WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC?
We have all been there. Commenting a "scientific study" and being happy that "The study" finally found the way to your desktop..."FINALLY something to promote".
Then the ROCK hits you rigth in the face when your findings are commented by psychologists and psychiatrists/doctors or maybe even your colleague hypnotists as beeing "Non scientific" study.
This happened to me the other day (AGAIN) when I in a closed forum in Denmark, commented that an article in Ezinearticles.com
http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-Hypnosis-Work?-A-Comparison-Study&id=286866
This article was from Dr. Dorothy M Neddermeyer PhD, and she used a study from American Health Magazine saying that;
Quote:
"Here Are Some Research Facts
A survey of psychotherapy literature by Alfred A. Barrios, Ph.D., revealed the following recovery rates:
Psychoanalysis: 38% recovery after 600 sessions
Behavior Therapy: 72% recovery after 22 sessions
Hypnotherapy: 93% Recovery after 6 sessions
Source: American Health Magazine"
/Quote
Needlesss this comment released a flow of nice comments from my good friends and colleague hypnotists but it wasnt all roses...One had a comment to the "survey";
Heres what he wrote to me; (Translated by me!)
______________________________________________________________________
TRANSLTED FROM Danish by me (Rene Frederiksen);
[quote]
I have a collegue AHP: Association for Humanistic Psychology, he told
that Dr. Dorothy M Niedermayer's article and study isnt "Science
based" and not tested on an unvilling follow group, so if you want to
use it, he recomends to NOT refeer to it as beeing a
Scientific approwed or science.
[/quote]
_______________________________________________________________________
WOW
But he is somewhat right...Or is he?
I really cant say. Its true that we have to be VERY carefull when commenting "Scientific studies" but then again...We really should be open to studies like these.
When "comparing" to cases, involving humanes and hypnosis we simply cant call it a "scientific study" due to differences in the two cases...Or can we?
If I look back at my clients cases, I can see case after case where "Doctores" had have there change to help them. During YEARS of treadment, but in a lot of cases they didnt do it for the clients.
But after even a FEW hypnosis sessions (2-3 sessions) they left there problems in the past and recovered just fine.
Now THAT is the result or "Scientific studies" we are looking for,
The EVERY day stories...That are SO masive that the public CANT disregard them!
The CLIENTS know who they feel, and act after they have encountered hypnosis and what that did for THERE lifes. There feedback is our "Scientific studies" and wetter its "tested on an unvilling follow group" or not, really doesnt matter....Its the results that matter!
Hypnosis makes your clients achieve results!
So remember to do follow up work with your clients...Let them mail you with there comments..Get there permission to use there comments etc.
THAT is our study!
Pls. leave a comment and you idea to how to build trust in the public with "studies etc).
Best Regards
CH (NGH)
Rene Frederiksen
www.Hypnoseforalle.dk
Denmark
Hi Rene:
SheilaThe answer is simple. While your acquaintance may have a Assoc. of Humanistic Psychology, he obviously knows little about Hypnotism, because one of the very first things we learn is that if you are "unwilling" to be hypnotized, there is little likelihood that you would be able to be hypnotized. So his proof requirement for it to be "scientific" is totally unrealistic.
Sometimes I wonder if there is any "scientific" proof that "psychology" can be proven, either! This guy (and many in the "psychological" degree'd club) is a very strong case in point for that question. :)
Cheers!
03:22 AM CET