The Correct Information

Note from author, 2014:

With the benefit of that wondrous ability of hindsight; it is clear to me that the frustrations I was feeling about therapists' application of treatment which led to me writing this article, were also what led me to seek a clearer explanation of the therapy, to make learning easier for students.  

It was later that same year that I created the 'tree' (with various symptoms as its leaves) which I still use on training courses to this day.

This was the beginnings of the idea which eventually led to 'SRBC'.

© Helen Lesser
First published in AQCH Hypnotherapy Journal (issue 22 / Feb 1996)

There is a difference between re-interpretation and correction; between re-interpreting the incident and correcting the effects of it.

The causative incident certainly needs re-interpreting. Some people have said they have difficulty with this. But it can only be difficult if information is missing. If all relevant information is known by the therapist, if the full initial interpretation of the event is understood, then it should be a simple matter to correct.

However, there have been several articles on this matter already written in previous editions of this Journal and it is not my intention to repeat all here.

My intention here is to point out that reinterpreting the causative event is simply not enough. This is not the end point of treatment. The reactions to the initial interpretation need to be corrected.

[My intention in this article is to address the tendency of some therapists to] overlay symptoms rather than actually helping their patients to achieve a cure. They find an incident, point out that the reaction to it is ‘silly’ and expect everything to be hunky-dory from then on. This simply is not Curative Hypnotherapy.

Why did the reaction exist? What caused it? Why was the symptom actually needed? These rather obvious points are often overlooked in actual treatment. To illustrate, I’ll refer to one of the exercises from [a recent conference]: