I see a lot of hypnotists bragging online, especially on YouTube, about how fast they are. Many of them are simply using the same instant induction techniques used by most every hypnotist; some are just showing videos of using what is essentially a re-induction trigger. Regardless, there seems to be a concept that faster is better.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, I’ve noticed that my sessions tend to run short compared to many. Maybe I’m incredibly lucky in that all my usual subjects are quick to enter trance, or maybe I’m just rushing through things. Maybe it’s because other hypnotist think that a longer session is necessary to achieve results, or to make people feel like it’s worth the price. With an in-person therapy session, a one-hour length is probably the minimum necessary to account for talks on both sides and any potential slip in scheduling, but how many people have an hour or more to listen to a recording, especially on a daily basis?
It’s a common question subjects pose, though: how long will it take to hypnotize me, and how long will it take to see results.
The answer, like most things in hypnosis, is “It depends.”
There are a lot of factors that go into how long it takes to hypnotize someone: experience in being hypnotized, what the goals of the session are, and how eager the subject is all play a role, among others. In the same way, how long a session must last – and how many sessions, depend on a lot of the same factors.
Personally, I prefer to have shorter sessions, and more of them. While a single long session can give more time to bring ‘deeper’ trances, depth isn’t always the important thing. I think that in many cases, a quick 20 minute session, held often with content shifting slowly with time, can bring more effective change.