Depression and Diet

(This blog was originally posted on August 27, 2014)

Photo by Rick Hustead

     In his book, The Professional Hypnotism Manual, Hypnosis Motivation Institute founder John Kappas, Ph.D. wrote that some symptoms of depression are also symptomatic of a physiological condition of low blood sugar. These symptoms include insomnia, perception of loss of ability/inability to control the environment and anxiety. There are many reasons why someone might have low level of sugar in the bloodstream, including eating too many carbohydrates and not eating enough protein, or even drinking alcohol or taking drugs. However, continuous physical or emotional stress is also a common culprit of this condition, Dr. Kappas warned.

     He wrote that the perception of lack of control, which is often a precursor to depression, can be induced when the mind is overloaded by message units from the subconscious mind, conscious mind or body. Similar to slipping into hypnosis, “Depression is the tail end of escape for someone who is in conflict,” the hypnotherapist said.

      People whose depressive symptoms are caused by low blood sugar can relieve these symptoms by changing their diet to include more protein. “You have to start stabilizing the mood swings,” Dr. Kappas said. However, even if you treat the physiological condition you must still confront the depression. As a certified hypnotherapist, it is out of the scope of my professional expertise to diagnose or treat depression or any other illness that may have a psychological or physiological basis (Business and Professions Code 2908). Therefore, I do and will refer clients to an appropriate licensed medical or psychology professional to determine the cause and/or treat that specific physical symptom.* However, once this other expert has ruled out a medical etiology of your symptom, with a follow-up referral from that licensed professional, I may continue working with you in hypnotherapy to help alleviate and/or control these symptoms.

*California law allows access by California residents to complementary and alternative health care practitioners who are not providing services that require medical training and credentials. The purpose of a program of hypnotherapy is for vocational and avocational self-improvement (Business and Professions Code 2908) and as an alternative or complementary treatment to healing arts services licensed by the state. A hypnotherapist is not a licensed physician or psychologist, and hypnotherapy services are not licensed by the state of California. Services are non-diagnostic and do not include the practice of medicine, neither should they be considered a substitute for licensed medical or psychological services or procedures.

Sara R. Fogan, C.Ht. is a certified hypnotherapist based in Southern California. She graduated with honors from the Hypnosis Motivation Institute in 2005. For more information about Calminsense Hypnotherapy® and to set up an appointment, please visit http://www.calminsensehypnotherapy.com/.

© 2018

The Royal "We"

(This blog was originally posted on February 13, 2017)

Photo by Rick Hustead

“We are not impressed.”

Have you ever wondered where that expression came from? I can’t remember the first time I heard it, but it seems like a long-running joke that members of the British Royal family are said to use a plural pronoun to express displeasure. I don’t know if that is true and they really speak that way, but I highly doubt it. However, since watching the television series Victoria on PBS, I have a suspicion how that tradition may have started and been misunderstood/misinterpreted, as well as why it has lasted so long.

Early in Queen Victoria’s reign as queen of England, her dog, Dash, was a constant companion and apparent confidant of the young monarch. At least in this series, the queen is occasionally shown depicted addressing her dog and even including his unspoken opinion about an issue during a discussion with an advisor. I have no way of knowing if this scenario actually happened, but it made me wonder if these kinds of incidents inspired the royal “we.” Except in this case, rather than simply being a vernacular affectation, the queen genuinely and legitimately meant we. Nonetheless, as generations passed and the little dog likely long forgotten, the expression has lived on—at least in the public’s imagination. It is familiar and comfortable because it has been around so long. It is known.

Consider a tradition you or your family follows. Do you know why the holiday meal must always be prepared in a certain way, using specific ingredients that are not actually included in the original recipe? Upon further investigation, it turned out that some of the original ingredients were unavailable during World War II, so the family improvised the original recipe. The dish turned out well and the substituted ingredients continued to be included in future preparations. Some people call their grandmother as “Nan” or “Gram,” and their grandfather “Paw-Paw” because that is how they were instructed to address their grandparents. Why? My guess is that way back in the family tree a youngster couldn’t pronounce Grandma or Grandpa and the new monikers stuck and eventually became a new subconscious known.

How interesting…

Sara R. Fogan, C.Ht. is a certified hypnotherapist based in Southern California. She graduated with honors from the Hypnosis Motivation Institute in 2005. For more information about Calminsense Hypnotherapy® and to set up an appointment, please visit http://www.calminsensehypnotherapy.com/.

© 2018

My Thoughts: The Milgram Obedience Experiment and Suggestibility

(This blog was originally posted on February 6, 2015)

Photo by Rick Hustead

Experimenter is being promoted at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival this week. The film is about psychologist Stanley Milgram, whose 1961 obedience experiment famously demonstrated how obedient people could be when they are confronted with real or perceived authority. 

I remember reading about this project while I was pursuing my undergraduate degree psychology. In it, participants were made to deliver electric shocks of various and increasing intensity to other people. The Yale University psychologist was interested to see at what point and under what circumstance a participant would disobey authority: i.e., refuse to administer the shocks, which were portrayed as extremely painful and possibly causing permanent physical damage to the recipient. In fact, the “shocks” were imaginary and the people who were supposedly receiving them were actually members of Milgram’s research team. Ultimately, the researcher reported that 65 percent of the participants were willing to administer the electric shocks to others despite the extreme stress they reported feeling while administering the shocks and the pain they believed they were causing others.

Remembering and thinking about this study made me cringe, but it also made me wonder: Could John Kappas, Ph.D.’s models of suggestibility explain the social psychologist’s observations? Following are reasons why I think the Hypnosis Motivation Institute founder’s theories work very well to explain why Milgram’s research participants were willing (albeit begrudgingly) to continue to administer those shocks.

1.       He had authority. Milgram was conducting his research in a prominent and respected academic university. Since he held a Ph.D. in psychology his subjects would have called him “Dr.,” which automatically implies a position of power or authority.

2.       He had a message: The psychologist told the participants what to do and when to do it, and he did not waver from his instruction even when they voiced concerns about the harm the continued shocks must be doing to the shock recipients.

3.       He overloaded the participants’ conscious and subconscious minds with written and auditory information (message units) about the intensity of the electric shocks being delivered and the sounds/exclamations of pain that the recipients uttered. Milgram also continued to deliver his authoritarian patter of instructions that the participants should continue to administer the shocks even if and when they wanted to stop taking part in the experiment.

Afterward, Milgram and his team debriefed the participants to explain that the electric shocks used during the experiment were imaginary and reassured them that no one had been harmed in any way. I’m sure that was a relief for those who had obeyed each one of the psychologist’s instructions to complete the experiment. The questionable and controversial ethics of his research design reportedly resulted in the American Psychological Association creating ethical standards for ensuring the physical, emotional and psychological well-being of participants in future studies.

I also follow the APA’s guidelines for ethics and professional conduct when I work with hypnotherapy clients. I will not and would not ask you to say or do anything while in hypnosis that you would not say or do while in a fully alert state of awareness. Furthermore, your subconscious mind would not comply with any hypnotic suggestion(s) that contradicted your ethical and moral beliefs. For more information about hypnosis and how it works, check out the Hypnosis Facts link on my website.

Sara R. Fogan, C.Ht. is a certified hypnotherapist based in Southern California. She graduated with honors from the Hypnosis Motivation Institute in 2005. For more information about Calminsense Hypnotherapy® and to set up an appointment, please visit http://www.calminsensehypnotherapy.com/.

© 2017