|
|
Who is hypnotizable and why?Can everyone be hypnotized? Is there a type of person who is more hypnotizable than another person? Both of these questions have been repeatedly asked and answers sought to them without any real success. The question, ‘Can everyone be hypnotized?’ is a question about absolutes. Either everyone can be hypnotized or only some people can be hypnotized. Whatever the answer to this question, there still remains the second question, ‘Is there a type of person who is more hypnotizable than another person?’ This is a matter of degree. There is, however, some overlap between the two questions. If everyone can be
hypnotized then there is the problem of explaining why some induction procedures
do not succeed. If only some people can be hypnotized then an explanation must
be sought to determine why, and whether we can predict which category any given
individual will belong to: whether to the hypnotizable or to the
non-hypnotizable. Whether we are attempting to explain why some induction
procedures do not work with some individuals or whether we are attempting to
explain why some people are not hypnotizable, we are grouping people into
personality categories. Put another way, we wish to know what personality
characteristics are associate (correlated) with hypnotizability. There is one major
difficulty with such an association. Not only do we not know exactly what
hypnosis is, but also there is no agreed classification of personality. Of
course, the simplest way to know whether someone is hypnotizable is to actually
hypnotize them! The attempt to find correlates with hypnosis is in order to predict
who will be hypnotizable. What is not so readily appreciated is that it also
gives some insight as to why a particular person does not respond to a specific
induction technique or to a particular hypnotist. Furthermore, it gives the
self-hypnotist some insight into the difficulties that he or she may encounter
in attempting to do self-hypnosis. For the self-hypnotist there is only his or
her own personality to consider. But because it is
their own personality, then this is more difficult to assess in an objective
manner. Even so, some of the more obvious personality correlates with hypnosis
do not require a deep understanding of personality since they are largely to do
with involvement: involvement in art, music, reading, etc. Is everyone
hypnotizable?
This is not an easy question to answer. Part of the reason for this is because we do not know exactly what hypnosis is. Suppose I said to you there is a disease, the exact symptoms of which we do not know, and I then ask whether everyone can fall victim to such a disease. This would be almost impossible to answer – in just the same way that it is impossible to answer whether everyone is hypnotizable. In terms of the statistical evidence available from psychological studies, there appears a consensus that about seventy per cent of the population is hypnotizable. Such studies, however, involve very rigid experimental conditions that are not always conducive to the induction of hypnosis. But suppose we accept the figure for the moment. Let us further suppose that this applies to a particular hypnotist (or taped induction), then a different hypnotist may lead to a different seventy per cent of the population being hypnotizable. Of course there will be some overlap, but what matters is that the second experiment involves some people not involved in the first. Change the hypnotist enough times and eventually everyone will be accounted for. You may argue that surely though there will be always someone not hypnotizable. But we have only mentioned the hypnotist, and not the technique of the induction. In most laboratory studies of hypnosis induction is undertaken by means of a tape recording. The reason for this is to standardise the induction across individuals. This may be good scientific practice, but some individuals simply may not respond to such an induction technique. Not because they are not hypnotizable, but rather because this induction technique is unsuitable for them. With a different induction technique they may readily go into hypnosis. When a person is not hypnotizable by someone then we must establish whether
We shall first discuss the second and third reasons. There are a number of induction techniques for inducing hypnosis, either in oneself or another person. But why not have just one induction technique? The reason is that some people respond to one technique and not to another. The major personality correlate in this respect is whether the induction technique is authoritarian or not and whether the person being hypnotized does or does not like such an attitude. Suppose, for instance, the hypnotist is using an authoritarian approach and the person being hypnotized objects to this, either consciously or unconsciously. For example, the hypnotist may say, “You are getting drowsy”, “You will now go to sleep”, “You will not be able to open your eyes”, and so on. These are authoritarian statements that also involve a challenge. If, in your early childhood, you had constantly been told to do this, and to do that, then you are likely to resent in later life being told to do things. Some may resent it so much that they are inclined to do the very opposite. If this is so, then that person may not enter hypnosis with these instructions. This is not because they are not hypnotizable, but rather because they resent the technique being used. If the suggestions were changed to something like the following then they would be far less authoritarian. For example, “Let yourself go, I would like you to feel very relaxed and drowsy. You will find that if you let yourself relax that you will soon feel yourself going into a deep sleep. Your eyes are so heavy that you will not want to open them, and that when you try to open them the heaviness is going to increase. You may find that your eyes open, but what is important is that they feel heavy and that you don’t feel like opening them.” Yet in other people, the authoritarian approach is the very one which works. In general the actual technique is not so important. Most people respond to any technique. The problem arises when a person does not respond to a particular induction technique. It is then that different techniques must be tried. Some people respond very well to the beat of a metronome, while others find it positively annoying; and some respond very well to music, but only if it is of the right type. The conclusions we draw from this are that a person may not be hypnotized by one hypnotist, but may be by another (using the same technique); or that a person may not be hypnotized by one technique, but is by another (using the same hypnotist). To some extent the success of a particular induction technique may depend on the person’s expectation. If a person expects the hypnotist to swing some shiny object in front of their eyes, then this is the technique that is likely to have the most success with that person. In other cases the
appropriate technique is found by trial and improvisation. The fact that
improvisation often works reveals that it is not the actual technique that is
important – except in inducing hypnosis in a given individual. Whether
hypnosis is induced by someone else, or by yourself, improvised techniques only
need to be resorted to if the standard induction procedures fail to work. When
you engage in self-hypnosis you will discover which induction techniques that
you respond to best. In the initial stages, therefore, it is important to try
out a few in order to discover which these are. In the case of
heterohypnosis, the induction may fail to work, not because of the technique,
but rather because the person being hypnotized takes exception to the hypnotist.
This may be conscious or unconscious. For instance, a person may not like to be
hypnotized by a hypnotist of the opposite sex; by a hypnotist that smokes (when
they are a non-smoker); by a hypnotist that looks like their mother (or father);
with a hypnotist with a beard; and so on. The list can be quite long. While the
person is willing to be hypnotized and the technique is not objectionable then
induction is likely to take place. But when a person does not enter hypnosis one
of these reasons is always a possibility. Fortunately, when
engaging is self-hypnosis this is not the situation. However, suppose the
technique is appropriate and the hypnotist is not objectionable, is it still
possible for a person not to enter hypnosis? In other words, is it possible for
a person not to be hypnotizable by anyone or any technique? As mentioned above,
it is common to hear that seventy per cent of the population is hypnotizable,
which obviously means thirty per cent cannot be hypnotized. Personally, I would
consider the seventy per cent a gross underestimate. In the first instance it is
based on samples using a fixed induction technique and a particular hypnotist
(usually on a tape recorder). Second, and most important, the figure is often
based on only one attempt. Given the different personalities of those being
hypnotized, some will not readily enter hypnosis until a number of their fears
and (misguided) preconceived notions are allayed (see fallacies). Part of the difficulty
is the belief that you either can be hypnotized or you cannot: that you are A or
not-A. But this makes sense only if hypnosis were a well-defined entity, which
we have already indicated that it is not. Only when A is well-defined do we know
what not being A actually means. Let us agree for the moment that hypnosis is an
altered state of consciousness. Then we can re-phrase
the question, ‘Can everyone be hypnotized?’ as, ‘Can everyone alter
appropriately their state of consciousness?’ When put in this way it is clear
that entering hypnosis, i.e., hypnotic susceptibility, is a learning process and
as such it is the acquisition of an ability. A person learns to enter hypnosis. When looked at in this way, then
it is a matter of degree and not an absolute. Some people will find the learning
process easy and others will find it difficult. There is a whole spectrum of
abilities in learning to enter and deepen the state we call hypnosis. I would
like it to asking the question, ‘Can everyone play tennis?’ The answer is,
in general, ‘Yes’. But some can play tennis better than others. There are of course
some exceptions. Because hypnosis depends very much on verbal suggestion, very
young children (about up to the age of four) cannot be hypnotized. In addition,
anyone, for whatever reason, who cannot maintain concentration, will also be
very difficult or impossible to hypnotize. This is because if the suggestions
are to take root in the unconscious mind, then the person being hypnotized must
be capable of holding the suggestions in their mind for a sufficient length of
time. Thus, imbeciles and some people with mental disorders cannot be
hypnotized. It is worth explaining the reason why in more detail, because this
will also explain why some people find entering hypnosis difficult. The cortex of the brain
is divided into two hemispheres separated by the corpus callosum. The hypnotic
induction is a means of reducing the functioning of the left hemisphere of the
brain and activating the right hemisphere. The point is that language is largely
a left brain attribute and what is required in hypnosis is that the suggestions
pass very quickly into the right hemisphere of the brain without
activating the cortex of the left hemisphere. The conjecture being advanced
here is that this is accomplished by first concentrating on the suggestions
until a habituation reflex is established. Once this is established, then the
suggestions will be paid no particular attention by the conscious mind, but will
still be processed by the unconscious mind. For this process to occur requires
that the person is capable of concentrating on the suggestions and yet paying
them no particular attention. In other words, habituation is a learning process.
To the extent that some people find it difficult to ‘let go’ we can
interpret this to mean that they do not wish to lose conscious control; that
they do not wish to allow habituation to take place. Habituation is a
feature of the nervous system that is possessed by everyone. There is no such
thing as possessing no habituation. There may, however, be difficulty in
bringing such habituation under conscious control: the ability to choose to
habituate or not. Imbeciles and young children cannot habituate out of choice.
Other people will have varying degrees of difficulty in doing so. Of course, we
should not fall into the trap of assuming that hypnosis and habituation is the
same thing. The ability to habituate means only that a person is susceptible to
hypnosis; that the person can enter hypnosis. It does not guarantee that the
person will, in fact, enter hypnosis. The only point being advanced here is that
because almost everyone can habituate, then almost everyone can be hypnotized.
Whether they actually enter hypnosis is quite a different matter. If the argument being
advanced here is accepted, then it follows that the depth of hypnosis is also
connected with the ability to habituate. RapportRapport in heterohypnosisWe pointed out above
that the reasons why a particular person may not be hypnotizable by a particular
hypnotist can be very varied. What they all boil down to, however, is a lack of
rapport between the subject and the hypnotist. Since the time of Mesmer, rapport
has been recognised as most important for heterohypnosis. Because rapport refers
to the relationship between the subject and the hypnotist, it is usually
considered a characteristic of heterohypnosis. We shall pursue this first and
then turn to the issue of rapport in the context of self-hypnosis. Rapport can be taken to
mean the trust a person has for the hypnotist and the willingness they have in
placing trust and confidence in them. Such confidence and trust usually takes
many sessions to develop. It is quite rare for it to occur on just one meeting,
although it is possible if the hypnotist has a significant reputation. Erickson
had such a reputation and could often hypnotize individuals that others found
difficult or impossible to do. In considering the confidence and trust that
occurs between the subject and the hypnotist, it is important to realise that
communication is both verbal and non-verbal. A hypnotist may not be able to
hypnotize someone, not because of the verbal suggestions that they are using,
but rather because of the non-verbal cues they are giving out, to which the
subject has (unconscious) objection to. Hartland in his Medical
and Dental Hypnosis and its Clinical Applications, defines rapport as
follows, [Rapport is a] state of affinity existing between subject and hypnotist and is present at the very onset of hypnosis. It is of such a nature that it tends to prevent the subject from responding to any stimuli other than those arising from the hypnotist himself unless he instructs the subject otherwise. He goes on to say (p.
164), Essentially, rapport seems to be a kind of mental sympathy which gradually develops through repetition into a state of exaggerated belief and trust on the part of the subject which often leads to a form of emotional attachment between subject and hypnotist. In coming to an
appreciation of rapport, it is useful to break Hartland’s definition down into
three component parts.
The first states that
rapport involves two people. It is natural to think of heterohypnosis, where one
person is the subject and the other is the hypnotist. But it can also be
considered in relation to self-hypnosis if one considers a person with at least two
selves: the one that is being hypnotized and the one giving the suggestions (the
hypnotist). In other words, rapport is still between subject and hypnotist, but
they are one and the same person. Now, however, trust and confidence must be
interpreted as the trust and confidence one has in oneself! We shall elaborate
on this further in a moment. The second aspect is in
paying attention to nothing other than what the hypnotist is saying. Rapport
does not prevent the subject from responding to other stimuli, but rather it
narrows the focus down to just that of what the hypnotist is saying. Prevention
implies some form of control the hypnotist has over the person being hypnotized,
while a narrowing of the focus is something that the subject is willing to do.
Furthermore, such a narrowing of focus is part of the induction or deepening
process. It is not uncommon to include in the induction or deepening procedure
suggestions along the lines, “and nothing matters except the sound of my voice
and the suggestions I am giving.” Not surprising, then, that there is a
narrowing of focus and a response only to the stimuli given by the hypnotist,
since this is the very thing being suggested! In so far as this is a
characteristic of rapport, it means only the extent to which the hypnotized
subject is willing to go along with such suggestions. The more willing they are
to comply, the greater the rapport is assumed to be. Trust and belief in the
hypnotist is something that is usually established over many sessions. In the
first instance it is very dependent on reputation. The greater the reputation of
the hypnotist, the more likely the subject will comply with the suggestions they
are given by them. This is because reputation enhances an expectation of
success, and expectations have a tendency to be self-fulfilling. In the history
of hypnosis we noted how Mesmer’s reputation led to his success, and even
this was recognised by the commission set up to investigate him. Rapport in self-hypnosisWhen we turn to
self-hypnosis many of the comments made about rapport either make no sense, or
lose their force. We start with the consideration that either rapport only has
meaning when two people are involved in the process or we assert that rapport
does have meaning in self-hypnosis but it requires to be re-interpreted. If it
is the former, then nothing more can be said. But this is not the present
author’s point of view. If one accepts that in self-hypnosis an individual
does a ‘double act’ and is both the hypnotist and the person being
hypnotized, then in this process the individual has two selves. Rapport is then
the relationship between these two selves. Rapport is easier in heterohypnosis
only to the extent that the subject and the hypnotist appear as definitely
separate individuals. But there is nothing inherently different about rapport
between two selves in the same individual. What is difficult is ‘seeing’ the
two selves as distinct persons. This is not as difficult as it may sound.
Occasionally we all find that we are observing ourselves doing a task; it is a
situation of self-observation. Who is the one doing the task and who is the one
looking on? In this situation there are two selves: the self doing the task and
the self looking on. It is this separation of selves that is required in
self-hypnosis, and which allows rapport to exist. Even when we consider
the subject being focussed on what the hypnotist is saying and following their
suggestions and only their suggestions, this is an act of co-operation between
the subject and the hypnotist. The subject is allowing their thoughts to be
focussed on the suggestions of the hypnotist. But once the two selves have
clearly been created in the process of self-hypnosis, then the same focussed
concentration can be established between them. The third element of
rapport – trust and belief in the hypnotist – can also be established
between the two selves. In this regard, however, there is a difficulty. In
self-hypnosis the subject-self must have trust and belief in the hypnotist-self.
This is not easy, especially if you lack confidence in yourself in the first
place. It appears that a common feature of human personality is that we accept
what others say and suggest far more readily than what we say to ourselves. Put
simply, we tend to believe what others tell us more readily than what we tell
ourselves. So how can the self-hypnotist create this trust and belief in the
hypnotist-self? The most obvious way is for you to learn all about the hypnotic
state and, just as importantly, practice self-hypnosis. With practice comes
ability and, through ability, confidence. Introversion, extroversion and hypnotizabilityOne of the main
categorisations of personality is that put forward by Jung. He divided people
into two main groups: the introverts and the extroverts. Introverts tend to draw
into themselves, tend to be on their own and are often shy. Feelings, emotions
and situations from within dominate them. Extroverts tend to seek the company of
others and are usually very sociable; they tend to choose jobs and situations
that involve other people. Feelings, emotions and situations from without
dominate extroverts. Of course, these are the two ends of the spectrum. A given
individual will probably have a mixture of the two and lie somewhere between
these two extremes. From our present point
of view, the question of interest is, ‘Is the extrovert more readily
hypnotizable than the introvert?’ One way to assess this is to find a scale
for measuring both extroversion/introversion and hypnotizability and then
establish a statistical correlation between the two. But neither
introversion/extroversion nor hypnotizability are clear enough categories from
which to establish agreed measures. In this case it is not possible to carry out
such a measure with any success. (It is always possible to carry out some
statistical exercise, but the question remains whether the results are at all
meaningful!) Furthermore, much of the information that has been obtained on
hypnotizability has been carried out in the psychology departments of
universities. The samples are therefore undergraduate students (usually American
undergraduate students at that), and these are not necessarily representative of
the public at large. Even so, there is a
general belief that extroverts probably are more hypnotizable then introverts.
There is no scientific basis for this belief. One of the real problems with
hypnosis is whether we are confusing hypnosis with compliance. Wagstaff in his
book, Hypnosis, Compliance and Belief
has argued that much of hypnosis is compliance. To the extent that an extrovert
likes to please when in the company of others, then he or she is more likely to
agree to ‘play along’, to be compliant. But this raises the question of what
the difference is between compliance, susceptibility and hypnosis. We pointed out above
that the ability to enter hypnosis (and probably the depth of hypnosis) is, in
all likelihood, connected with a person’s ability to habituate. One reason why
there may be no clear correlation between extroversion/introversion and
hypnotizability is because there is no inherent reason why an extrovert should
be more capable of habituating then an introvert. The reason and motivation to
habituate may be different for the two categories, but what matters for hypnosis
is that they can, in fact, habituate. This is an important conclusion for the
self-hypnotist. Whether you are extrovert or introvert does not really make any
difference to your ability to enter hypnosis. Before leaving this
particular topic it may be worth mentioning the work of Hans Eysenck. He
classifies personality not just by extroversion/introversion, but also by
stability/instability. This latter division is concerned with a person’s
emotional state, varying at one end from calm, well adjusted and reliable to
moody, anxious and unreliable. The various traits associated with the double
classification are illustrated in the following figure. Most individuals would
be somewhere in the centre of the circle. But even this is a static
interpretation of an individual. Let us suppose that a point represents an
individual. There is no reason why such a point should remain in the same
position. As a person changes and responds to life’s changes, so he or she may
move from one position to another. One of the purposes of self-improvement is,
in fact, to move yourself around the circle to a position you consider better.
This dynamic interpretation can also explain why the same individual responds
and feels different when entering hypnosis on different occasions.
Hypnotizability and involvementJosephine Hilgard has
been one of the main individuals to investigate the correlates with
hypnotizability, and most particularly has investigated the correlation between
involvement and hypnotizability. This line of research is especially useful for
the self-hypnotist because it gives some insight into how to improve
hypnotic susceptibility. Josephine Hilgard
considers a number of paths into hypnosis, such as reading, dramatic arts,
aesthetic involvement, religious dedication and adventure. A person may have one
or more of these paths into hypnosis. She contends that susceptibility to
hypnosis is no greater when there is
more than one path than if there were only one, and most people would have at
least one path into hypnosis. It is not my intention here to discuss her
statistical work in detail. What I wish to do is indicate something about the
type of involvement and attempt to explain why there is likely to be a
correlation between involvement and hypnotizability. It must be emphasised again
that these are purely conjectures since our knowledge, both of hypnosis and
personality, is not sufficiently developed at the present time to substantiate
them. Reading and filmsPeople involve
themselves in reading in different ways. Some people identify themselves with
the hero or heroine in the novel (or even a the character in a biography). They
can do this on two levels. One is where they can take on the same feelings and
emotions as the hero or heroine because they become that person. Others consider
the hero or heroine as if from the point of view of a third person. They do not
identify exactly with them but they are emotionally influenced, as they would be
if the situation occurred in real life and they were looking on as an observer.
Such readers are ‘reading’ with both sides of their brains, and not
simply with the left brain, which is the main seat of language. This can readily
be grasped if the same individuals read a technical report, because this is done
almost wholly with their left brain. The observation to make
from this type of involvement is the act of ‘suppressing your own identity’.
When you become Don Quixote or Helen of Troy you identify with them. If you
identify directly with them then you may feel what they feel; if you are an
observer then you may have certain emotions, depending on your response to what
is happening in the scene that your are reading about. In both cases, you
involve the right brain. Such involvement cannot be achieved with the left brain
alone. The more you can identify with the hero or heroine, the more the right
brain is included in the reading process and the more the left brain is
‘switched off’. It is not unknown to be quite oblivious to everything going
on around you because you are so absorbed in the story that you have ‘switched
off’. All of your focus and attention is on the story which is unfolding in
the novel. Another way of considering such involvement is that for this period
you suspend reality. This should be clear. Reality testing is a left brain
function and your are clearly not Don Quixote or Helen of Troy, as your left
brain will readily tell you. But reading is much more pleasurable if you suspend
such reality testing. This is because you are then allowing the pleasure
principle of the right brain to become operative. All this applies with
even more force when it comes to films. In the case of films, the director to
some extent brings alive his or her imagination (a function of their right
brain). A good director draws you into their world, and in so doing you suspend
your reality testing. You may become Ben Hur in the Roman Circus, you may become
the Gladiator or Cleopatra, or you may simply identify with a lesser character.
In films this is more easily accomplished because of the visual medium in which
it is presented. Sometimes, however, the world you create when reading a novel
can conflict with what you see in the film version of the novel. In reading The
Lord of the Rings, you would create an image of the hobbit and the various
characters, none of which exist in the real world. When you see the movie,
however, what the director conceives is not exactly what you conceive. But this
is not relevant when it comes to involvement. All that matters is that you are
involved in the movie. Your emotions rise and fall with what the director is
trying to convey. You watch the movie with both sides of your brain and allow
the pleasure principle to operate to the full. You can even feel joy or sadness,
remorse or shame, excitement or calmness. The more you ‘let go of reality’
the more you become absorbed in the movie and the more enjoyable it is. The artsThe arts are, of
course, ideal for cultivating such involvement. Education in the West is
extremely left brain dominated. If you look back to your school days, it is
pretty clear that something like ninety per cent or more of your time was
directed to developing left brain functions. A muscle that goes unused becomes
flabby and loses its ability to function effectively. The same applies to the
nerves. Your right brain has had very little conscious
exercise. Music, theatre and even sport can involve much more the right brain,
and so exercise that very part of you which is used in hypnosis. A good actor or
actress takes on the character that they are portraying. They suspend their own
identity, their own self (or at least the one they assume in everyday life). The
more they become that person the more believable they are and so the more you as
a watcher of the movie become absorbed in the drama. This feature of
portraying another person is not just reserved for actors and actresses. We all
do it throughout life. We all do it to some extent when we present to other
people different parts of our own character. The man at work may be different
from the man at home, and both may be different from the man who socialises in
the local pub. A woman may present one aspect of her character when at home but
quite a different one when having a night out with her female friends. At home
she may be the boring, straight housewife, but when out she portrays the
seductive woman who likes to enjoy herself. These ‘games people play’ (to
use FantasizingAn important feature
for hypnotizability is the capacity to fantasize. This is not only a suppression
of the self, but it involves also a suspension of reality. This is most obvious
to people who enjoy reading science fiction novels or fantasy novels. The same
applies to interest in such movies. In reading these or watching such movies,
they may not identify with any of the characters, but rather simply become
absorbed in the fantasy. Such absorption, such involvement, can occur to varying
degrees depending on how well the reader or watcher can suspend reality and
enter the world that is being created by the author or director. One important
aspect of this suspension of reality is that the pleasure or pain is immediate
to the reader or the person watching the movie. For instance, the reader may be
reading about the past, the present, or even some unknown place at an unknown
time, but they are experiencing the feelings created by the writer immediately.
This is even more so when watching a film. When watching Star Wars, for example, the time is ‘a long time ago’ and ‘in
a far off galaxy’, but the emotion felt is here and now. This is worth
commenting on further. Reality testing is a
feature of the left hemisphere of the brain. One of the points about reality
testing is that the brain compares any incoming information with what it has
already encountered in the past with regard to the environment. If you begin
reading about a hobbit, as in The Lord
of the Rings, then there is no reality to compare this against because it is
unreal. You can process the information in a logical fashion by comparing it
with previous occasions where you have read about a hobbit. But this is a
process of analysis and not what you want when you read a novel. The right
hemisphere of the brain, however, does not require any reality to carry out its
functions. It merely responds to images that are created in the mind. More to
the point, the responses are immediate: you are sad now, happy now and joyful
now. You cannot delay an emotion. You can delay a decision, which is a feature
of the left hemisphere of the brain (and largely the frontal lobe), but you
cannot delay an emotion, which is a feature of the right hemisphere of the
brain. Part of the reason for this is that when you have an emotion your body
must be activated in a way that is consistent with the emotion. Breathing may
alter, hormonal activity may alter and blood pressure may change. These changes
can be activated by an image in the right hemisphere of the brain. The right
hemisphere does not question whether the image is real or whether the
environment that is being suggested actually exits. It simply responds. This is
why a number of writers consider that the subconscious mind operates like a
psycho-cybernetic. A faulty image, or different image of our selves, will create
body responses and conscious responses consistent with such an image. So when a
person is reading a science fiction novel or fantasy story they can become
emotionally involved in it if they can suppress the reality testing of the left
hemisphere of the brain. By so doing they enjoy the story or the movie much
more. Other involvementsJosephine Hilgard
considers a number of other involvements that help hypnotizability. Religious
commitment appears to engender quite a different aspect that facilitates
hypnosis. A person who is religiously committed practises belief and also allows
himself or herself to be subject to authority. To some extent this is true of
people in the armed forces, nurses and students. Hilgard has the following to
say about religious involvement. Here
we have the interplay of identification, of joyful participation, of basic
trust, of respect for benevolent authority. With these attitudes engendered in
early childhood and continued with institutional and parental support, it is
easy to accept the demands of hypnosis, the confidence in trusted authority, the
lack of questioning when unfamiliar elements are introduced into prosaic
reality. Hilgard considers also
the adventurer as a path to hypnosis. These are individuals who are willing to
tolerate danger and disapproval in order to explore the unknown, who have a
curiosity about the ranges of human experiences. These experiences may be
physical in nature, such as skiing, skydiving and mountain climbing (basically
non-competitive sports in which the experience gives rise to immediate emotion);
or they may be mental, such as taking drugs, having their fortunes told or
experimenting in expanded mind consciousness. They all have in common the desire
for a new and different experience beyond the ordinary, whether physical or
mental. What does appear to be the case is a rise in the number of people
engaging in ‘mental games’, and what Conclusions drawnAll these different paths to hypnosis activate, in one way or another,
the right hemisphere of the brain. What appears on the surface to be a different
collection of human experiences, on more detailed observation turns out to be
simply different attributes and functions of the right hemisphere of the brain.
Once again, this does not mean that if you lose yourself in reading a novel, or
you are an actor taking on the role of someone else, or that you are religious
and an adventurer, that you will automatically enter hypnosis. It only means that you can, other
things being equal, enter hypnosis with more ease than if you were none of
these. What can the self-hypnotist learn from these investigations?
|
