,

    As you know when I taught both you and Anthony Jacquin and his father Freddy back in 2004, There are 20% of people who can't do full blown hypnosis. 20% who do it superbly well and the remaining 60% who get there everywhere from fast to slow. So the hit rate of a comptent hypnotist should of course be 80%. if it's less then you need to work on the technique.

    Actually it's the personal hit rate compared to attempts is way higher because those 20% won't stand around to let you or anyone else try to hypnotise them. And of course the people more likely to stand and be done are well into the better end of the range. And of course if you say you want to try anything to do with their mindthe vast majority of people will assume you are doing hypnosis to them anyway, wven if you don't say so. If they do stick around they are in the 80% and although some will be slower to find the way in than others, you can always find the way in with enough style and tenacity. You should remember that from the weekend training you did with me and how it felt when you hypnotised Sharon in seconds but took much longer with Jim. You know I remeber that weekend so well myself, you and Anthony and Freddy made it a challenge. Great fun though.

    I agree that the average success rates for hypnotherapists and people who think that watching a you tube video is enough to go on the streets and pubs trying to hypnotise anything that doesn't move fast enough, is around the figures you quote. But that's more about the way they do it and how they have been taught to do it. It isn't about the technique they use or for that matter recognising any imaginative effect on the mind as 'hypnosis', which it simply isn't.

    For instance confusing someone to the point where they struggle to recall their name for a few moments isn't in my book amnesia. If that were so then you could apply the word to every time you walk into a room and momentarily forget why, or loose your keys or your phone. That to me is like calling any odd pile of dirt a mountain. Hypnotic amnesia is the total inabillity to recall whatever as been suggested by the hypnotist even in a fully conscious state and for a significant time period, in one experiment I conducted on a course, overnight. In the morning he still couldn't get his name.

    As for the science, what science? All hypnosis research relies on the skill, aproach and expectations of the hypnotist conducting the experiment and of the hypnotee. And as with any human capacity on a mental level there is a vast range of capability from being super good at hypnosis to being super bad. Reguardless of the approach used.

    As for neurological research well the majority of that is done on primates and rats so we'll discount that altogether.

    No mate, the fact is what's being changed isn't the hit rate, it is what's being accepted as 'hypnosis', and in a lot of cases with the new theories based on old research, the goals are being widened right across the park.

    Qnd forthe record I think you and Anthoney have come up with a good technique with your automatic imagination model to find a way in, but it isn't of itslf hypnosis.

  • Hello Jon

    If you are satisfied with only 23% achieving amnesia or 53% achieving a challenge suggestion, then stick to what you do. Those of us who want to hypnotise more people look to the science for better ways of working. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *