Introduction to Ericksonian Hypnosis

Milton Erickson nears the status of a mythical figure in hypnosis -- indeed, some of the stories about him feel unbelievable. His style of therapy and suggestion have been the subject of intense study, especially as one of the pillars of NLP. But with this study and reproduction comes a sort of dilution or distortion of what we might call his actual techniques. All too often, “Ericksonian hypnosis” tends to imply a focus on metaphor, storytelling, and certain indirect language patterns -- and not much else. But Erickson’s hypnosis shines brighter outside of these ideas. This article will explore what we might think of as some of the foundations of his practice.

Process/Elements

As we start looking at Erickson’s model, it’s helpful for us to see that this is not a model for ALL hypnosis. Many discussions of hypnosis attempt to contain an overarching set of theories and instruction that account for all (or most) forms of hypnosis. Not so, in this case -- this is very simply what Erickson himself did and taught.

This is a short look at Erickson’s model of inducing trance:

• Fixation of attention
• “Depotentiating conscious sets” (getting someone “out of reality”)
• Unconscious search (making things unexpected, automatic)
• Unconscious process (what is their actual process?)

We will follow this format to shed light on what each of these elements are, and how we can use them in hypnosis -- whether or not we follow any sort of structure.

Fixation of Attention

Mostly, with any experience, we understand the value of focus and attention in hypnotic inductions. One could say that just about any hypnotic interaction involves the manipulation of focus in some way, because attention is one of our primary “senses.” In one way or another, our focus is doing something -- even if someone is feeling distracted or unfocused, that’s a qualitative experience of attention (and one that can be used for hypnosis).

Getting and directing someone’s attention is easy -- we can have faith that our partners are focused on us and what we’re saying when we talk, and even use simple commands like “focus on…” “think about…” or even “hey.” There are, of course, more indirect methods of creating focus which we’ve expanded on extensively in writings about permissive and indirect language. Here are a few that Erickson lays out as possibilities:

• Things that genuinely interesting or fascinating to a person (stories, ideas)
• Imaginative experiences
• Relaxation, catalepsy, or other suggested quality of inner sensory/perceptual experience

Erickson believed that getting a person to focus internally was the classical nature of hypnosis. His methods as a hypnotherapist were very much in line with the idea that the client would discover something inside of their own selves about how to solve the problems that they were having -- a solution coming from within much better and more convincing than a solution coming from outside.

For this reason, he advocated shifting the method of fixation in inductions from an external source (such as eye fixation, or “stare at the spot on the wall”) to someone’s inner experience (what they are feeling, remembering, or thinking). Naturally, we can consider some consequences to the direction of a person’s focus. Fractionation comes to mind -- taking someone between an external focus and an internal one to provide contrast and increase the intensity of that quality of focus. We can also think about how someone focused on their own internal process has a greater capacity to notice subtle changes in their internal, subjective feelings -- the feelings that tell a person that they’re in trance, and the feelings that generally prove to someone that they’re responding to suggestion.

To diverge from Erickson for a moment, we as hypnotists should also explore intense external focus because of the opportunities it provides to us. We might loosely hypothesize that Erickson, as a therapist, was mostly interested in someone’s intense inner experiences because of the nature of therapeutic problem-solving. But in erotic hypnosis, there should be a huge emphasis on both parties being important parts of the intimate experience. A subject who feels that their entire world is in their hypnotist’s eyes is someone who may have an intensely exciting response. There is also a lot that we can get out of “uptime” states, which may arise from strong external fixation (but that is a topic that we can explore in a later article).

“Depotentiating Conscious Sets”

Here we get into the real meat of Erickson’s style. “Depotentiating conscious sets” is just his way of describing what he believes is an optimal hypnotic method -- getting someone out of their “usual” reality. Erickson’s goal in hypnosis was generally to prove to someone, “You’re not in Kansas anymore,” or show them that the rules they felt they knew about their experience are not necessarily true in hypnosis.

“Depotentiate” means “to decrease the potency or power” of something. Erickson’s goal is to take the patterns and behaviors of a person and remove them from the context of consciousness. For example, a person may hold a reasonable belief that they are the ones who control their limbs and musculature. By making suggestions that induce catalepsy, you cause the person to need to reevaluate not only that belief, but other beliefs -- “Oh, if that’s not true, what else is possible in hypnosis that I’m not aware of?”

This seems akin to the traditional idea of a hypnotic convincer, but there is more behind it. We are not proving to someone: “This is what is possible with hypnosis.” We are proving to someone: “You don’t know what is possible with hypnosis.” There is an emphasis on making suggestions that are separate from a person’s conscious intention so that they are free to experience hypnosis with less expectation. While we know that hypnosis can have an element of conscious participation, the kinds of Ericksonian suggestions we’ll be exploring are ones that emphasize throwing someone off-kilter and/in order to separate them from their existing beliefs.

• Confusion
  

Rossi: So confusion really is at the basis of all induction techniques?

Erickson: It is the basis of all good techniques.

Erickson, under the intention of separating someone from their beliefs about reality, made heavy use of confusion in his hypnosis. Confusion is a phenomenon where someone needs to make changes about what they think in order to attempt to understand the situation. It is when their existing beliefs are challenged and they must adopt a new model. For example, when you go to the store and it’s unexpectedly closed, you need to begin to entertain new possibilities about why that is -- “Is it a holiday? Did they change their hours?”

Confusion in hypnosis is often misunderstood. Confusion is a question that begs a satisfying answer. There are many ways that you can confuse a person -- doing or saying something unexpected, presenting a paradox, giving someone reasons to doubt their existing beliefs -- but if you don’t provide a way to answer that confusion, it can fall flat. For example, if you do your induction while hopping on one foot, you’ll certainly confuse someone, but that isn’t really going to help them go into trance.

One of the elements you can think about is how confusion creates a sort of tension, and you can let that tension build for a short amount of time before releasing it with an explanation. As long as your partner still displays signs of attention and confusion, you know that they’re engaged.

You can provide a person with even a little hint or nudge about how confusion is relevant to a trance. Erickson’s vague style meant that he often didn’t spell out exactly why a confusing element was important, but would instead imply it through context. You can practice this, or you can be more explicit with your suggestions. Here are some examples of ways to incite confusion and then how to utilize it:

• Confusion: “Visualize an apple for me -- allow its details to come vividly to you.” (“Why am I visualizing an apple?”)
• Release: “Now that we’re engaging the visual parts of your mind, it’s easier for you to see yourself as deeply hypnotized, isn’t it?”
  
• Confusion: Moving the subject's hand to hang in the air. (“Why is this important?”)
• Release: “Your arm is naturally going to get tired, and it’s going to be difficult for you to keep yourself awake as you feel it falling.”
  
• Confusion: “When you really think about it, there’s a lot that you don’t understand about sex, intimacy, and hypnosis.” (“What don’t I understand?”)
• Release: “I don’t know what important things you’re going to find inside or outside of you, or when you’ll find them…”

These are fairly explicit examples. But there can be a good balance when you simply provide the context for discovering the answers to confusion as opposed to providing the answers themselves. For example, you could set up a scene where you’re clear at the beginning: “We never fully consciously understand the meaning of everything that happens to us, and knowing that allows us to discover things without even being aware of them.”

• Truisms/Hitchhiking
  

The easiest method of suggestion in Erickson’s model is a truism -- simply saying something that is provably real to a person. NLP co-opted this into its idea of pacing, where you state things about a person’s experience (“I can see you’re settling into the chair”). It’s important to note that these statements don’t have to be about observable things. Anything you know about someone’s experience is able to be used in this way, and Erickson’s form of using them was often an indirect method of suggestion in and of itself. He often (though not always) focused on someone’s mental processes as opposed to physical experience.

For example, an Ericksonian truism might be something like: “You already know what it feels like when you lose track of time.” This suggestion identifies a common aspect of hypnotic experience (time distortion) and brings it into the current context without directly suggesting it. It’s provably true -- this is a universal experience.

Here are some examples of truisms in this vein:

• Conversations influence people
• Changes of perspective equate to changes in capabilities and experience
• People are familiar with recalling and feeling sensory experiences
• People daydream
• People easily lose parts of memories without intending it
• Focus is easy to shift
• People know and are capable of more things than they are aware of at any given time
• People can process things (different or same) consciously and unconsciously at the same time
• People are not aware of unconscious mechanisms

Erickson would use truisms as manners of indirect suggestion, and he would also use them to “hitchhike” other suggestions in. This is especially true of any physical observation (and akin to NLP’s idea of “leading”). For example, “As you continue to listen to me, you’ll notice that your mind begins to grow heavier and heavier.”

Generally, if you provide a multi-pronged statement to someone that contains some amount of verifiably true information in addition to something suggestive, it is easier for the subject to latch onto. In an NLP perspective, we’re interested in the “connector” words such as “because, so, as” to make these kinds of suggestions: “You already know how to experience hallucinations in your memories, so you can have that quality of experience in hypnosis.” Or, “...so it’s easy for you to now feel yourself immersed in a sexual imagination.”

Truisms are great for hitchhiking, but notice that they serve an important suggestive purpose in and of themselves. If you give a simple statement like, “You’re not aware of all of your unconscious responses,” a person is naturally going to feel a process of wondering, as well as some amount of acceptance of this and deepening of trance. Not knowing or directing exactly how a person is going to respond is a classic Ericksonian principle.

• Not Doing/Knowing
  

A recurring theme in Erickson’s hypnosis is removing the limiting factors from a person’s experience so that they can freely feel trance. He makes note that two of these limitations are the feelings or beliefs that the subject needs to a) do certain things, and b) know certain things. One of the ways that Erickson was able to get people to feel their sense of reality shift was because he treated trance as a special context where the subject, in contrast to their everyday life, could let go of the impulses to do and know.

This is multifaceted -- not trying to do anything and not assuming knowledge are extraordinary powers for hypnotic response. A subject who is not trying to do anything is more likely to feel as though things are simply happening to them automatically, and a subject who loosens their need to know or expect what’s going on is open to discovering things without being colored by preconceptions.

Many of the suggestions and examples we’ve already outlined carry an implication to convince a person that they don’t need to do or know anything in particular. But as you go through suggestions like this, it’s important to remember that for many people, this can take some convincing. It is one thing to be told, “You don’t need to actively do or know,” and another to believe that. A lot of subjects (especially those who self-describe as ADHD or analytical) can still have these impulses.

This means that sometimes, we need to really prove to our partners that they’re experiencing something without the need for these things. This can often be as simple as, when your partner responds to something hypnotically and unconsciously, pointing it out to them. For example, when you make a suggestion and their breathing changes, you can say, “Your body is having a physiological response -- one of many that you can never be fully aware of in hypnosis.”

Erickson puts a lot of emphasis on unconscious processes such as this. An Ericksonian hypnotist emphasizes when these responses are occurring as a way to teach their partner this principle. Hypnotists aren’t mind readers, so you may not know if someone is aware of or participating in a particular response. But this kind of ethos of recontextualizing and acknowledging the micro responses of a person is what creates this foundation.

Unconscious Search/The Unexpected

The next element of Erickson’s process is where a person is unconsciously producing a response. The hypnotist does or says something that facilitates the subject to do, think, or feel something that they don’t consciously control. This is NLP’s idea of transderivational search: for example, the hypnotist uses a vague metaphor and the subject has a gut reaction to interpreting it on some level.

Something exceedingly important to Ericksonian hypnosis is the unexpected. The subject should know that they don’t have to know what’s going to happen, but the hypnotist must be similarly confident. Not just plan as a contingency, but actively know: You don’t know what’s going to happen, and that is the point of hypnosis.

Erickson’s hypnosis had a quality of “less is more” philosophy. Instead of providing explicit logic or answers for his patients, he would often rely on leaving a lot of questions. When a person is set up with questions, they will naturally begin to form their own conclusions whether consciously or as spontaneous gut feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Here are a few ways that you can get someone to produce these kinds of unconscious responses:

• Metaphors and analogies
  

Metaphors (both simplistic and long-form stories) are quintessentially Ericksonian. Any kind of comparison causes a person to internally form meaning and associations. You can certainly give some hints as to what you’re alluding to in a metaphor, but the Ericksonian approach is to allow your partner to develop their own meaning in your words. “Your hypnotic responses are flowers blooming.” “I once read a book about chess…”

• Questions
  

Erickson says that questions naturally contain hypnotic/unconscious response because of the way that we never fully-consciously form answers. Some questions, though, require more unconscious action than others. Questions that require a subjective answer, questions that direct someone towards the qualities of their own experiences, and questions that reinforce the nature of trance are some examples of these. Presuppositions feature heavily in his work. (“Can you identify the most intense aspect of trance right now?” “Do you really think you’re still under your own control?” “How soon are you going to admit a secret to me?”)

• Pauses
  

Negative space is useful in hypnosis, and Erickson would make use of what he called an “expectant pause” -- stopping somewhere in trance and seeming to wait for a response. Generally, if you give someone space while they’re in trance or just before, their experience will change. Many hypnotists are nervous that someone will feel neglected or come out of trance if they stop talking, but you can easily imply to your partner that this is supposed to happen -- “You don’t have to come out of trance.” When you pause, wait for any small shift of their outward expression (such as a sigh, change in breathing, or an adjustment) and acknowledge it -- “That’s right.” If you give an acknowledgement, even if your partner hasn’t given any indication of change, it signals to them: “I saw something that you may not be aware of, and you’re doing everything correctly.”

• Open-ended suggestions
  

Instead of giving suggestions that have a defined expectation, we can discover unconscious responses when we give ambiguous suggestions that allow for a broad range of responsiveness. An ambiguous suggestion is one where there is less (or no) focus on an expected result. “What do you think is going to happen when you pay closer attention?” “Now, you can feel something as you continue blinking like that.” One of the benefits to this is that it allows for both unconscious response as well as the luxurious subtlety in all hypnotic response -- suggestions don’t simply effect describable results, but internal subjective feelings that we simply can’t account for. If you try to pay closer attention to your own thoughts, or a part of your body, for example, you will likely experience sensations and processes that are very small and challenging to communicate about. These are invaluable parts of hypnosis.

Unconscious Process/Utilization

The last part we’re discussing here is less a set of techniques and more an understanding of hypnotic and psychological response. Erickson knows that a subject has a variety of mental processes that occur as response to suggestion -- much more complex than simply hearing something concrete and experiencing a concrete result.

Hypnosis is a holistic process -- you cannot really separate hypnotic techniques from the psychology of the person experiencing them. For example, teaching that you can phrase a presupposition like, “Do you think you will go deeper right now, or as I keep talking?” is incomplete. You must also teach the mental environment -- considering the associations the subject has, the sensory response of trance they experience, their memory processes; all things that not only affect the response, but ARE the response.

Ericksonian utilization is not simply incorporating external distractions in a trance. It is a full understanding of how people think and doing hypnosis that is entirely based on that. We’ve discussed many of these aspects in detail in articles such as “Psychological Phenomena in Trance” and “Cold Reading,” but here is an outline of some of these processes from our perspective. This section is the most divergent from Erickson (as he is interested in a number of unconscious processes that include but are more specific than these), but these are things that he is aware of in different words.

• Perception changes
  
  • The way or frame that someone is perceiving something; their perceptive filters such as their memories, history, whether or not they feel like they’re acting voluntarily
    
• Sensory changes
  
  • A person’s physical experience of their body; their hallucinatory experience of trance, recalling memories, etc
    
• Focus changes
  
  • How someone’s attention shifts to different ideas; on the internal or external; the subjective quality of focus
    
• Associations
  
  • The literal associations someone has with words or concepts; the formation of connections between things or ideas; allowance for multiple or unconscious meanings
    
• Dissociation
  
  • When someone feels as though they are observing or disconnected somehow from their experience such as in a change of framing; up to full derealization or a sense that they are not themselves, not in reality, not controlling what’s happening, etc
    
• Regression
  
  • The qualities, history, and memories of a person’s younger self (any younger -- not necessarily childhood) affecting their experience

Conclusion

When we opened this article saying that analysis of Erickson is necessarily divergent from Erickson’s actual process, naturally, a piece such as this one is bound to that principle. The best way to learn about Erickson is to read his work for yourself (and everyone in our community can and should intimately familiarize themselves with his and Rossi’s “Hypnotic Realities”). However, this piece should serve as a slightly simplified foundation for a few of his ideas on inducing trance. You don’t have to completely copy Erickson’s methods in order to make use of his ideas -- but bringing in some of his philosophies and techniques can very much bolster your trancing.