There was a time, several years ago, when most of my hypnotic focus was on therapy. At the time I was running a center out of Los Angeles where I was training Hypnotherapists, medical professional and law enforcement personnel some of my unique twists on how the mind works. Thing were relatively simple then. Now that I've gone back to doing a lot of Stage Hypnosis, things have gotten far more complex.
Personally, I like simplicity. Give me a simple 1...2...3  instruction sheet and I'm in hog heaven. Back when we were learning our ABC's I was tops in my class. But once we started putting the letters together, things quickly got out of hand. I'm still struggling with my tendencies towards obtuse obfuscations. 

In my therapy practice days, I had my "therapeutic techniques" down to an art. "Therapy" Involved meeting a client, doing a simple pretalk, putting headphones on, playing a 30 minute induction cassette tape to "get them ready" and then coming on with a few carefully orchestrated metaphors to help "cure the illness". Most sessions were fairly predictable and with the luxury of 50 minutes to work with a single person, it wasn't hard being effective. 
On stage it's a whole different ballgame. You begin by walking up and trying to captivate a room full of skeptics. You then have to talk a few of them into coming on stage to make 'fools' of themselves. Then you're stuck with the near impossible task of analyzing the character types of 12 or so volunteers with a single glance. Now you have to hypnotize all 12 in 8 minutes or so and be able to produce dramatic convincers pretty quickly so the show doesn't drag. From the moment you walk on stage you only have 90 minutes to "do your thing" with 12 different subjects. It's a nightmare where only the volunteers are allowed the luxury of sleep.

In my attempts to simplify things over the years, I've played games with quite a few theories of hypnosis. I've read all the studies that describe hypnosis as an "altered state" or a "subjective reality". I've tried to simplify what's going on in a person's head while being hypnotized into a general operating theory that would carry me through most stage situations. I'll have to admit most of my "research" would never hold up under laboratory conditions, but back, maybe 20 years ago, I came upon a theory that somehow seems to consistently explain what happens during a hypnotic session and allows for predictable results. I realize that this method of discovery is far from traditional, but then it was precisely this "backwards thinking" method of analysis that taught me all I needed to know about the precise effects gravity would have on me if I walked off the roof of my house, years before anybody tried to explain mass and object attraction to me.
I think I experienced my moment of "enlightenment" while listening to some lecturer speak. I don't even remember what the topic was he was discussing, but I do remember a specific remark he made during his talk. He casually made the statement that while a mind is thinking at a Beta level (there's a statement that places this lecture sometime back in the 60's), we can think about 4 times as fast as we can talk. That haunted me. 4 times as fast as we can talk. That would mean that we are listening with only 25% of our active thinking. 
What's happening in the other 75% of our thought process? 

Obviously it was in this area that we formulated the answers we would give to what we were being told. It would also seem that it was somewhere within this area that we would analyze what we were being told and determine whether we felt we were being conned or lied to. All these thoughts seemed to comfortably take place while people were talking to us. Of course it also seemed to me that it was this area that allowed us the "luxury" of being distracted. In fact, as I watched people engaged in conversation I realized that even the 25% of our thinking that was theoretically listening to what was being said might be a high estimate. It seems that most people mentally determine how important they think a conversation is and allocate only as much of their thinking as is merited by the topic. Someone listening to an Amway sales person trying to sell them soap powder may only be "sacrificing" 10% of their thinking process. Victims on the Titanic on the other hand, probably devoted 100% of their attention to any announcements that came over the P.A. system.

So how does all of this fit into the hypnotic "big picture"? Think about what happens during a typical induction. A subject is told to relax, to avoid any distractions, to focus on what the hypnotist is saying. A pattern is established and attractive metaphors are usually blended into the mix. My theory is that we are basically training subjects to develop a singular focus. We are slowing their thinking process down to a point where they can only think at the same speed as we talk and then we are making sure they accept our voice as their singular focus. Basically, hypnosis is the ability to think without distractions. On stage that translates into reacting without inhibitions. It means that a person told they are a chicken finds they no longer have the luxury of the extra "thinking space" to consider how their friends are going to react or whether or not they are making fools of themselves in public. I am consistently finding that rather than aiming at a long list of theoretical goals when inducing hypnosis, if I focus on getting a persons full attention, not allowing any area for distraction, they will generally do well as a subject.
If you consider the implications of this theory, you'll find that it wouldn't be too hard to prove. Back when I looked like a novice, sort of trying to hypnotize people on stage, my initial induction took a good 20 minutes. People found it harder to stay focussed, considering that they were too busy listening for my mistakes. As I become more practiced and commanded more attention, I found that I could get the same results with far less "depth" of trance. Basically, people who were willing to immediately give me 50% of their attention rather than the traditional 25% were able to demonstrate the same phenomenon in half the time. At this point I often find that the speed of induction even amazes me. This past fall, I remember one lady I noticed in an audience during my pretalk. She had one of those intense gazes that told me she was totally focussed on what I was saying. She raised her hand to volunteer without ever taking her eyes off me. She seemed so focussed that I decided to test her on her way up. As she approached the stage I quickly turned to her, gave her a strong, demanding glare, and immediately demanded, "you lady, will forget your name as soon as I touch your shoulder". Now, this was a person I had never met before. A person that by all rights should be focussing on her nervousness on stage and the commotion of the room as she walked up. Instead, I "jump started" her focus by shocking her as she approached, I forced her "over the hill". Sure enough, I immediately held the mike up to her and asked her her name. Her face went blank and her eyes widened in shock. She couldn't, for the life of her, remember her name. Even when I read her nametag off to her, and asked her, "What's your name, Carol, come on, think" she drew a blank. Considering I had her complete attention, I immediately told her she would remember her name, but her left leg would become rigidly locked straight as she continued towards her seat. It did, and all without ever once asking her to "sleep".

If we theorize about what else happens in this thinking area I've labeled (for my classes) as the "Processing Area" (for lack of a better definition), we introduce some pretty phenomenal therapeutic possibilities. I believe it's within this Processing Area that we store our habits or instinctual behaviors. When we walk up to a door, we no longer have to consider what it is and what's involved in getting past it. We went through all of that, back at the age of one or two, and eventually settled on the "reality" that turning the knob makes it open. It's within this Processing Area that we store all the thinking involved in getting to work in the morning. We remember that we walked outside, we stuck the key in the ignition and then we were sitting in our office. The entire process of going down the street, of avoiding pedestrians, stopping for the traffic light, coordinating brake, clutch, gear shift, steering wheel, and radio all took place without us ever devoting any conscious thought to the process. I believe all of this takes place within the Processing Area. It's because we have these preconceived "realities" floating around in the Processing Area that magicians can fool us by sabotaging our "train of thought". The Processing Area also seems to house all the cop outs and excuses we use to justify behaviors we know are wrong. A smoker who is told, while at a Beta State, that they are going to kill themselves with the cigarettes never really hears you. Long before the argument made it to the thinking part of their brain, it was tackled by the "Habitual" thinking process. The inner, subconscious mind, that believes the person is a smoker, in an attempt to avoid the guilt and shame associated with the fact that the person is obviously doing something he knows is wrong, but, in the inner mind's opinion, happens to be an indisputable reality, has set out blockers to keep the accusation from ever sinking in. Basically, the instant it hears "argument #23....it will kill you" it immediately pulls out "answer #23...I remember the guy on the PBS special that lived to 110 and smoked a pack a day." And then gives you 10% of their attention. This is the area where we develop most of our neurosis. We create these twisted loops that make us behave erratically in our attempts to fulfill misguided goals. The young lady seeking affection decides to substitute love for sex. The man seeking security decides to substitute temper for character. The man seeking to rid the world of the "evils of technology" becomes the Unibomber. 

So what exactly does this mean? If hypnosis is capable of "turning off" all the Processing Area thinking, then we suddenly open up a floodgate of possibilities. The smoker isn't capable of blocking our suggestions, while hypnotized (which is the basic foundation of why hypnosis works, regardless of the operating theory). Basically, if we turn off the Processing Area and convince the inner, thinking mind, that the person has no reason to smoke, that they are much better than this, that they are stronger than the need for cigarettes that used to control them. If we create strong metaphors in their mind, images of them jogging without loosing their breath, pictures of them feeling safe kissing their mate, knowing their breath is clean and fresh. If we heighten their sensory perceptions and have them experience smelling the roses and feeling the "cool, clean air" working its way down their throat (that's a metaphor I had problems with while working in Los Angeles), then we create a separate reality (hopefully Casteneda will forgive me for borrowing the title to his best selling book). A new reality that offers freedom.
At this point we find ourselves faced with a curious phenomenon, a dynamic every hypnotherapist faces daily, and yet one we've never been able to explain. If hypnosis really changed the way a person thinks, why do they still have a craving? My model offers a workable explanation that allows for solution. The smoker who leaves my office now knows at a logical level that they don't want to smoke (which is why they paid me to do therapy in the first place). They now believe, at a deeper level, that they have given it up and have no reason to smoke again. But they're still left with the blockers they had previously placed in the Processing Area. The habits they developed based on the false assumptions the inner mind was making. They will still find themselves "reaching for a smoke" after their coffee. They'll still find the Processing Area expecting a cigarette when they find themselves under pressure, while still finding it hasn't developed an adequate alternative coping mechanisms. Behavior scientists tell us it takes about 2 weeks to "break a habit". Basically, if we snap the rubber band on our wrist every time we want to bite our nails we'll "train" ourselves to not think that way within 2 weeks. The problem they come against is that if the inner mind still believes, after 2 weeks, that the person is a nail biter, it's just a matter of time before this behavior (or some other excessive compulsive instinct) flares back up. Hypnosis clears the way for the habit to disappear without objection. I tell my client to expect the "habitual tendencies" to continue to plague them for about a month. I explain that they'll need to fight the drive to reach for a cigarette for 2 weeks and then, during the next two weeks, they'll have to anchor in the alternative coping methods we've created during the hypnotic session. This "coping alternative" usually becomes something like "you can deal with the pressure by taking a deep breath and realizing you do have control of the situation, a control that comes from deep within, a control you need to focus on bringing to the surface whenever a situation has the potential of problems". I then make them mentally experience this "magic pill" alternative to smoking in several created situations while under hypnosis. 

Does this model work? Over the years I've kept close records on the results of the use of my therapeutic techniques. When I trained therapists (using this working model), I required them to have all their clients fill out a questionnaire that eventually made it to my office. About 3 months after a smoker had gone in for therapy we would make a "courtesy call" to see how their therapy had gone, whether the therapist had met their needs and to ask the crucial question, "Have you had a cigarette since the therapy ended?" Based on this survey and on my own personal records while on the road, my model has offered an 82% success rate on smoking.
If you play a bit more with the Processing Area theory you realize some other powerful phenomenon that's available in therapy. NLP patterning and other rapport building techniques create a heightened level of attention, thus allowing the therapist (without ever suggesting sleep) to have hypnotic abilities available to them in their sessions. Teaching people to meditate (and get rid of the "monkey chatter"), is actually a forerunner to learning how to develop deeper focus abilities, which in our model translates into "allows you to communicate more effectively with your inner, controlling brain". 
When I teach therapy, I don't limit myself to the effects of the lower brainwave (traditional hypnotic) levels. We also discuss the effects of what we call the "Higher Brainwave Levels". What exactly happens when a person is "red with anger" or "lost in love"? Although other, survival related drives usually enter into play in a persons perception, the intense focus created by the "fight or flight" mechanisms allows for the same therapeutic leverage. I remember a lady once who came in to ask why her teenage son hated her so. I tried to explain the "demons" that seem to come with hormonal changes, but this didn't satisfy her. She insisted that they had always gotten along great, had always been "best of buddies" and that then, suddenly, he had pulled away. I suggested she might look for drugs, but she seemed fairly convinced that he was still very active with his church and his studies had not suffered at all. At her insistence, I did a time regression and took them back to a time when things were going good. We then worked our way to the day her son was graduating from JR High School. This was his "big day". It was at this time that he announced to his mother, while at a little league practice that afternoon, that he was dating a girl his mother didn't really approve of. They got into a fight and in her anger, with both their tempers at an all time high, in front of his friends, she had yelled out at him "I don't know who you think you are. I don't care what you think or what your friends tell you, until you graduate from High School you're still my little boy and you better start acting like it. I'm sick and tired of having to baby sit you. You're nothing but a bunch of trouble just waiting to ruin my day." Soon after she had said that, she realized what she had said and apologized profusely. Her son told her he understood and told her he accepted her apology. But at that point, the damage was done. Her yelling at him, while he was completely emotionally involved in the situation, totally focused on nothing but what she was saying, had the same effect on his inner mind as a hypnotic session where metaphors were created to prove his mother considered him little more than a childish nuisance would have had. His inner mind started developing "blockers" in the Processing Area to stop suggestions that might try to make him face the painful, shameful reality he now believed, that his mother didn't want him around, his mother didn't really love him at all, that he was just a burden to her. The next month or so was spent creating adequate "protection against pain" in the Processing Area. At this point, whenever she said "I love you" it got stopped by his Processing Area long before the inner mind even got a chance to hear it.
Looking for a solution here, all I could work out was that somehow she would have to first reach his inner mind, and then would have to spend about a month fighting the "habitual reactions" that might flare up as a response to certain key words or phrases. I suggested that she take him to a large amusement park in the L.A. area and really get him going. I recommended that she leave the rest of the family, and just make it a "fun time" for the two of them. I told her to focus on getting his adrenaline going, but to make an excuse to hold off on the really big ride till the end of the day. Make that the big time goal for the day. Finally the big moment arrived. They got in line and got on the ride. Then as they reached their emotional peak, as they were coming down the most exciting slope, I told her to yell, at the top of her voice, so everybody on the cart could hear her, "Mike, you're the most important, special person in my life. I love you." That was it, pure and simple. If my model was correct, it should anchor in in his inner mind. It was then just a matter of putting up with the outdated blockers that would creep up for the next 2 weeks and things should look up.
We scheduled our next appointment for about a month later. The client planned her outing for the upcoming week and was to tell me, a month later, how it went. When she came back in, she immediately broke out into tears. She couldn't stop thanking me. She explained how they had gone to the park and, as expected, he was cold and indifferent towards her. She had ignored him and focussed on having fun. It wasn't long before "mob psychology" took over and the two were mutually focussed on the goal at hand. She told me how foolish she had felt at the prospect of yelling her innermost thoughts in front of strangers, but I had told her that it was precisely the fact that she was willing to be vulnerable in public for him that should tilt the scales in her favor. She did her yelling and then tried to hide her embarrassment as they got off the ride. Her son didn't say a word. They got home and the evening seemed relatively normal. Her son ignored her and did his arrogant "don't mess with me" act. On my instructions she was to treat him as if all was okay now. Assume she was merely facing instinctual, unintentional behavior. This went on for about a week, and then one day she found him sitting in their back yard, deep in thought. She walked over, sat down next to him and asked innocently, "do you want to talk about it?". She said he turned, looked at her and asked, "did you really mean it when you said I was important to you?" At that point, she knew it was just a matter of time. She humbled herself as much as she could and started apologizing for anything she might have done that might have led him to believe anything else. "Mike, there's nothing in the world that's more important to me than you kids" she explained as tears welled up in his eyes. And he believed her. After than, it was just a matter of sorting out behaviors before years of agony were left in the past.

Was I some incredible sage, or "master therapist"? Not by any means. I merely based my therapy on the concept of the Processing Area and the effects, both negative and positive, that total focus has on the mind. At that point it all came back to my "simple working model". It's been close to 20 years since I started using this model both on and off stage, and it's never failed to have the predicted results. It explains hypnosis, effective therapy, mob psychology, religious fervor, athletic prowess and most other mental phenomenon. At least in my humble settings, it seems to adequately meet all my therapeutic needs, so I toss it out as one possible, maybe even simplistic, model of how the mind works.