One reason our illusions are so effective is that they look authentic to e. She doesn't just feel the ropes, she sees them around her legs. She doesn't just taste the strawberry, she sees it in her hand. When all your senses are pulling in the same direction, your mind tends to believe. In most cases, e reports that scenes score 9 out of 10 for believability.
It wasn't always this way. I remember that the first time I gave her labial rings, she reported they were slightly transparent at first, and then greatly faded the next day. I just told her to make them stronger again, several days in a row. That seemed to work. I also remember telling her once that when she looked in the mirror she'd see my face instead of hers. What she saw instead was my face blended with hers. Apparently it's difficult to apply your makeup that way.
Why are these illusions now so clear to her? I'm not sure. But she does have a vivid imagination. And she has a very strong memory for images. I was showing her a few photos from the web, and she was able to tell me immediately which ones she'd seen before. She has a strong memory for places; she gave me a narrated walk around her college suite one time, clearly intrigued by some of the visual memories she was recovering in the process.
Another reason her visual illusions are clear and convincing is that ... I told her so. When I'm not sure how well an effect is going to "take," I sometimes boost my odds by simply telling her that she will find it completely persuasive and real. Hey, whatever works.
The only problem comes with images of things that she's never seen before. We have this running joke about Scotland, because I once told her to go there for a few minutes. Problem is, she's never been; she had nothing to draw upon except some magazine advertisement photos in her head. She said Scotland looked very clean, tidy, immaculately composed, with perfect sheep on the hillside. ... That scene returned last week when she flew over it as a dragon. Same damn sheep.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So would you say that the success of the hypnosis is more tied into the subject rather than the hypnotizer? While reading up on hypnosis, the idea that someone is a strong hynotizer is false, it's more likely that the subject can be a better subject.
Do you find that to be the case?
Well, I'd like to think it's my native skill, of course. (e thinks I could go into business curing women of their menstrual cramps, as I've done for her.)
Personally, I give a lot of credit to the subject, because after all it's the subconscious that has to do all the heavy lifting -- blocking memories, inventing scenes, recalling sensations. Also, what I've read suggests that there is a huge variation in how people respond.
A third factor is not one person or the other, but their relationship. The mutual trust has to be there.
But if a particular hypnotist and subject don't achieve deep hypnosis and vivid illustions, it might also be the techniques. I'm sure that different people respond better to certain kinds of trance induction and suggestion.
Long answer to a simple question, but I think there are just a lot of factors.
i've noticed with some hypno sessions i've had online in sl or in yim that i kinda do get the semi transparent look of my skin as latex. this is normally when under direction of the hypnotist but i can't get it to last. or it simply doesn't
so from your entry it seems i'm on the right path, but i need to increase its strenth alot.
xx
Asudem,
From what I know, instructions given in person or in voice/phone conversation are usually more effective than those given in text. I think it's because the subject responds best to instructions in the voice of the hypnotist. Just as an idea, if you're relying solely on text, you might look for ways to associate the text with that particular hypnotist, maybe with font/color changes. Good luck!
sigh. it's neither the subject nor the tist. it's the interaction between the two. some people click, some people don't.
Post a Comment