Hypnotism - Estabrooks, George

7
HYPNOTISM
By.
G. H. ESTABROOKS
E. P. DUTTON & CO., INC

N ew Y ork 194^
COPYRIGHT, 1943
BY £ . P . DUTTON 4 CO., IN C
All rights reserved
*>
N o part of this book may be reproduced in any form
without permission in writing from the publisher,
except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief pas
sages in connection with a review written for inclu
sion in magazine or newspaper or radio broadcast.
First Printing....................... June, 1943

Second Printing............November, 1943
Third Printing........................May, 1944
Fourth Printing..............February, 1945
Fifth Printing.......... ..November, 1945
Sixth Printing................. October, 1946
feinted in th e united states of amxsica
Lt*tsbi.blu>tckct.
B s A fâ .* K jebfnJiA vn. N .
Dedicated to
DR. G. B. CU TTEN
Former President of Colgate University
and an American pioneer
in tlie field of hypnotism
PR EFA C E
IN CE the days of Count Mesmer, discoverer of “mesmer

ism”, the name originally given to the strange condition
of the mind which we now call the hypnotic trance, this
mysterious force has been exploited and discredited by pretence,
preposterous claims and charlatanry.
The author believes that nothing but harm can come of allow
ing such an important field of human experience to remain
shadowed by popular ignorance and suspicion. Genuine Hyp
notism actually stands in the same category as chemistry,
physics or mathematics. It is based on definite basic laws and
principles which have been discovered by patient experiment
and research; and just as astronomy has evolved from the
superstitions of astrology, and chemistry from the medieval
search for the magical “philosopher’s stone” , so Hypnotism has
evolved from the “mesmerism” of the eighteenth and nine
teenth centuries into a true science, a branch of the great sub
ject of the human brain and human consciousness. The main
facts and rules on which the science of Hypnotism are based
are known to all competent students of the subject, just as the
general laws of chemistry are known to chemistry students; and
those general laws of Hypnotism are popularly presented in this
book.
There are, however, certain specific and highly technical ap
plications of these rules which are unsuited for presentation in
detail in a popular book, and these the author has had to touch
on lightly, especially on the practical use of Hypnotism in mod
em warfare. The intelligent reader of Chapter 8, “Hypnotism
in W arfare”, will sense that much more is withheld than has
been told, but as much has been revealed as is compatible with
public interest, or, in fact, as is possible under present circum
stances, when this country is at war.
CONTENTS
Chop*** jPocf
I TH E INDUCTION OF H Y P N O T IS M ....................................... 13
II MORE COMMON P H E N O M E N A ............................................... 41
in THE POSTII YPNOTIC SUGGESTION AND AUTO

SUGGESTION ................................................................................. 70
IV SOME CURIOUS STATES IN EVERYDAY LIFE WHICH

ARE DUE TO H Y P N O T I S M ....................................................... 90
V T H E BASIC NATURE OF H Y P N O T IS M ................................117
VI m e d ic a l u s e s o f h y p n o t i s m ............................................. 140
v ii h y p n o t is m in c r i m e ................................................................ 165
VIII HYPNOTISM IN W A R F A R E .......................................................... 185
IX THIS MAN HITLER ........................................................................2 0 6
X CONCLUSIONS....................................... 228
INDEX 247
Chapter 1
THE INDUCTION OP HYPNOTISM
E R H A PS the best approach to an understanding of

hypnotism is through the popular but somewhat unscien
tific idea of the unconscious mind. For example, we all
have friends who walk in their sleep, in some cases performing
feats of balancing on narrow balconies which would be impos
sible in the waking state. When they awaken, they have no
knowledge of what ltas happened yet their bodies were certainly
under control of some directing force.
Better as an illustration is the man who talks in his sleep. At
times we can enter into conversation with him. If we are care
ful and know how to proceed, he will talk just as sanely and
often far more frankly than when awake. Yet when we do
awaken him, his mind is a blank as to what has occurred.
Again, it would appear that something must be guiding his
thoughts during this period of conversation. We will call this
“something” the unconscious mind, a very convenient name for
our own ignorance, and a concept we will have to examine much
more carefully in later pages.
This last example provides us with an excellent introduction
to our subject, for the individual who talks in his sleep and
answers questions is really hypnotized. In fact, this is one
recognized method of producing the trance, namely by chang
ing normal sleep into hypnotic sleep. The skilled hypnotist can
generally take the sleep-walker or sleep-talker and shift him
directly over into deep hypnotism without either the knowl
edge or the consent of his subject.
Let us see what appears to happen in such a case. When we
are in the normal waking condition, the conscious mind is run
ning the body. We act, talk, and think as we please, although
13
14 HYPNOTISM
such a statement implies “free will," a very controversial point

which we will avoid in this book as of only theoretical interest.
But in deep hypnotism this conscious mind of ours has been
dethroned. Our actions are now under the will of the operator
who controls our activities and deals directly with the so-called
unconscious mind.
If he tells us there is a black dog standing by our chair, we
will see the animal dearly and pet it. We will hear a symphony
orchestra at his suggestion and describe the pieces being ren
dered. He may suggest we are Abraham Lincoln and we will
give his Gettysburg Address or he may tell us that we have
absolutely no feeling in our jaws, that the dentist is about to
pull a tooth and W'e will feel no pain. H e may even throw' the
whole thing into the future, saying that tomorrow at four p . m .
no matter where we are, we will suddenly see a black dog at our
side, will pet him and lead him home.
So the first concept we get of hypnotism is that curious
picture of an unconscious mind controlled by the conscious
mind of the operator. The subject will accept any suggestion
the operator gives, within certain limits which we will con
sider in later pages.
In fact, suggestion, appears to be the key of hypnotism. It is
the method by which the hypnotist first gains his control and
unseats the normal conscious mind. After this, he finds that his
only way of controlling the subject is again through suggestion,
for the subject left to himself will generally do nothing at all.
H e acts and behaves as if in normal sleep.
This unconscious mind is much nearer the surface in some
people than in others. While the average reader thinks of
hypnotism only in terms of the deepest stage or somnambulism,
there are actually many degrees of the trance. Only one person
in every five has the unconscious so accessible that the con
scious can be completely unseated and the operator deal directly
with the unconscious. Yet wc find evidences of true hypnotic
phenomena in almost everybody.
T H E INDUCTION OF HYPNOTISM 15
Let us follow the procedure of the operator as he induces

hypnosis. This will serve to show all these various states and
at the same time illustrate one method of inducing hypnosis,
the method most in favor with the psychologist, who prefers
the quiet of his laboratory to the stage of the “professional.”
Suggestion is his key and relaxation makes the subject more
open to suggestion. So, first of all, he has his subject seated
comfortably in a chair or reclining on a couch. Then he “talks
sleep.” The subject is asked to close his eyes and the operator
begins somewhat as follows.
“You are falling sound asleep. Relax all your muscles and
imagine that you are going into a deep sleep. Deeper and
deeper. You will not wake up until I tell you, then you will
wake up quietly and you will always fee! fine as a result of these
suggestions. You are falling sound, sound asleep. Deeper and
deeper, deeper and deeper.” The hypnotist continues this for
mula for about five minutes and then tries the first and simplest
test.
"Listen to me. Your eyelids are locked tightly together.
Tight? Tight! Tight! Your eyelids are locked tightly together
and you cannot open your eyes no matter how hard you may
try, Your eyelids are locked tightly together and you cannot
open them. You may try. I dare you!” *
Then something very carious may happen. The subject is
still wide “awake” in the sense that his conscious mind hears
everything and remembers everything afterward. Yet for some
reason or other he cannot get those eyes open, struggle as he
will. He seems to forget which muscles to use, and raises his
eyebrows in hopeless efforts to succeed. The operator is getting
his first control over the unconscious and this control we can
see progressing in definite steps. It is much easier, for example,
to influence certain small muscle groups, say the eyes or the
throat, than larger muscles as those in the arms or legs, while
any attempt to get hallucinations—visions—at this stage would
almost certainly fail.
16 HYPNOTISM
We will find that, on this first trial, roughly one half of the
subjects cannot open the eyes, while this percentage improves
as we repeat attempts at hypnosis. In the long run, after, say
a dozen trials, about ninety per cent of humanity will reach
the stage when they cannot open their eyes.
The remaining ten per cent will generally report that they
feel rested, relaxed, or sleepy, but will deny any real effects.
Probably this feeling of relaxation and general sleepiness should
be considered as one of the hypnotic phenomena at this very
early stage, but it is hard to demonstrate, whereas eye-closure
is quite definite.
However, we must note that whereas the hypnotist can get
this closing of the eyes in ninety per cent of humanity, this does
not necessarily mean that he can go any farther with his sug
gestions. He may and again he may not. That seems to depend
almost entirely on the subject. There are many of these in
whom it is easy to induce eye-closure, but quite impossible to
get any tests which indicate a deeper stage of hypnotism. No
matter how hard the hypnotist may try he can make no progress
beyond this very elementary state and psychology is quite at a
loss to explain why. Susceptibility to hypnosis seems to depend
on certain personality traits which we do not know and cannot
influence.
Should the hypnotist succeed in this first test with the eyes,
he may proceed at once to one which indicates a somewhat
deeper state, such as stiffening of the arm. H e will end eye-
closure and continue somewhat as follows.
“ Now, relax everything. Relax your eye muscles. They are
returning to normal. You are sound, sound asleep and will not
awaken until I tell you. Then you will awaken quietly and
easily. Relax everything. I am now about to make another test.
Your right arm is becoming stiff and rigid at your side. Stiff
and rigid. The muscles are tightening up. It is stiff and rigid
as an iron bar. Stiff and rigid. You cannot bend your right arm.
It is impossible to bend your right arm. You may try. I dare
you.”
Once again we may see that weird condition in which the

patient is quite helpless to meet the challenge. He jerks the arm
around with a curious sort of tremor and does his best, but
his best produces no results. The arm remains stiff and rigid.
Or he may meet the challenge quite successfully, relax his
arm and open his eyes. In this case he has broken any influence
we might have had. But even if he cannot bend his arm, this
fact guarantees nothing as to his going deeper. As in the case
of eye-closure, he may be wide awake and remember everything
perfectly after the seance. The suggestions of the hypnotist
have been successful up to this point. Beyond it he may be
quite unable to make further progress.
If successful, another test is in order. Various operators will
use different tests in different sequences but the idea is the
same at this early stage, namely to involve larger and larger
groups of muscles in these induced paralyses. The next move
might easily be something like this. First of all we must remove
the effects of the previous test. So we say :
"Relax, relax your right arm. It is returning to normal.
Your right arm is resting quietly at your side and there is no
strain whatsoever. You are sound, sound asleep. Deeper and
deeper. Deeper and deeper. You are losing all control over
your body. Your body is floating away and you can no longer
control your muscles. For example, it is quite impossible for
you to stand up. You are stuck in your chair and it is quite
impossible for you to stand erect. You may try but you cannot.
I dare you.”
And the subject either does or he does not. H e may pull
himself together, even if the other tests have succeeded, open
his eyes and stagger to his feet. On the other hand, he may
make ineffective efforts to arise, then decide it is useless and
relax in hîs chair.
In all these early stages of hypnotism we notice a curious
lethargy, an unwillingness on the subject’s part to exert him
self. Very frequently, when we dare the subject to open his
18 HYPNOTISM
eyes, bend his arm or stand up, he makes no effort whatsoever.

If we question him afterward, we find that he heard the chal
lenge, was certain that he could move the muscles in question
if he wished to, but he just couldn’t be bothered to try. He was
feeling quite comfortable and wished to remain so.
This must be listed as one of the earliest and best signs of
success in inducing the hypnotic trance. It is a very significant
cue which the experienced operator never overlooks, for it is
not what one would expect if there were no influence. For ex
ample, suppose a hypnotist goes up to a gentleman sitting quietly
in a hotel lobby and suddenly says:
“ Mr. Smith. You cannot stand up. Your legs are paralyzed.
No matter how hard you may try you cannot leave that chair.”
Mr. Smith, once he had recovered from his astonishment would
probably stand up immediately and call the hotel management
for protection against this madman.
But the hypnotic subject adopts an entirely different attitude.
Not only does he think the operator's actions quite reasonable,
but he makes no effort at all to assert his own independence.
This curious lethargy, found in many people, generally indicates
that the individual will become a good subject.
Should the operator be successful up to this point, he will
proceed with the next step. He has demonstrated, to his satis
faction, that he can control the voluntary muscles, small and
large, but this does not necessarily mean that he is dealing
with a good subject, a somnambulist. He still has several steps
to make. Next he will try automatic movements, talking to the
subject somewhat as follows:
“You are sound, sound asleep, going deeper and deeper.
Now, listen carefully. I am about to start your hands rotating
one around the other. Here they go, round and round, faster
and faster. Keep them moving. They are rotating faster and
faster, faster and faster. You cannot stop them. No matter how
hard you try, you cannot stop your hands from going around.”
As in the previous tests we may get any one of three re
actions. The subject may be able to resist the suggestion, stop

his hands, and remain quiet. Or he may simply allow them
to continue rotating, obviously making no effort to stop them.
This is the type of reaction we mentioned in which the subject
simply cannot be bothered to make the effort. Finally, he may
try unsuccessfully to stop them, stiffening up the muscles in all
sorts of curious ways, bumping his hands together, even gripping
his coat in an unsuccessful effort to bring the movement to
an end.
These automatic movements, as they are called, generally
indicate a fairly deep stage of hypnotism. For some reason,
they are much more difficult to obtain than mere paralysis or
stiffening of any muscle or muscle group. When obtained they
generally signify that the individual will be a very good sub
ject, but this is not always the case. As before, many subjects
will come to even this state of hypnosis and go no farther. The
conscious mind refuses to relinquish its control and the subject
will awake, quite aware of everything that has taken place.
This type of enforced activity can apply to any set of muscles,
even those of speech. We can say to the subject, “ Repeat after
me the words ‘Mary had a little lamb.' Now repeat it by your
self. Keep it up. You cannot stop it. You must keep repeating
that sentence.” And, in many cases, the subject will do as we
have suggested.
If the operator has met with success up to this point, he will
now suspect that he has a really good subject with which to
deal and will try for somnambulism, the deepest form of the
hjpnotic trance. After he has convinced himself that the auto
matic movements are genuine or that the subject is too deep in
hypnosis to even make ihc effort to resist, he may proceed
somewhat as follows:
“Now I am going to ask you a few very simple questions.
You are sound asleep and will answer me in your sleep, talking
as you have heard many of your friends talk in their sleep. You
will not wake up and will have no trouble at all in answering
20 HYPNOTISM
my questions.” It is always well to repeat instructions several

times so as to be sure that the subject understands.
Then the operator will ask some very simple questions,
such as:
“Tell me, wliat is your home address?" “ Where were you
on your vacation last summer?” "H ew many brothers and
sisters have you?”
Questions which have any emotional tone or which the sub
ject may be unwilling to answer for any reason whatsoever
should be carefully avoided at this early stage. The subject may
easily awaken from this first light trance, have a vague memory
of what has happened and refuse to have anything more to do
with hypnotism. Even if he does not remember what has oc
curred, the unpleasantness of the situation may still hang over
in a vague sort of way, and make it difficult to obtain full co
operation in the future.
Next, the operator may decide to have the subject stand
up and walk around the room. This is accomplished by means
of suggestion, which is the key to hypnotism. “ You will now
stand up. You will not wake up until I tell you, but will stand
up, walking in your sleep as you have undoubtedly seen many
sleep walkers. You will find no difficulty at all in using your
muscles but will remain sound asleep. Now, stand up." And
the operator helps the subject to his feet. Should the subject
not wake up under this last test, we may be pretty sure that he
is now in somnambulism, although a few subjects will cooperate
very nicely up to this point but awaken when asked to move
about. They may even walk around, obviously in hypnotism
and still retain a fairly clear memory of what has happened
after the seance is completed.
In general, we accept the hallucination as the final test of
hypnotism. We can hallucinate any of the senses but the most
common type is that of sight, the “vision.” We proceed some
what as follows:
“liste n carefully. When I give the word you will open your
eyes but you will not wake up. You are still walking in your
sleep. You wilt not wake up. You will see standing on the table
jn front oE you a very friendly black cat. You will go over, pet
the cat, then lift it up carefully and put it on the chair in which
you have been seated.” We repeat these instructions several
times, then say, "Now open your eyes. Open your eyes. There
is the cat.”
This test is more or less crucial. The subject must lie in deep
somnambulism if he is to be subject to these hallucinations or
visions. Should he not see the cat, then the shock of opening
his eyes will probably awaken him completely and the seance is
over. Should he really have a vision of the cat, his actions will
be characteristic. H e will pet the animal and play with it in so
convincing a fashion that the operator need have no doubt as
to what has really happened. The subject is in deep somnam
bulism and will remember nothing on awakening.
Actually there can be many a curious twist which will deceive
even a trained hypnotist. The writer was demonstrating hypno
tism before a group of medical students. The time was short,
so it was agreed that he would take one of the men and simply
go through the motions. The subject would cooperate and take
the tests to the best of his ability, simply to provide a demon
stration for the others of how hypnotism was produced.
We ran through the tests rapidly right up to hallucinations.
Here the writer said to the subject, "N ow open your eyes.
There is an apple in my hand. Take it and eat it.” The subject
promptly opened his eyes, grinned, and said, "There’s a worm
in it.” The operator took it for granted he was wide awake,
asked him to sit down and continued his talk.
But when he dismissed the group, his demonstration subject
remained seated, with his eyes wide open but unable to move.
"Wake me up, will you,” he said. " I can’t move.” So the
operator waked him up in proper fashion. The operator must
never take anything for granted in hypnotism, but must be quite
certain that his subject is wide awake before leaving.
22 HYPNOTISM
This is a very important point in technique. Let us suppose

that the subject has arrived at somnambulism and the hypnotist
wishes to end the seance. He awakens the subject by some
such incans as the following: “I will now count to five. By the
time I get to five you will be wide awake and feeling fine. Wide
awake and feeling fine. One, you are waking u p ; two, you are
waking up; three, you are almost awake; four, you are nearly
awake; five, you are awake."
Even if the subject should awaken by himself in any of the
tests leading up to somnambulism, it is nevertheless a good
plan, after he opens his eyes, to assure him, "All right, you're
awake now. Wide awake and feeling fine.” This very simple
precaution may appear a little silly in many cases but it is always
well to be sure.
We hear a great deal about the subject refusing to awaken
from hypnotism. This appears to be a continual dread of people
who are learning to hypnotize. W hat do they do if the subject
will not awaken ? If tire operator will follow some such technique
as we have outlined, this problem will never present itself.
Throughout the entire seance we keep stressing the idea, “You
will not wake up until you are told. Then you will awaken
quietly and easily.”
Should the patient refuse to awaken—the writer lias never
had such a case— the proper procedure is to allow him to remain
quietly in the trance. The hypnotic "sleep” will change over to
natural sleep and sooner or later the subject will awaken by
himself. But experience will soon teach the operator that his
real problem is to get his subject into hypnotism, not get him
out of it.
That is the reason we insert the phrase. “You will not wake
up until you are told.” Some subjects have the habit, why we
do not know, of suddenly opening their eyes in the very midst
of the seance and awakening completely. They seem just as
surprised as the operator, but undoubtedly there is some very
good reason for this state of affairs. The following case is a
good example.
The writer was hypnotizing a young man who gave all the
signs of being an excellent subject. Everything went very nicely
umil the operator said, "I am now going to ask you a few
simple questions which you will answer.” Immediately, the
subject was wide awake, trembling violently with every sign
of intense fear. This was odd, so the operator repeated the
seance with exactly the same result.
Then the explanation dawned on him. So the next time,
before asking any questions, lie said, ' ‘Listen carefully. There
is nothing to fear. I am in no way interested in your private
affairs. I wish to ask you a few very simple questions simply
to show that you are in touch with me, that you are listening to
me. If you do not wish to answer any particular question, just
shake your head, but I assure you that I am not going to ask
intentionally any question which could possibly embarrass you.
Is that clear ?”
He nodded his head and everything progressed in proper
order from that point. Obviously it was the proverbial case of
the guilty conscience. The subject feared the operator was
going to pry into his secrets and awakened in order to protect
himself.
The writer has described the hypnotic technique most used
in the psychological laboratory but there are endless variations
to this particular procedure, and several other entirely different
techniques which are equally effective.
W ith this particular attack, for example, many operators
prefer to start with die subject’s eyes wide open, waiting until
he closes them from natural fatigue. So far as the writer can
see, it makes very little difference if we start with the eyes open
or closed. He prefers to start with them closed.
Then the writer himself would not use the technique as he
has outlined it. H e awakens the subject after each test and
starts all over again. A much slower approach, to be sure, but
one which gives the operator ample opportunity to size up his
subject and adopt his attack to any peculiarities the subject
may have. We will see later that, on occasion, subjects do
24 HYPNOTISM
curious things which can be very disconcerting to an operator,

t he writer prefers his slower, more deliberate approach because
it enables him to meet these peculiarities at the earliest possible
moment. But most operators would consider him overcautious.
1he writer also would never spend more than five minutes at
any one seance in this early stage of the game, but he knows of
excellent operators who will hammer right along for one hour
if necessary in an effort to get somnambulism at the very first
effort. And, of course, operators may vary the order of the
tests and use different muscle groups. Speech muscles instead of
eyes, inability to move a leg as opposed to an arm, or other
substitutions.
But it all adds up to the same thing. If we use the "sleeping”
technique the approach js slow, calm, and monotonous. The
reader will note a complete absence of many things which
popular opinion links with the hypnotist. We have described
a procedure which anyone can master. There is no mention at
all of “will power,” for it has nothing to do with hypnotism.
The operator does not dominate the weaker will of his subject
and beat him into submission with his "dark, hypnotic eye.”
Quite the contrary. He does his best to persuade the subject to
cooperate, making it quite clear that success is very difficult
without this cooperation on the part of the individual in ques
tion. We will see later that a subject can very easily be hypno
tized against his will but that this again has nothing to do with
will power on the part of the operator.
We have not mentioned the famous hypnotic pass because
this also is quite unnecessary, a hang-over from those early
days of hypnotism during American Revolutionary times when
Mesmer was passing his “magnetic fluid” into the bodies of
his patients, and Benjamin Franklin with others in Paris was
exposing Mesmer as a fraud.
Nor are there any special, intricate techniques which have to-
be mastered, Hypnotism has nothing of mystery in its nature.
A small corner of science, it is open to all who are willing to
use the necessary care in mastering a technique and persistence

in applying the same.
In America we have been a little unfortunate in our introduc
tion to hypnotism. Most of us have made its acquaintance via
the stage and the “professional,” whereas in Europe these pub
lic exhibitions of hypnotism are generally not allowed. As a
result we find there in almost every town of any size some
doctor who is an authority on the subject and uses it as needed
in his practice.
But with us the medical profession fights shy of hypnotism,
knowing full well that any individual who starts using hypno
tism in his practice becomes associated in the public’s mind
with the stage artist, the quack. Even his companions in medi
cine look on him as a little queer, so that in America hypnotism
has died a very natural death, so far as medicine is concerned
However, this very neglect on the part of the doctor has turned
out for the best. It has forced hypnotism back into the psycholog
ical laboratory where the psychologist, with a much greater
range of interest than his medical compatriot, has been doing
some very excellent work during the past twenty years.
For the time being, however, this public prejudice is still
very strong. The writer is especially anxious to present hypno
tism to the reader as a branch of science quile divorced from
mystery and from the supernatural. Certainly nothing we have
presented in our technique for inducing hypnotism savors of
the “black art” and we can assure the reader that the following
pages will be just as free of any suggestion of the mystic
There are many ways of producing the seance, so let us
examine a technique at the opposite extreme from that we have
described. The stage hypnotist breaks every condition which
would seem to be necessary to the psychologist in his laboratory,
but, strange to say. he is just as successful as is the true scientist.
“The brighter the lights, the bigger the crowd, the better the
success” as one professional put it. Obviously, then, quiet and
relaxation are not necessary to the induction of hypnosis.
26 HYPNOTISM
The following is fairly typical of the technique employed by

the stage performer. He lias the subject stand erect with his
feet close together and proceeds somewhat as follows: “ Stand
erect and listen carefully to my voice. Close your eyes. Just
imagine that yatt are a board standing on end. You are a board
standing on end and you are falling back. You are falling back
ward into my arms. Falling back, back, back. Let yourself go.
I will catch you. You are falling back, back, back. You are
losing your balance and are falling backward." At this point
the subject generally loses his balance and does tall backward.
The operator promptly stands him on his feet again and at
once returns to the attack, this time standing in front of the
subject. “ Ix>ok into my eyes and clasp your hands together.
Clasp your hands together firmly. Make an effort and put some
muscle into those fingers. Clasp your hands together firmly,
firmly. Your hands are locked together. Your hands are locked
tightly together. You cannot take your hands apart no matter
how hard you may try. Your hands are locked firmly together.
I dare you. You cannot take your hands apart."
If he is dealing with a good subject the hands will be stuck
together and it will be impossible for him to take them apart
So the hypnotist proceeds at once. “All right. Relax. You can
take your hands apart. Keep looking in my eyes. Now open
your mouth. Stiffen up your jaw muscles. Your jaws are stiff
and locked in place. It is impossible for you to close your jaws.
Absolutely impossible. You cannot pronounce your own name.
Your jaws are locked in place and you cannot pronounce your
own name. It is impossible for you to pronounce your own
name. All right. Relax."
The hypnotist gives his subject no time to recover his poise,
but returns to the attack at once. “ Keep looking into my eyes.
Stiffen out your right leg. Stiffen it out. Your right leg is stiff
and rigid. You cannot move it. You cannot take even one step
forward. Your right leg is stiff, rigid, and useless. You are
rooted to the ground. You cannot move. All right, relax.”
T H E IN DU CTION OF H YPN OTISM 27
But the operator gives him no time to relax. Immediately

he begins on his next move. “ Close your eyes. The lids are
locked tightly together. You cannot open your eyes. They are
firmly closed. You are now falling backward into my arms.
Let yourself go. You are falling back into my arms.” The sub
ject falls backward and the operator eases him down onto the
floor or into a chair, and continues.
“You are asleep. Sound, sound asleep, just as if you have
taken chloroform or ether. You are sound, sound asleep.
Deeper and deeper. Deeper and deeper. You are sound, sound
asleep.” The operator continues in this vein for a minute or
two, then at once shifts the subject over to active somnambulism.
“Stand up. You are sound asleep, walking in your sleep.
Now open your eyes, but remain asleep. Look. There is an
elephant standing over there. Here is a gun.” He hands the
subject a broom. “ Now, go stalk the elephant. Remember he is
a dangerous beast and you must take advantage of every bit
of cover.” Thereupon the subject proceeds to creep up on the
supposed elqihant, hiding behind chairs, tables or bits of scenery
until he finally shoots the animal with a loud “bang” and
proceeds to examine the corpse.
From this point the professional will probably go through
the usual stage procedure, have his subject fish for whales in
a goldfish jar, bark all around the stage on all fours, give a
Fourth of July speech and finally awaken his very embarrassed
subject just as he is about to remove most of his clothes. It is
this sort of thing which has given hypnotism such a bad name
with the average American, who always feels that somehow
it is linked with sleight of hand and “magic” in general.
We may condemn the stage artist for bringing the subject
into such disrepute, but we must admit that he gets results.
The reader will also be impressed with the fact that his method
of attack stands out in sharp contradiction to that previously
described in almost every respect. Those conditions of quiet
relaxation on which the psychologist insists are conspicuous by
28 HYPNOTISM
their absence. Nor is he in any way worried about having the

cooperation of his victim. After the first half minute he runs
things his own way, outraging the subject’s dignity and good
taste in every possible manner.
It is well to bear this stage technique in mind when we con
sider the real nature of hypnotism in Chapter Ilf. Most psy
chologists are either unfamiliar with his technique or ignore it
completely. If they numbered one or two of these professionals
among their friends, they would not fall into some very com
mon errors as to theory.
The stage operator will vary this technique indefinitely but
his underlying theme is always the same. A high pressure at
tack which more or less aims at throwing the subject off
balance. Then a rapid and continuous follow-up which does
not give the subject time to recover himself. But we should
note that, for all his extravagant claims, he ends with just the
same proportion of somnambulists as does the psychologist;
namely, one in five.
The two techniques we have described up to the present, with
their endless variations, represent those most commonly used
to induce hypnotism, but there are others. One, for example,
simply aims at transforming natural sleep into the hypnotic
variety. The method of procedure here is somewhat as follows:
The operator seats himself beside the sleeping subject and
begins talking în a very low voice. “Listen to me. I am talking
to you and you will answer in your sleep. You will talk to me
in your sleep just as you have often heard others talk, but you
will not wake up. You arc sound asleep but you hear my voice
clearly in your unconscious mind.’’ The operator gradually
raises his voice, puts Ins hand on the subject's head to further
attract attention, and when his voice has risen to normal volume,
say after five minutes, he asks the subject some very simple
question, such as “ Where do you live?”
In general, the operator has to press repeatedly for an answer
until one of two things happen. Either the subject awakens,
T H E IN DU CTION OF HYPNOTISM 29
and this will occur in four-fifths of the cases or the subject

starts talking in his sleep. When this occurs, the hypnotist
proceeds as he would with any other somnambulist, has the
subject stand up, walk around the room, open his eyes, see
hallucinations and finally return to tied with the suggestion
that he will sleep soundly until morning and awaken at the
usual time. For obvious reasons, this technique is very limited
in its possibilities for use, yet under certain conditions, as in a
hospital, it does present very definite advantages.
At this point it would be well to mention the "disguised"
technique. The reader will have noted that when the operator
ch a n g e s norma! sleep into the hypnotic trance, the subject lias
nothing to say in the matter. This raises the interesting and
very important question as to whether anyone can be hypno
tized against his will and the answer îs "certainly.” If we
wished, we could quibble as to whether transfer from sleep to
trance was hypnotism “against the will” or only hypnotism
"without the consent” of the subject. Not a very important
point because the subject may definitely refuse to have any
thing to do with hypnosis in his waking state yet this sleep
transfer method would still work. This, it seems, would be
definitely against his will.
However, there are certain places in which hypnotism might
be used where it would have to be employed without the con
sent of the hypnotized. Such would be the use of hypnotism in
the detection of crime or in warfare. A prisoner in jail or after
a battle certainly would not willingly cooperate with the hypno
tist if he knew the operator was after information which might
send him to the electric chair or which would put him in the
light of a traitor to his country
So here we employ the disguised technique. We hypnotize
the subject without his realizing what is happening. We ask
his cooperation in a harmless little psychological experiment
using some piece of psychological apparatus as a front behind
which to work. Perhaps the simplest is the device for measuring
30 HYPNOTISM
blood pressure. We explain to the subject that we wish to test

his ability to relax, and we can measure this by his blood
pressure. That sounds very reasonable so we fix the rubber
band on his arm, tell him to dose his eyes and relax all his
muscles.
We further explain that, of course, the deepest form of relaxa
tion is sleep, and that if the subject can fall asleep it will show
that he has perfect control over his nervous system. Then we
proceed to “ talk sleep" much the same as in hypnotism, being
careful to avoid any references to trances, seances or hypnotism,
and omitting all tests except one. After five minutes, during
which period we have checked several times on the blood pres
sure to keep up the delusion, we tell the subject that we would
like to see if he can talk in his sleep, since this represents the
very deepest form of relaxation. If he does, he is in deep
hypnosis. If he does not, no one is any the wiser as to what has
actually been taking place. We repeat this little experiment
several times until we have obtained results or convinced our
selves that no results are to be obtained.
Should the authorities ever decide to use hypnotism exten
sively either in the detection of crime or in warfare, this dis
guised technique may prove extremely valuable. Not only is it
just as effective as any other mode of attack, but it is of such
a nature that very few laymen would recognize it as anything
other than what it purports to be; namely, an experiment to
measure ability at relaxation. Moreover, the apparatus used
can vary indefinitely. The so-called lie detector provides an
excellent screen behind which to work. The writer finds that
an ordinary watch with which to take pulse rate as a measure
of relaxation is quite as satisfactory.
The previous paragraphs also illustrate another very im
portant point in any consideration of hypnotism. Science is
eternally on the move, questioning, probing, inquiring. The
truth of yesterday may be false today. Many of the older
hypnotists, writing around 1900 were quite definite in their
assertions that no one could lie hypnotized against his will.

They were just as sure that hypnotism could not be used for
criminal purposes, and they were quite right, in so far as they
knew hypnotism.
But these early authorities were almost always medical men.
Their interest lay in treating the weaknesses of the human
machine. To them such questions were merely side issues, and
very unpleasant side issues at that. Hypnotism was unpopular,
Jinked in the public’s mind with black magic and mysticism.
Thcv felt it their duty to defend it at every turn. When faced
with these very unpleasant possibilities they settled the issue
with a few experiments which proved their own point, but
which are quite worthless from the viewpoint of modem
psychology. i
The subject, armed with a rubber knife, would gladly murder
his victim. Give him a steel knife, however, and he would recoil
in horror. The subject could not be hypnotized when he made
up his mind to resist, but was quite easily thrown into the trance
when he cooperated with the operator.
We will see, in later pages, that all this proves very little.
Hypnotism is now investigated in the laboratory by the scientist
He cares very little about the popularity of his subject and
insists on a thorough investigation of every question. To be
sure, the facts he unearths may be unpleasant. Hypnotism may
be a very dangerous thing in the hands of the unscrupulous, but
so is the aeroplane, the rifle, the disease germ. Science wishes
to know the facts. Once discovered, these truths are handed
over to the public. If that public uses the aeroplane to drop
bombs, rather than to carry passengers, the scientist is in no
way to blame. So with hypnotism. The psychologist seeks to
unearth the truth. That is his problem. The use to which his
discoveries may be put is something different again and some
thing for which he has no responsibility. j
Another most interesting way of inducing the trance is by
tneans of the victrola record. The operator simply dictates his
32 HYPNOTISM
technique to the record, plays this back to the subject and the
record will put the subject into hypnotism just as well as will
the voice of the hypnotist. A very neat example of how little
"will power," passes, and hypnotic eyes have to do with the
trance. About as nonmystic a procedure as anyone could wish.
The writer prepared one of the first of these records with
the assistance of the Victor people and it is now marketed
through tire Marietta Apparatus Company. Many others have
since made their appearance, all good and generally intended
for some specific purpose. It is now so very easy to record the
human voice that there will undoubtedly be a great future for
this technique. The operator will prepare a definite record for
a particular subject, instruct him how to use it and literally
apply absent treatment in the best sense of the word.
Yet we must bear in mind that this use of hypnotic records
has very definite limitations. The record is excellent for pur
poses of instruction, which was the reason for its first appear
ance. It is very useful for experimental work, where the psy-.
chologist in his laboratory wishes to be sure that his subjects
are receiving exactly the same instructions as are those in the-
laboratory of a colleague 1,000 miles away. It can even be used
to induce hypnotism the very first time.
But the operator should always be present, for very naturally
no record, no matter how skillfully devised, can meet the various
emergencies which arise when we induce the trance. Some
subjects tend to become hysterical, some even show a disposi
tion to go into convulsions and some others are difficult to
awaken. The victrola record cannot handle these situations.
However, there may be a real use for this technique after the
subject has been hypnotized several times. Then it might be
very useful from the medical angle, when the subject is being
treated for, say, alcoholism or stammering. The doctor might
very easily prepare a record for such a subject, aimed at re-'
in forcing and repeating suggestions already given in the hyp-’
notic trance. Such a record would, of course, be so arranged that
it would also awaken the subject from the trance. This could
T H E IN DU CTION OF HYPNOTISM 33
very easily be arranged and would be a great convenience to

both subject and doctor. Hypnotism is notoriously time Con
suming and any device which could meet this objection might
make it far more acceptable to the average medical man. We
will deal more fully with these proposals in a later chapter.
There is always that v e ry interesting possibility of hypnotism
over the radio. While wc do not have the slightest doubt that
certain members of the radio audience coutd be thrown into the
genuine trance by a hypnotist using such a means of contact,
die whole thing îs impractical. The operator is too far removed
from his various subjects and should anything go amiss the
chances for trouble, including lawsuits, would he infinite.
It is very possible that in future some enterprising company
may devote a period to broadcasting health suggestions, which
the audience will accept in the relaxed state and which might
be very helpfuL But this is only a possibility and something
for the future. U p to the present nothing has been done. The
proposal is open to many practical objections.
In future pages the writer will point out that we are often
quibbling over words. H itler is an excellent hypnotist, and we
really mean that statement to be taken seriously. We will see
that his technique is almost identical with that of the stage
hypnotist, that the underlying psychology is the same and the
results much more effective. T o be sure, there are differences,
but these differences are very superficial. So we do have hypno
tism of a very effective type over the radio but it bears another
label.
There has been a great deal of work done with drugs as an
aid to hypnosis, all to practically no end. It would seem reason
able to the reader that any good anaesthetic, say ether, should
make almost any person susceptible to hypnotism. The subject
is “unconscious" in both states so what gives one should pro
duce the other. Actually the subject is far from being uncon
scious, he is not “asleep" as so many people assume and all
our work with drugs appears to have been wasted effort
Perhaps drugs may still have a use în lowering resistance
34 HYPNOTISM
to the trance. Some people are very susceptible to hypnosis but,

for one reason or another, will not permit themselves to be
hypnotized. In certain rare cases it may be advisable to hypno
tize these people in spite of themselves. A light anaesthetic
might cause them to lower their guard, so to speak, or to relax
their antagonism. Then the operator might be able to induce
the trance state. However, such a proposal is purely in the realm
of theory. In so far as we are aware, there has been no exten
sive use of drugs along these lines.
The writer has also run across another curious proposal for
the induction of hypnotism. VVe have all heard a great deal
about jiu-jitsu, the famous Japanese technique of wrestling.
It lias been often reported that these experts were able to pro
duce unconsciousness simply by pressure on a certain neck
nerve. There seems to be no doubt of this and one of the
writer's friends contacted a jiu-jitsu man so as to work with
this lead. But apparently unconsciousness produced by such a
means has nothing to do with the hypnotic trance. After all,
there is no reason why it should, any more than any other form
of unconsciousness such as that caused by the blow from a base
ball bat or a boxing glove.
Still another intriguing possibility is the so-called animal
hypnotism. We know that all animals from insects right up
to apes can be “hypnotized/' and this appears to hold for every
individual animal of any given species. Man is an animal, so
why not man? It would appear that this animal hypnotism, or
catatonic immobility as it has been termed, has something to
do with fear. The accepted way to hypnotize a sheep, for ex
ample, is to suddenly pull its legs out from under it, hold the
animal firmly on the ground, then gradually relax the pressure.
The animal will remain quiet for up to half a minute, then will
recover with a jerk, shake itself and trot away. The same
general technique applies to other animals.
But, unfortunately, the human, as is so often the case, stands
in a class by himself. No one has yet discovered how to use
T H E INDUCTION OF HYPNOTISM 3i>
the technique of animal hypnotism on man. He simply does

not respond to these methods. And it really does not make
very much difference, because psychology has now decided that
animal hypnotism is something totally different from human
hypnotism. We will see later that even the great Russian
scientist, Pavlov, made the mistake of considering them identi
cal as have many others, but our latest research would indicate
they are quite different.
The scientist explores every possible lead. One of our fore
most physicists discovered that if tisli were placed in a magnetic
field they would promptly become immobile, with the nose
toward one pole, tail toward another. This looked like animal
hypnotism and a possible technique for human hypnotism. But
once again it did not work, this time because of the difficulties
of making a suitable apparatus.
The successful hypnotist, like any other man of science must
be somewhat of a fatalist. The laws of nature are not to be
changed by any human ingenuity. In so far as the induction of
hypnotism is concerned the law is one in five, at least in the
present state of our knowledge. One out of every five subjects
will, on the average, go into deep hypnosis or somnambulism
and no operator, whatever his skill can better this average.
Nor does it seem to make very much difference who does
the hypnotic work or what method he may choose 1o use. Need
less to say, skill plays a large part in hypnotizing but granted
an experienced operator results will lie much the same. A good
subject can be hypnotized by any operator using any method.
We will see later that there are curious exceptions. Also that
by using the post-hypnotic suggestion it is very simple to
arrange matters so that the very best subject cannot be hypno
tized by anyone with any technique. But our statement still
stands as does also the statement that many individuals cannot
be hypnotized by anyone, no matter how skillful the hypnotist
or how hard the subject may try to co-operate.
Needless to say, it would be of great advantage if we could
36 HYPNOTISM
discover beforehand who these very susceptible people are. The

operator would then save himself much wasted effort. How
docs he do it? The answer is unfortunately all too definite. It
cannot be done at least in the present stage of our work. We
know of no tests which will foretell with any degree of accuracy
which individuals will develop into really good subjects. Much
work is being tried along these lines and some research is yield
ing promising results, as that at the Harvard Psychological
Clinic. The fact remains, however, that we cannot as yet use
any tests here with anything like certainly.
We can, however, save ourselves a great deal of work if we
follow certain leads. In general, the individual who talks in
bis sleep will be a good subject. The person who walks in his
sleep, the ‘'natural'' somnambulist, will almost always go into
“artificial” somnambulism or deep hypnosis. The feeble
minded are notoriously hard to hypnotize, as are also some
classes of the insane, as the schizophrenics. But the hysteric on
the contrary is generally a very good subject. Children be
tween the ages of seven and twelve are excellent, the proportion
here running as high as four in five, as opposed to the one in
five average of normal adults,
This leaves us with no means at all of judging the suscepti
bility of the average adult. But we can still do considerable to
save ourselves time and trouble. We can use some of the
simplest tests of hypnosis as indicators. For example, the “sway”
technique helps us. Here we really borrow from the stage
hypnotist. The subject is asked to stand erect and we attach
to the top of his head a system of strings and wires which
measure accurately the sway of liis body. Then we ask him to
close his eyes, suggest to him that he is falling backward and
get an accurate measurement of just how far he does sway.
The speed and extent to which he accepts these suggestions
give us a fairly accurate picture as to his possibilities as a
subject.
Another rapid way of picking the good subject, in the
absence of any equipment, is simply to use the test of clasping

the hands, as mentioned previously. We begin by requesting
the subject to clasp his hands firmly together, and to imagine
as vividly as possible that they are locked together, that he
cannot take them a p a rt We reinforce this by our own sugges
tions that the hands are locked tightly together and once again
the difficulty he has in parting his hands gives us a fairly good
cue as to what will happen with more advanced tests.
However, the writer finds that the best wav to discover good
subjects is by using group hypnotism. He takes a group of about
a dozen individuals who wish to co-operate, seats them in chairs,
tells them to close their eyes and proceeds to talk sleep. Then
after a couple of minutes he dares them to open their eyes, and
notes results. The entire group is told to awaken—just a pre
caution as almost never will anyone go into trance at such
short notice—and next the operator asks them to clasp hands,
following this by the usual challenge. Then he stiffens out the
arms of the entire group and dares them to relax the arm
muscles. Finally, he starts their hands rotating and defies them
to stop the movement. After each test, of course, he assures
himself that everyone is w'ide awake.
The experienced operator can easily pick the good subjects
with such a technique, and have the whole thing over in ten
minutes. He observes these individuals who are continually in
difficulty when he challenges the group or who are too relaxed
to even make an effort. These he notes as future good subjects
and dismisses the group when he wishes. The only real difficulty
here is one of discipline. The whole procedure is pretty certain
to strike some member of the group as being very funny, but
a little experience will soon enable the operator to handle these
situations without offense to anyone.
A lazy man’s way of handling this matter of group hypnosis
when searching for subjects is to use the victrola record. The
operator may either make one for himself or use one of those
supplied by the houses which handle psychological apparatus.
âti HYPNOTISM
It is very easy to get co-operation from a group with one of

these records. It is impersonal and looks much more like a
genuine psychological experiment, at least to the layman. Once
again, with practice, it is a simple matter for the experienced
hypnotist to watch the group and pick out the good subjects
on the basis of how they behave to the victrola record.
Some people are so extremely susceptible to hypnotism that
at times we get curious results even when using a victrola
record. The writer recalls one such incident. H e had a group
who wished to listen to his record. They knew very little about
hypnotism but had heard that this marvelous gadget, just on the
market, would actually hypnotize.
They were all seated comfortably, the writer reached for the
record—and it wasn't there. A colleague was using it in an
other building. So he took the first record in sight, put it on
the victrola and said, humorously, “Now listen to that.”
Returning five minutes later he was astonished to see that
one of the group was evidently going into deep hypnosis. So
he turned the record over and remarked, “That will do the
trick very nicely.” And it did. The subject was deeply hypno
tized and had to be awakened by the usual method. The record
in question was a Swnss yodelling song! 'Hie man expected to
be hypnotized, was an excellent subject, and his own imagina
tion did the rest.
The tests which we have suggested as of aid in detecting
those individuals who will go into deep hypnotism, are, how
ever, only bits of the hypnotic technique itself. As we men
tioned before, there is no way of telling the good subject, except
by actually using hypnotism in some form or other. Contrary
to general opinion, susceptibility has nothing to do with a
“ weak will.” Neither has it any relation to intelligence. In
actual practice it is much better to deal with highly intelligent
individuals. They will get the knack of the thing and co-operate
more quickly titan others.
Nor has hypnotism anything to do with the sex of the sub
ject. Many people have the idea that women, especially young
women, are much more easily put into the trance than are men.
Scientific research gives no basis whatsoever for such an idea.
There appears to be no difference.
We will mention here another point to which we will later
return. Group hypnotism in the popular sense of the word is
quite impossible. No hypnotist, no matter how good, could
meet a group of, say, thirty people and hypnotize the lot, unless
of course by some weird chance all thirty happened to be good
subjects. The odds against such a chance are very heavy. In
other words, the Hindu rope trick is not done by group hypno
tism. As a matter of fact it never occurred at ali in spite of a
great deal of popular legend on the subject. If the reader doubts
this statement, and he will, he may look up any good book on
magic or any stage magician. We give some very good imita
tions in our modem theaters when the necessary apparatus is
at hand, but this could never be duplicated in the open under
the blazing Indian sun with the crowd surrounding the juggler
on all sides.
The techniques we have described can be mastered by any
one, just as anyone can learn to run an automobile. To be sure,
some people turn out to be much more expert drivers than
others, but there is certainly no mystery connected with driving
the auto. This does not mean that everyone should learn to use
hypnotism or should, of necessity, lx: permitted to use it if he
did learn. That is quite another thing. We simply say it is pos
sible tor anyone to learn and stress this point because of popular
notions of will power, the dark hypnotic eye, black magic, and
other weird ideas.
Finally, many readers may question the wisdom of being so
very frank on this matter of inducing hypnotism. We reply th3t
the danger is quite imaginary. The average layman cannot use
hypnotism because he has neither the time nor the interest.
A mastery of technique demands hard work, and the process of
hypnotizing is notoriously boring and tedious. One must have
40 HYPNOTISM
more than a mere passing interest in the subject if he is to settle

down and really master hypnotism.
In a later chapter we discuss the dangers of hypnotism, espe
cially in connection with crime. Here, again, the point is largely
imaginary, and the reader is asked to reserve judgment until
we discuss such questions. The writer will contend that hypno
tism can be used for criminal ends, but such use would demand
an operator of the highest skill. For any amateur such attempts
would only lead to prison. Moreover, our police are quite
familiar with everything written in this book and could detect
,a crime involving hypnotism quite as readily as any other. This
may come as a revelation to the reader but, for example, our
own Federal Bureau of Investigation knows more about possible
criminal uses of hypnotism than anyone in the country. So we
may safely leave this aspect of our problem in the hands of the
proper authorities, who are quite capable of handling i t The
scientist is interested only in facts. How these facts will be used
is a question which he is not called on to answer.
Chapter II
KOBE COMMON PHENOMENA
E D EV O TED our first chapter to the induction of

hypnosis, pointing out that only about one in five of
the general population will go into the deepest stage
of hypnotism; namely, somnambulism. We wish to deal here
with the more common phenomena which we find in hypnotism
once the trance has been induced.
The reader must bear in mind that, while the more striking
things which happen are found only in the deepest stage, never
theless there are many conditions in lighter states which are
well worth our attention. We generally accept amnesia or lack
of memory as the chief characteristic of somnambulism. The
subject has no memory at all when he awakens as to what has
occurred in the trance. Yet a great many things may occur with
the subject wide awake.
For example, the writer had occasion to use hypnotism with
a friend, a good pianist. He did not lose consciousness but it
was quite possible to paralyze large groups of muscles, so much
so that he was unable to arise from his chair. The operator
asked him to open his eyes, moved the chair close to the piano
and made a bet with him that he could not leave it for the next
half hour. He played as well as ever, but every time he tried to
stand up the operator simply said, “Sorry, it can’t be done.”
That simple suggestion was quite enough to keep him glued in
his chair.
This interference with use of the muscles is very easy, even
in the light stages. Professor W. R. Wells of Syracuse Univer
sity has made very extensive experiments with "waking hypno
tism.” This is a very interesting point since many of the older
41
42 HYPNOTISM
investigators thought hypnotism merely a special variety of

sleep, a theory which is now generally rejected.
The writer recalls one of his very earliest contacts with
hypnotism. A stage operator was demonstrating in the local
theater. One of the audience, a dignified member of the com
munity and a deacon in his church, turned out to be a very
good subject. The hypnotist had him stand on his head, bark
around the stage on all fours, take off a goodly portion of Ins
clothes and give, in general, a very humiliating exhibition. He
then awakened his subject who just as promptly knocked him
down. The subject had been quite conscious throughout the
whole performance but had been unable to resist the sugges
tions of the hypnotist. He remembered everything that had
occurred and was very naturally indignant.
Wells produces his results in “waking” hypnotism with much
the same attack as does the professional. A high pressure volley
of suggestions is used without giving the subject time to re
cover his balance. W ith this particular technique he does not
mention "sleep” and finds that the subject very often remembers
everything when he comes out of the trance.
We also know that any good subject can recall consciously
everything that has happened when hypnotized, if we assure
him in the hypnotic trance that he will do so. As a matter of
fact it is often quite enough for the hypnotist to say, in the
waking state, “You will remember everything that occurred in
the last trance. Think. It is all coming back quite clearly.” The
entire series of incidents will then return to consciousness.
But while unconsciousness may not be necessary to produce
all the phenomena of hypnotism, the fact remains that the
somnambulist generally remembers nothing unless we take
some special steps to get recall. So we will describe the trance
state from now on, using the typical somnambulist as an ex
ample.
The key to hypnotism is suggestion. The subject, left to
himself, does nothing. The hypnotic state may then change to
MORE COMMON PH EN O M EN A 43
n o rm al sleep and he will awaken in ordinary fashion, or he

may just remain quiet, always open to suggestions from the
operator but quite incapable of acting on his own accord.
This suggestion, by the way, need not be verbal, although
that is the usual type. Any form of suggestion is quite satis
factory provided the subject understands what is desired. For
example, if when the hypnotic trance is under way we take the
subject’s arm or hand and mold it into any gesture, then hold
it there for a second or two the subject will conclude that we
wish this sort of thing. No word need be spoken. W ith a little
practice we will get “ waxy plasticity’’ wherein the subject’s
limbs can be molded like wax into any position, no matter how
uncomfortable, and will remain in the shape we have given
them.
Moreover, the subject is very quick to co-operate with the
operator and at times almost uncanny in his ability to figure
out what the operator wishes. He seems to read his mind and
this trait undoubtedly led many of the older hypnotists into
wild conclusions as to the ability of the hypnotic subject as a
“mind reader,”
It is a very curious thing that the subject will only listen to
the operator; he will receive suggestions from him alone. Others
present may talk to him, shout orders and give suggestions, but
he ignores them as completely as if they were on the planet
Mars. This curious condition we refer to as “rapport.” The
subject, we say, is in rapport only with the hypnotist.
Here, we see one of those strange contradictions which are
so characteristic of the hypnotized person for actually, he
hears everything which is taking place, but for some curious
reason he chooses to do a little acting. He behaves as if there
were no others present in the room.
For example, we take a good subject and proceed to show
bow mind reading occurs. The operator conceals his handker
chief, tells the subject to concentrate and get the object in ques- •
tion. Others are present. They make suggestions and give him
44 HYPNOTISM
orders but he ignores them completely and is at a total loss to

find the handkerchief.
Then, one of those present whispers to another, but quite
loud enough for the subject to hear, “The handkerchief is in the
brief case in the study.” Apparently the subject has heard noth
ing but a minute later he goes to the study, opens the brief case
and returns with the handkerchief. It can be shown by such
experiments that rapport is not real. The subject always has
his ears open to pick up any cue, yet in almost every case the
new subject will immediately start on this little piece of fraud.
This illustrates a point we will mention frequently. The
subject when hypnotized may be quite a different person from
the same individual if awake. He is so anxious to co-operate,
to show his abilities, that he may try almost any trick in order
to do what the operator demands. This requires that in many
tests we keep the subject under the very closest observation.
For example, the older hypnotists claimed many remarkable
things about hypnotism. One of these was the ability of the
subject to raise blisters under suggestion. The standard prac
tice was to put a bandage on the subject's wrist and suggest to
him very strongly that the bandage was a mustard plaster
which would shortly produce a blister and strange to say, in
many cases the suggestion was successful. An actual blister
might not always appear but the skin under the bandage would
become very inflamed and red, blood appearing in many cases.
Then some experimenters became suspicious. They left the
subject in the room by himself but kept him under close scrutiny
through a peep-hole. It was then found that the subject, in his
great desire to co-operate, was playing tricks on the hypnotist.
H e would deliberately rub the bandage with all his strength so
as to irritate the skin beneath. Worse still, some subjects were
seen to take a needle, thrust it in under the bandage, and break
the skin in this mamier. Yet, when awake, these same subjects
were models of honesty and even when questioned in hypnotism
they would deny all knowledge of trickery. So we have to watch
the subject very closely in many experiments. The mere fact

that he claims to be in rapport only with the operator means
nothing. It is just a little pose which, for some reason or other,
he feels bound to maintain.
Another curious tiling is that we can shift the rapport very
easily. The operator merely says to the subject, “Listen care
fully. Mr. Smith is here in the room with us. I am going to
shift the control to Mr. Smith. He is standing in front of you.
I will repeat the first five letters of the alphabet, a to e. When
I get to e, Mr. Smith will lie in charge. You will listen only to
him and accept only his suggestions.” Under these conditions
Smith now becomes the operator and the subject will treat
him as such until he chooses to hand back control to the original
hypnotist.
So easy îs this trick that we can even shift control from a
victrola record to any operator who happens to be present We
simply work the suggestion into the victrola record, using
exactly the same formula as given above. The operator then
takes over control from the record, treats the subject as he
would any somnambulist and awakens him whenever he chooses.
The mesmerist or magnetist of one hundred fifty years ago
did even better. He would magnetize a tree. In future, the sub
ject had only to touch the tree and he would go into the
mesmeric trance, receiving all the beneficial effects of the
magnetic fluid from the tree in question. Many of these old
practices seem pretty weird but we must remember that science
was then in its infancy.
Perhaps the best known of all hypnotic phenomena are the
so-called hallucinations. The reader will be familiar with these
if he has ever seen a stage demonstration of hypnotism. He
will recall that the subject, following a suggestion by the
hypnotist, will see an elephant or a tiger on the stage and will
hunt it with a broom for a gun. The operator will put a goldfish
bowl in front of him, tell him it is the Atlantic Ocean, equip
him with a fishing line, and tell him to fish for whales. Actually
46 HYPNOTISM
this would be more in the nature of an illusion but they are so

dose to hallucinations that we will treat all under the same head.
These hallucinations of sight or visions are very easy to get
in any good subject and like everything else in hypnotism they
depend on suggestion. The hypnotist simply tells the subject to
open his eyes. Then he says, “Look. The door is opening and a
black dog is coming into the room. His name is Rover. Go
over and pet him.” This he does. The hypnotist adds, “He’s
probably hungry. Better give him something to e a t” The sub
ject glances around, takes a plate from the table, puts a stick on
it for a bone and proceeds to feed the dog. All this is done in
a perfectly normal fashion which leaves very little doubt in the
spectator’s mind that the subject thinks he is dealing with a
real dog.
The hypnotized person will treat every hallucination with
great reality. Tell him the dog is friendly and he will pet it, but
say the dog has bitten him and he may retreat in fear. Or he
may seize the dog by the neck and throw it out the door; the
type of reaction depends on how the subject would normally
behave. Suggest to the subject that he is watching a football
game and he will cheer on his favorite team in very convincing
fashion. Tell him he is in a cathedral and he may kneel, that
the police are coming in the front door to arrest him and he
will try to leave by the back.
W hat we obtain depends largely on the type of individual.
The writer has a favorite trick of telling the subject there is a
“galywampus” in the room. Of course, neither the subject nor
the operator has ever seen such an animal, so it is very interest
ing to note what will happen. Some subjects will simply look
puzzled and refuse to answer. Others, realizing the joke, will
grin and say, “There ain’t no such animal” or pass it off with
some such remark. But others will rise to the occasion in noble
fashion. Recently one subject described it as “a pink elephant
with wings, a trunk on both ends and bowlegged.” Asked what
noise it made, he replied, “That depends. When you mention
MOBE COMMON PH EN O M EN A 45Î
Roosevelt’s name he laughs like a human but if it’s Willkie he
just looks sad and sighs." Needless to say the subject was a
good Democrat, had a vivid imagination, and was using it.
The reaction to these hallucinations brings out a very im
portant point which the reader must always bear in mind. The
hypnotized person is still an individual, not a tool, and behaves
according to his own background. Place a glass of water in
front of the ardent prohibitionist, tell him it is whisky and he
must drink it. Generally he will refuse. Insist and he may be
come very angry, even awaken from the trance. Place that same
glass before another subject who has no such scruples and he
will drink the liquor with great relish.
Tell a communist he is talking to a political meeting and that
he is to defend capitalism. He will probably do just the opposite,
criticizing his audience and their views in no uncertain fashion.
The subject is always willing to play a part, provided it does
not go against any deep-seated convictions. But when we sug
gest an act which is in conflict with any of these, he may become
very obstinate. We will discuss this in a later chapter devoted
to hypnotism and crime.
It is quite easy to hallucinate any of the senses, but not always
quite as spectacular as in the case of vision. Hearing, for ex
ample, lends itself very easily to this attack. We can have the
subject listen in rapt attention to a supposed symphony concert,
describing every number and criticizing the way in which each
is played. It is possible to have him listen to a political talk and
then describe it afterward, for example one by Mr, Roosevelt.
The experience will be very real and he will stoutly defend his
views at a later period; this in spite of the fact that the Presi
dent was on the air at exactly the time when he was supposed
to be listening and gave quite a different address. After all, the
subject contends he beard it and certainly believes his own ears!
In some of the senses we can obtain a curious mixture of
hallucination, illusion, and anaesthesia. For example, take the
following cases. It is quite possible to give the subject a glass
48 HYPNOTISM
of kerosene, tell him it is very fine wine, and have him drink it.
H e does so with great satisfaction. Or we can reverse the
process. We can give him a glass of whisky, tell him it tastes
vile and that he will be very sick to his stomach once he drinks
i t That probably will also work.
Such a technique was once in great favor for treating alco
holics. If the subject proved to be a somnambulist, he was as
sured in hypnotism that every time he took a drink in future
he would be violently sick. If it worked, and it generally would,
the cure became an endurance contest with everything in favor
of the hypnotist. After all, drinking îs not much of a pleasure
if every drink is only the prelude to a vomiting fit. G. B. Cutten
in his Psychology of Alcoholism deals in detail with this matter
of treating the drunkard.
Similarly it was once common practice to handle smoking by
the same method. The subject was assured that tobacco smoke
would in future taste very bad and a cigarette would be fol
lowed by an upset stomach. This was really hallucinating the
senses of smell and taste. A friend of the writer in a near-by city
tried this on a young man at the request of his parents but unfor
tunately he did not ask the consent of the subject beforehand.
Once his victim heard of the plan he was very indignant over
the whole thing, swore he would smoke in spite of any hypnotist
and went at it again. In six months time he was smoking with
reasonable comfort, but he almost ruined his digestion in the
process.
Smell lends itself very nicely to hallucinations, one of our best
tests of hypnotism coming in this field. If we have any doubt
as to whether the subject is deeply hypnotized, we tell him he
is about to smell some very fine perfume. We then hold a bottle
of strong ammonia under his nose and tell him to sniff; if he is
in deep hypnotism he seems to enjoy the perfume, but if not,
or if he should be bluffing he will come out of the trance in
very short order.
W e also have some very curious cases wherein we can deceive
the skin senses. For example, we can take a pencil, hold it near
the subject’s hand, and tell him it is a red hot poker. If we
touch the hand, he will draw it away, sometimes shrieking
with pain. Actually, we have never been able to prove that the
elfin is really “burned” by this technique, although some of
the older authorities did report just this. Proof in science, as
we will later see, is no simple matter.
Since we are on the skin, let us report a very interesting
experiment by Liebeault, the real father of modem hypnotism.
H e had one exceptionally good subject on -whom lie reported
the following. H e was able to trace letters on this man’s fore
arm with the blunt end of a pencil. Later these letters would
appear as letters în blood! Not only that, but with this one sub
ject he carried the experiment even farther. The subject was
able to do it himself, suggesting to himself—autosuggestion—
that the blood letters would appear! Liebeault stresses the fact
that such remarkable phenomena could only be obtained with
the very best of subjects.
Liebeault did his work around the 1870’s and no other
operator since has been able to get these results. This tends to
cast a doubt on the experiment since Liebeault may not have
been careful enough with his subject. I t is quite possible that,
if left alone, he could have scratched his arm with a needle
along the lines of the letters and yet, strange as it may sound,
there is no reason why these results could not have been ob
tained. They would depend on the action of the autonomic
nervous system and we do know quite definitely that we can
influence this by means of hypnotism.
We really have two nervous systems in our bodies. All our
voluntary muscles are controlled by the central nervous sys
tem, composed of the brain and spinal cord, but our internal
organs also do their work by muscular action, in many cases.
The lungs, heart, stomach, even the arteries and veins could
never function if it were not for the activity of muscles and
these “involuntary” muscles are under control of the autonomic
50 h y p n o t is m
nervous system. This system lies outside the spine and, although
joined to it, acts in general quite independently of the other
system.
For example, try and influence your heart beat as you read
this book. It is almost impossible. Yet strange to say, we can
influence the heart through hypnotism. We can make it beat
faster by mere suggestion, especially if we tell the subject he
has, say, just escaped from a bear and is very much excited.
Excitement, as we all know, tends to make the heart beat
faster and the scene we suggest to the subject is so real to him
that he behaves as if it were a real hear. Yet very few of the
readers could imagine such a scene vividly enough to get any
real reaction. The writer once saw a stage hypnotist suggest
to a subject that he was falling over a cliff. He was actually
falling from a table onto a pile of cushions. The subject gave a
wild shriek of fear as he fell and collapsed. That was genuine.
A doctor and heart stimulants were necessary to save his life.
Nor could any of my readers by imagining that they were
eating some very disgusting dish, make themselves vomit.
Here again the hypnotist can influence the autonomic nervous
system, as seen in the action of the stomach. As we mentioned
before, we have only to suggest to the somnambulist that liquor
tastes bad, that it is disgusting and in future he may find that
even the smell of liquor will turn him sick to his stomach. Not
only that, but we can influence the subject’s stomach in much
more subtle fashion. We can, for example, suggest to him that
he is eating a beef steak. Not only will his mouth water but
we wilt find that his stomach secretes the proper juices to handle
the meal in question. For a very sane and critical discussion of
all these rather unusual phenomena we refer the reader to the
work by Clark L. Hull of Yale University, Hypnosis and Sug
gestibility.
A Russian psychologist recently reported an even more in
teresting stomach experiment. He claims that in hypnosis he
was able to give his subjects large quantities of alcohol, with
the suggestion that they would not get drunk. And they did
not either in hypnosis or after the trance! We may add that
before such claims could be accepted they would have to be
checked on by many other operators.
A t this point a very natural question will occur to the reader.
Why all this doubt and uncertainty? If we are in doubt, then
why not clear the matter up at once and in short order. Unfor
tunately hypnotism of all subjects does not lend itself to this
offhand treatment. For example, let us take the question of
muscular strength in hypnosis. N, C. Nicholson investigated
this using the ergograph, an instrument designed to measure
the amount of work a subject can perform with one of his
fingers. It is easy to measure the work of a finger and what
applies to the finger should, in theory, apply to any other group
of muscles. Nicholson conducted a series of experiments and
concluded that “ during the hypnotic sleep the capacity for work
seemed practically endless.*'
But later P. C. Young repeated Nicholson’s experiments
and found, a t least to his satisfaction, that muscular strength
in hypnotism was no greater than in the normal waking state.
The results would have been far less disturbing had either of
these men been poorly trained and incompetent. Unfortunately,
Nicholson did his work at Johns Hopkins and Young did his
at Harvard. Both were very careful experimenters. The sharp
contradiction is hard to explain but, in the writer’s opinion,
was undoubtedly due to the attitude of the hypnotists. The
good subject co-operates in wonderful fashion. Nicholson’s sub
jects realized they were supposed to show an increase in
muscular strength and did so. The opposite applied to Young's
experiments.
A great deal of our work in hypnotism must always be car
ried out with this fact in mind for the subject tends to give
what is expected. Returning to this matter of physical strength,
we are all familiar, at least have read about, the uncanny ability
of most subjects to rest with the head on one chair and feet
52 HYPNOTISM
on another. Then to have someone sit on their chest while

they recite poetry. This muscular rigidity can be obtained in
most good subjects, provided the hypnotist makes it quite dear
that he expects it.
But if the subject suspects that the hypnotist does not want
this result, he will not stiffen up his musdes. For example, we
take a very good subject and tell him that we are now going to
give him a very severe physical test, we are going to put his feet
on one chair, his head on another, and sit on his chest. Then
we say to someone present, "Of course, it’s impossible. All this
talk about seeing it done on the stage is nonsense. They use
fake subjects and magician’s tricks with which to do it.”
Now we try to stiffen out our subject, but he knows we do
not expect results. So we get none. H e makes no effort and sags
down in discouraging fashion whenever we try to stretch him
between the two chairs. Yet we must bear in mind that there is
no reason why we could not get this exceptional increase in
strength. Few readers realize the tremendous strength of the
human muscles, when we can really make them exert them
selves. We use a drug named metrazol to treat a form of
insanity, dementia praecox. This throws the patient into violent
convulsions, so violent, in fact that he often breaks his own
bones by the sheer force of muscular contraction. This is no
wild myth but a grim fact of which every psychiatrist is very
conscious.
A recent survey has shown with the aid of X-ray pictures
that twenty-five per cent of all patients undergoing metrazol
treatment actually crack some bones of the spinal column in
these savage convulsions. The psychiatrist now uses another
drug, curare, to offset this. Curare paralyzes the muscles, so
they hope that the patient can now get the mental shock with
out the body strain. At the present writing we have not enough
material to say that this treatment is as good as straight
metrazol, which gives excellent results in many cases. But these
examples, and we could give many more, will show the reader
MOKE COMMON PH EN O M EN A 53
the tremendous power of the human muscles under certain con
ditions. So there is no reason why we might not get a great
increase in strength with hypnosis.
Then there is another possible explanation. Fatigue is a
defense to the body. When we feel tired it is a sign that we
have worked hard enough and should stop until the body gets
the waste cleared away from the muscles. There seems to be a
fatigue center in the brain. If we can paralyze this, the individual
will not feel tired, no matter how fatigued. We will see later
that with hypnotism we can get anaesthesia or lack of feeling
in many parts of the body. It may be that this great muscular
strength in many cases is due to the inability to feel fatigue once
the operator assures the subject that he can do great feats of
strength without being tired.
This is one reason why no sane hypnotist would dare suggest
to a football player before a game that he was to play the game
of his life and would be able to put forth his very best without
feeling in any way tired. Perhaps he would, but in so doing he
might easily exert himself so much that he would die of a
heart attack.
Returning now to this matter of producing blisters in hypno
tism. Even if they were produced, it would illustrate nothing
supernatural. The walls of the blood vessels are under control
of the autonomic nervous system. We can definitely influence
this system in hypnotism, but not in the waking state. Granted
a person with a very sensitive skin there is no reason why these
vessels could not break and let out blood or blood plasma under
the bandage, so creating a blister or actual bleeding. Normally
it will not occur so we tend to think of it as impossible just as
we tend to feel that the subject cannot really increase his
muscular strength. But, in the opinion of the writer, there is
strong probability that blisters can be produced. He also feels
certain that muscular strength can be greatly increased by
means of suggestion.
W e must again remind the reader that proof in science is often
54 HYPNOTISM
difficult to obtain, and in hypnotism this is notoriously so.

There can be no doubt as to hallucinations and no doubt that
we can influence the activity of most body organs. But we must
suspend judgment on bodily strength and such curios as raising
blisters; yet there are many other things claimed of hypnotism,
some accepted and some in doubt.
Accepted, for example, is the fact that we can produce
anaesthesia, loss of sensation in almost every sense organ. This
is most easily seen in the loss of pain, technically known as
analgesia. As a matter of fact, this was one chief use of hypno
tism in the early days. An English doctor in India by the name
of Esdaile performed the first such operation of which we have
record in 1845, During the course of his long practice in that
country he did thousands of operations, about three hundred
of these being of a major character. Unfortunately or fortunately
as the case may be, the use of chloroform was discovered about
this time and ether shortly afterward. These drugs are far more
certain în their effects and much easier to use than hypnotism,
which rapidly vanished from use as an anaesthetic.
We do still hear of cases wherein it is used, in which the con
dition of the patient is such as to make the use of drugs inadvis
able. There has also been some use of hypnotism in both
Germany and Austria of late years, especially at childbirth. But
the interesting fact is that hypnotism does banish pain. In fact,
this absence of pain supplies us with our very best test of
hypnotism în those situations wherein it is absolutely necessary
to be sure that the subject is not bluffing,
The writer uses a little device known as a variac. This plugs
into an ordinary light socket and delivers the exact voltage
required. The contacts are placed on the palm and back of the
left hand, blotting paper soaked in a saturated salt solution
being used to insure the very best form of contact. Under these
circumstances the reader would find fifteen volts very painful,
twenty unbearable. But a subject in somnambulism can take
sixty, even one hundred twenty volts without flinching.
MOEE COMMON PH EN O M EN A ss
H ere we get into the usual argument so dear to the hearts of
all psychologists. Is it anaesthesia or amnesia? Perhaps the
subject actually felt the pain, but merely forgot about it on
awakening, just as he tends to forget everything else which
happens in somnambulism. The question is mostly of theoretical
interest, but it serves to illustrate the difficulty of answering
many a query in hypnotism. Considerable work has been done
on this problem but up to the present the question remains un
answered. The anaesthesia may or may not be real but the sub
ject acts as if it were, insisting after the trance that he felt no
pain.
Yet, whether real or genuine, it does not have nearly as much
importance as the average reader may think. Pain is the doctor's
friend, although we as sufferers may not always see this point.
It is nature's great alarm signal. W ithout doubt hypnotism
could completely remove the pain in many a case of acute
appendicitis, but that would not prevent the appendix from
rupturing. It might only serve to lull us into a false sense of
security. Similarly pain may mean many things. Gastric ulcer,
kidney disease, rheumatism or an ulcerated tooth. The doc
tor’s problem is not to remove the pain but the cause of the
pain.
For example, two of the worst “killers” in the whole disease
world are tuberculosis and cancer, mainly because they give us
the warning after it is too late. Tuberculosis can be quite easily
cured in its early stages, but unfortunately it is a painless
disease. W e can easily be suffering from an advanced case of
tuberculosis and yet be fairly comfortable, beyond a very
troublesome cough and a feeling of continual fatigue.
Likewise most cases of cancer could be cured in the early
stages, if only medicine could locate them. But cancer also uses
a painless attack until the disease is well advanced. When we
finally go to our doctor with severe abdominal pains and he
diagnoses it as cancer, we might as well call the undertaker the
next day and get our earthly affairs in order. The reader is
56 HYPNOTISM
very liable to become much too enthusiastic over the possible

uses of hypnotism. It undoubtedly has it uses, and we will deal
with these in future pages, but the obvious use is often more
apparent than real.
We can render any of the sense organs anaesthetic. Pain
gives us our most graphic results but vision is just as easily
influenced. We can suggest to the subject in hypnotism that he
is blind and to all outward appearance he becomes so. With his
eyes wide open he will walk into a chair or make no movement
at all when someone pretends to strike him in the face.
Is this blindness genuine or is the subject again staging a little
act for the benefit of those present ? Very probably it is a bona
fide performance. The subject is really blind, but only in a
functional sense. It might be well to explain what we mean by
this statement, by way of helping us to understand the problem.
We divide human ailments into two broad groups, the
functional and the structural or organic. For example, our hos
pitals for mental disease always contain a large group of insane
suffering from dementia praecox, or schizophrenia. This is a
functional insanity as there seems to be nothing wrong with
the brain. If we examine it after death we find it is just as good
as our own. On the other hand, we could also find in any such
place a number of cases with general paresis, generalized
syphilis of the brain. These people are also “crazy.” Very much
so in fact, and here we would find that the brain had been
severely damaged by the syphilis germ.
Thus with insanity, for instance, we have both the functional
and structural cases, both equally insane but in the former the
brain is uninjured, in the structural cases the brain has been
harmed by something, be it syphilis, sleeping sickness, tumor,
stroke, or what not.
The blindness we get in hypnotism is of the functional type.
There îs nothing whatsoever wrong with the eyes, yet it is very
real for all that. This sounds hazy and mysterious so let us see
how a man could be stone blind with eyes and brain just as good
MOKE COMMON PH EN O M EN A 57
as our own. In order to see, hear, feel pain, or experience any

sensation at all the action of nervous tissue must be involved.
Here the unit is the neuron, the separate tiny telegraph line
which nature binds together in the bundles we call nerves.
But these neurons have some very interesting qualities which
make them much better than our own human made wires. The
most interesting point about the neuron, from our point of view,
is its ability to break contact. Nervous tissue is, of course, all
over the body but the brain and spinal cord are the chief centers
of concentration. Especially in the brain do we have a tremend
ously complex telegraph exchange.
Literally billions of these tiny wires connect with each other.
We call the point of contact a synapse, and here very fine
brush-like structures from one neuron come very close to those
from another so that the “spark** can easily jump the gap. As
we learn anything, from running a typewriter to Chinese, path
ways are worn through the “grey matter," so that the passage
of the nerve current over certain synapses becomes much more
easy.
But the reverse of this can also happen. When we “forget”
it is a sign that for some reason or other the pathway we wish
to use has become blocked, probably because the little brushes
which make contact at the synapses have drawn so far apart
that the current cannot pass. I t seems probable that in sleep all
intercommunication in the grey matter is cut off in this way.
Similarly when a person gets "drunk” or is knocked uncon
scious by a blow on the head. W e could also quote experiments
from various drugs, such as arsenic, to uphold this view.
Now let us suppose that the operator suggests to his subject
*n hypnotism that his whole right arm is senseless, has no feel
ing in it. If the synapses open in those parts of the brain where
we feel pain from that arm, then the nerve currents simply
cannot register. We have cut off communication just as effec
tively as if we cut the nerve leading from the arm, yet there is
nothing wrong with the brain. Structurally, it is perfect, all the
58 HYPNOTISM
parts are there and capable of working. But they are not w ork'
ing or “functioning” because of this break at the synapses, so
we say that we have a “functional” anaesthesia in the arm.
And this “opening” of the synapses is probably due here to
suggestion.
This anaesthesia is very real, for all that. No amount of play
acting would enable any subject to lie quietly on the operating
table and have his arm amputated. Yet this can be done in deep
hypnotism. Similarly we can get the functional blindness we
have been discussing. In this case it is very difficult to prove
that the subject is not bluffing. W e have no easy, positive tests,
but we can argue from the analogy of anaesthesia in the arm.
This is very real, so anaesthesia in vision is probably just as
real. And, of course, there is no “structural” injury to the brain.
The trouble with this very neat synaptic theory is that it is
almost impossible of proof, though it seems highly probable.
We can see the synapse under the microscope, but we cannot
see its movement because this only takes place in living tissue
and would be difficult to get under the very best conditions.
W e cannot turn a microscope on the brain of a living animal.
Yet some day we may be able to actually observe these move
ments in the synapses. Several years ago Spîdell of the Univer
sity of Virginia won the highest award from the American
Association for the Advancement of Science by demonstrating
a very beautiful technique. He was actually able to see the
growth of nerves in the tail of a living tadpole! That may
strike the reader as very unimportant but science values curious
things. A year or two previous to this another man got this
award by showing that protozoa in the intestines of the termite
digested his wood diet for him and so allowed him to live on
pure wood! That solved many a problem that had puzzled the
zoologist. Only a year or two ago a psychologist, Maler, won
the coveted award by demonstrating that he could drive rats
insane by frustration, by continually puzzling them over the
location of their food. Silly? That experiment means a great
MORE COMMON PH EN OM EN A 59
deal to the psychiatrist, the “nerve specialist,” who treats the

human insane.
So with luck in the near future we may actually be able to
see the movement at the synapses through the microscope. At
present it is a very neat theory, probably true but incapable of
being proven. Yet it shows us how all these curious things may
happen in hypnotism and be very real, yet involve no change
or injury to the brain. When the psychologist or doctor
mentions that word “functional” he is not merely throwing up
a smoke screen to hide his ignorance. Functional blindness is a
very real thing as thousands of “shell shock” cases from the
war can testify.
Similarly by means of hypnotism we can obtain functional
deafness or anaesthesia of the ear, the organ of hearing. It seems
to be very real for the subject is quite unconcerned with even
the loudest of noises. He simply ignores them. A little more
spectacular is anaesthesia of smell. We have already mentioned
the fact that in deep hypnosis the subject can' inhale strong
ammonia without a quiver. If we suggest it is perfume, he even
enjoys the process and that involves hallucination.
Taste is equally easy to reach, for the subject will chew up
and swallow the vilest tasting dishes we can give him if we
assure him that he tastes nothing, or even better, if we tell him
he is eating a beef steak. All these weird things have a sound,
physiological basis. If the reader would really understand
hypnotism he must banish from his mind all trash about the
mystic and the supernatural. Everything is to be explained and
can be explained by the activity of a very complex nervous
system. W ith hypnotism we can cut out entire memories for
certain events which have taken place in past years. The
surgeon can do the same up to certain limits, but he must injure
the nerve centers permanently. We can make the shift with no
injury and at far greater speed than any telephone exchange.
We have considered the matter of anaesthesia of the various
senses. How about hyperesthesia ? W e heard a great deal about
60 HYPNOTISM
this in days past, about the ability of the subject to develop

great keenness of vision, to smell the very faintest odors or hear
the very smallest sounds. Let us take a typical experiment as
reported by Bergson, a French philosopher much interested in
hypnotism.
H e had one very excellent subject, a boy, with whom he
could get the most unusual phenomena, Bergson was very much
interested in the matter of telepathy or thought transference, and
with this boy he proved it to his satisfaction. The subject would
stand up facing the hypnotist who would then hold an open
book behind the subject’s head. The operator would thus be
able to see what was on the pages but the subject, of course,
could not, unless he had eyes in the back of his head.
Bergson was then delighted to find that the hypnotized boy
could read the printed pages which only the operator could
see. H e had proved telepathy, which was a great achievement.
Or had he? Bergson was a very careful investigator. He be
came suspicious, for the thing worked too well. Then he made
an astonishing discovery. The boy was not reading his mind
at all but the reflection of the book in the hypnotist’s eyes! The
letters on the reflected page would have been about 1/256 of ăn
inch high; in other words, microscopic. Moreover, having once
discovered the trick, Bergson had this subject demonstrate with
other things, such as photographs reduced to very tiny dimen
sions. There was no doubt about it. This particular subject in
hypnotism had a keenness of vision which was equal to that of a
microscope.
Unfortunately, as so often happens when we consider the
work of these older authorities, there is the usual joker. No one
has been able to repeat Bergson’s experiment, and proof in
science is essentially a matter of repetition. It is very difficult
to say why this experiment cannot be repeated. Certainly no
one would wish to accuse Bergson of deliberate fraud. Very
probably he was not careful enough with his controls; he did
not watch his subject closely. At any rate, ail that modern
science can do is reserve judgment and hope that some operator

will be able to duplicate his results under proper conditions.
Those of us who are familiar with the older type of hypno
tism know of another experiment which bears on this subject
of visual acuity. The operator would take, say, twenty perfectly
blank white calling cards and tell the subject that he was about
to show him some photographs. Then, as he placed these blank
cards before the subject he would stop at one and say, “Look.
There is a photograph of your mother. D o you recognize it?”
“ Certainly.”
“Will you recognize it again?"
“Of course.”
The operator made a slight mark on the back of this card
so that he would be able to pick it out again. Then he continued
to show the rest of the pack.
Next he shuffled the cards, handed them to the subject and
said, “ Now pick me out your mother's photograph.” Strange to
say, the subject could do s o ! The writer has been able to demon
strate this himself and has seen it done by others.
Apparently what actually happens is something like this. The
subject realizes that he is supposed to remember that particular
card so he looks at the face very carefully and remembers some
very trifling difference in the edge of the card, picks out some
flaw in its surface or some trifling difference in texture. When
next he looks over the cards he choses his mother’s “photo
graph” by the card which he thus remembers.
This would not, perhaps, be so much due to greater intensity
of vision as intense concentration and an ability to remember
some very tiny detail. This is not as farfetched as it may sound.
Those of the readers who have had the pleasure (? ) of knowing
the professional gambler and the opportunity of studying his
cards realize with what speed and accuracy he cdh spot his
“marked” cards while dealing hands to four or five at once.
There is at least one concern in the United States which spe
cializes in the manufacture of such marked decks, the “mark-
62 HYPNOTISM
ing” consisting of some very slight variation in the pattern on

the backs of certain key cards. If the average human in his
normal state can arrive at such perfection through practice,
there is no reason why the hypnotic subject, with his great
powers of concentration could not do the same.
W e have another very interesting type of experiment quoted
by the older writers. This involved the sense of smell. They
would take the handkerchiefs of a dozen people, allow the sub
ject to smell each one, then mix them up in one mass and ask
the subject to return them to their owner's. And the subject
would oblige 1But unfortunately there was far too great a chance
of the subject picking out the handkerchief by other cues, as the
make of the article, or expression on the owner’s face to allow
us to accept these old experiments at their face value.
At present the verdict of psychology on hyperesthesia is
'‘unproved,” As a matter of fact very little careful work has been
done on this subject în the laboratory. Almost the only good
piece of investigation here was by P. C. Young at Harvard and
he says that the senses of the subject în hypnotism are no more
acute than they are in the normal state. We must simply wait
for more work. The writer feels that hyperesthesia probably does
exist, that Young's negative results were due to the attitude of
the operator, so very important in all tins work. But neither can
the writer prove his point.
It might be well here to explain just why we have all this
trouble about proving a point. Proof in science, especially in
psychology, is no easy matter. First, the individual case may
mean very little, although even one subject who could demon
strate his ability consistently could do a lot. But in general we
must have a group of subjects and this group must be "statisti
cally significant,” so that the results cannot be charged to chance.
Such a group, to be above criticism should number at least
seventy 1
Then we must have a control group, who have not been
hypnotized with which to compare the experimental group.
This should be just as large, same sex, and as near as possible

the same age, education, and economic status. This control
group in a subject like hypnotism is very important because
even if we could show that a group in the trance did have very
great keenness of the senses, we leave ourselves wide open to
criticism. How do we know they could not do the same in the
waking state? T ry and find out? Not at all, because we might
be running into the results of posthypnotic suggestions given
without intention on the part of the operator, something we
will discuss in the next chapter.
All these precautions may appear nonsense to the average
reader but science is a very stem taskmaster. Any psychologist
who runs experiments on too small a group, or on a group
which is not checked against a properly selected control group
may prepare for some very rough sledding. Needless to say,
the task of preparing seventy somnambulists is a very difficult
one. Then we have all the problems of keeping strict observa
tion during the experiment. So the reader must remember that
we do not settle these problems overnight with a couple of sub
jects or by the comfortable “arm chair philosopher” method.
There is probably no more difficult branch of research in all
science, so please he lenient when we continually say that such
and such results are still in doubt.
There can be no doubt, however, about delusions, or false
beliefs. Do not confuse these with illusions or false sense im
pressions, so closely related to hallucinations. For example, if
we place a black hat on tire table, and say to the subject, "Look.
There is a black cat,” he will pick up the hat and caress it as he
would a cat. It is a false sense impression. But if we say to
him, "You are now a dog. Get down on all fours and bark.
There is another dog there in the comer. Chase him from the
room,” he will give a ludicrous imitation of a dog. This is a
false belief, although seeing the other dog was an hallucination—
neat little points about which it is very easy to become tangled.
These delusions, as we will see later, may be of the very
64 HYPNOTISM
greatest importance, especially when we consider the possiblt

tie up between hypnotism and crime in a later chapter. For
example, suppose we say to the subject in hypnotism, "You
are Mayor La Guardia of New York City. I want you to give
a political speech,” H e will do his best to imitate the fiery Mayor
and may give an astonishingly good speech. He believes himself
to be the Mayor, a delusion or false belief.
Now we go a step further and say, "You were in Utica this
afternoon between four and six o’clock. You visited the station
and while there you saw Mayor La Guardia pass through the
station on his way to the Hotel Utica. You will maintain this
when you wake up.” When he awakens, he will stoutly insist
against all argument that he was in Utica and did see the
Mayor, telling how he got there, how he got back and weaving
a story which at least sounds convincing.
Suppose we go a step further. “You saw the Mayor pass
through the station. Then you went into the taproom. There you
overheard two men at the next table discussing a plot to
assassinate the mayor this evening as he boarded the train
for New York City. Here are the pictures of the two men. Be
sure you remember them for you will see them again tonight
at the Utica station.” Once again a delusion, mixed with hallu
cinations and the posthypnotic suggestion, but primarly a de
lusion, a false belief, yet one which might make things very
bad for two innocent men in Utica.
These delusions can be extremely real and the subject will
defend them even when they are quite impossible. We say to a
subject, “You were in the first World W ar with the Americans*
You then went under the name of Captain G. N, Smith, Re
member this when you wake up,” When he awakens we bring
up the subject of the last W orld War, H e volunteers the infor
mation that he served in it under the name of Captain G. N.
Smith. You point out that he is only twenty five. He would have
to be at least forty five if his story were true. He maintains he
really is forty five and then the battle is on. We attack him on
all sides, pointing out how ridiculous his claim is. H e defends
himself with a beautiful series of lies and finally becomes quite
indignant when we continue to doubt his word. Of course, here
again we run into the problem of whether he is just bluffing,
playing a part to please the hypnotist or really does believe he
was Captain Smith in the last war—a very difficult point to
decide.
So also are those curious cases which we call "regression’'
and which we can get in hypnosis. For example, we take a
subject of forty years old and say to him, “ You are now
a boy of five. You will behave and think exactly as you did
at the age of five.” He gives a very convincing demonstration.
We then say, “Now you are ten. Grow up to that age.” He does
so. Next we have him progress to fifteen.
Is it genuine? It certainly looks like a good case of faking.
But strange to say, if we try him out with the intelligence test
we find that He hits the proper mental age and intelligence
quotient with very considerable accuracy. Of course, he could
also fake this but it is very doubtful if any of the readers, un
familiar with intelligence tests, could give the proper answers
for a child of five, ten, or fifteen. It really looks like genuine
regression which we know does take place in actual life. Much
more work must be done on this subject, most up to the present
being in Russia and perhaps not too carefully supervised.
We hear much in some literature about the ability which
subjects have to reckon time in hypnosis. We can tell them
that they will be able to tell exactly when 4453 minutes have
passed and they will call the time exactly. Once again, not
proved to the satisfaction of science. F or example, one of the
older experimenters, Bramwell, working around 1895 found
that one particular subject could actually call the time to the
exact minute.
But unfortunately he had no control subjects. W hat guarantee
do we have that this subject or any of the readers could not do
the same thing in the normal waking state ? Ridiculous! Not at
66 HYPNOTISM
all! T ry it on yourself. When you are lying quiet and relaxed,

note how very steady is the heart beat. If it is sixty eight to the1
minute it will not vary more than one or two strokes in an hour;
It is a simple matter of counting. If the subject is allowed to;
awaken, the very strictest watch would have to be kept that he
was not counting the ticks on a clock, listening to the town
dock or actually consulting his own watch.
In the psychological laboratory, at least up to the present
time, we find no evidence of such capacity. Stalnaker and
Richardson have done the best work here and their results show
no increase in ability along these lines. Another example of why
we must be very critical of the work by the older authorities.;’
The writer always suspects that in these laboratory expert-/:
ments the operator has the wrong attitude. H e is out to “de
bunk” hypnotism, the subject realizes this, and helps in the
de-b unking process with all his ability. We have considerable’
evidence for this in some experiments but only time and much
work will tell how important operator-attitude may be.
It is very easy to make serious mistakes in hypnotism. The'
writer has made at least one he knew of, possibly many more.
We use in psychology a very neat little piece of apparatus to.
measure the “psycho-galvanic reflex.” This measures the re-j
sistence of the body to a very small current of electricity, the
resistance generally being taken through the hand. It is a very
curious thing that this resistance changes under any emotional
strain. Suppose it is normally 5,000 ohms. The experimenter
pricks the subject with a pin. Immediately the resistance drops
to 4,000 ohms, swinging back again to 5,000 after about half
a minute.
Equally interesting is the curious behavior of skin resistance
in sleep. It will normally g r to 40,000 or 50,000 ohms. The
writer found in a series of experiments that the skin resistance
of a subject when hypnotized also soared to 50,000 ohms. This
proved conclusively that hypnotism and sleep were closely
associated. The writer publishes his results—and they were
more COMMON PH EN OM EN A 67
found to be completely misleading. They were good as far as
they went, only they did not go far enough. Other experimenters
demonstrated that while this was true for hypnotism induced
by the "sleeping” method, it was true only for this method and
only as long as die subject remained quiet. The moment he got
up and walked around his resistance became that of the normal
waking subject.
Now, of course, the writer should have taken ali this into
consideration before publishing results, but man Is just mere
man. Science progresses by such mistakes. One research worker
finds the subject will commit a crime in hypnosis. Another goes
out to prove him wrong—and does so to his satisfaction. Then
the fat is in the fire until one backs down or the consensus of
scientific opinion proves him wrong. The writer has backed
down at least once, may do so many more times, so it ill becomes
him to criticize others too severely. The reader must realize that
his opinions on some points as expressed in later chapters of
this book are only his opinions. He is convinced that the weight
of scientific evidence is on his side, but hypnotism, of all sub
jects, does not lend itself to dogmatism. We must await very
extensive research before we have the final answer to many
problems.
Clairvoyance, the ability to see distant scenes, is one such
example. Many of the older authorities were quite positive that
their subjects could describe events hundreds of miles away,
say in the old home town. The writer has often met amateur
operators who would proudly show how a subject could tell
just what was taking place in some town of Tennessee or
Kansas, But they never took the trouble to check u p ! F. W. H.
Myers in his Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily
Death seems to have felt that in hypnotism the psychic or
supernatural powers of some subjects could be increased.
But modern psychology brings in another verdict of “un
proved,” in this case very highly improbable that it ever can
be proved. The reader should get a clear distinction in his mind.
68 HYPNOTISM
For example, there is not a reputable psychologist in the United

States who would dare write an article questioning the existence
of hypnotism and certain phenomena in hypnotism. His reputa
tion would be ruined.
W ith reference to spiritism, and psychic research, the exact-
opposite is true. No one would dare say that clairvoyance or
mind reading, as two examples of sucii phenomena, were
proved. Some, such as J. B. Rhine at Duke University might
say they believed in the existence of telepathy, even had a
certain amount of evidence in its favor, but proof ? That is some
thing quite different again. A blunt assertion that the matter
was settled to the satisfaction of psychology would find ninety-
nine per cent of the psychologists registering an emphatic “no.”
This applies to all so-called spiritistic phenomena.
We further note that recent work by the group at Duke
University interested in extra-sensory perception shows that
hypnotism has nothing whatsoever to do with the abilities of
people along these super-normal lines. So the reader will realize
that hypnotism has no relation to spiritism or the supernatural.
In later pages we will use hypnotism as a means by which to
explain the trance state of the medium. Also such phenomena
as automatic writing, crystal gazing, automatic speech, even
talking with the dead. But even so we shall see that the things
we find are quite normal, quite within the limits of what might
be expected in the teachings of psychology.
The reader who is familiar with hypnotism cannot have failed
to note that we have not mentioned several of the more inter
esting phenomena. For example, the famous poslhypnotic sug
gestion and also autosuggestion. These are so very impor
tant that we cannot treat them in this short space, so we devote
the next chapter to their consideration.
Then there is that very interesting question of dissociation,
considered by some the key phenomenon of hypnotism. We
prefer to deal with this problem in our chapter, The Nature of
Hypnotism, since it is so closely linked with the entire theory of
hypnosis.
MORE COMMON PH EN OM EN A 69
Also we have avoided mentioning one of the most useful erf

aJl hypnotic phenomena, at least from the viewpoint of medicine.
This is that curious ability which the somnambulist has to recall
long forgotten childhood memories. This is the keynote of
‘■hypno-analysis,” a branch of psychotherapy which is destined
to assume more and more importance as the prejudice to hypno
tism in this country diminishes.
Associated with this is hypermnesia, wherein the subject in
hypnotism or as a result of posthypnotic suggestion is supposed
to develop a much better memory for things which have oc
curred in the immediate past, such as the learning of poetry or
of history. This we postpone until we consider the possible uses
of hypnotism in education.
Then we might mention other curiosities of the trance which
we leave to later chapters, such as the ability to form conditioned
reflexes and persistence of normal reflexes, all important but
best reserved to our chapter on theory.
Will the subject in hypnotism commit a criminal act? Even
more interesting, will he confess to crime in the trance state?
Obviously these questions involve some very important phe
nomena of hypnotism. Just as obviously these questions cannot
be answered in a few pages so we devote a later chapter to this
whole question of the connection between hypnotism and crime.
Here we have only presented the more spectacular side of
hypnotism, things which can—or cannot—be demonstrated in
five minutes with any good subject. F ar more important to psy
chology are the questions of hypnotism in education, in crime,
even its possible uses in war. These, we will see, can only be
investigated by very long and careful work. Some, indeed,
cannot eveti be studied properly in our present day society.
The solution must wait for the future. But the past few pages
cover most of those things which the lawman associates with
the word hypnotism. We now pass on to the more unusual
phenomena concerning which the average reader probably
knows very little.
Chapter III
TH E POSTHYPNOTIC SUGGESTION AND AUTOSUGGESTION
H E R E is a rule in hypnotism that everything we get int;
T the trance can also be obtained by means of the post

hypnotic suggestion. Also, that anything we find in
either can be found in autosuggestion; and, finally, that every-,,
thing we obtain in any of the three will be encountered in every
day life. In this latter case we refer to the subject as hysteric,
neurotic, or even insane and will leave the consideration of these
everyday cases to a later chapter on mental disease.
Let us take a typical posthypnotic suggestion. The operator
says to the subject in somnambulism, “Now listen carefully.
After you wake up, I will show you the ace of spades from a '
pack of cards. When I do this, you will see a black dog come
in through the door. H e is a very friendly dog, so you will pet
him, then you will give him a bone. He belongs to Professor
Fowler so, after you have fed him, you will call Fowler on the
telephone and ask him to come get the dog.” The operator re
peats these instructions and asks the subject if he understands
them thoroughly. Then the subject is awakened.
Five minutes later the hypnotist picks up a deck of cards,
selects the ace of spades, and lays it on the table in front of the
subject. The latter seems wide awake in every sense of the
word. He glances at the door and says, “Why, here is Fowler’s
dog. He looks hungry. Come on in, fellow, and have a bone.”
He pats the phantom dog, takes a plate from the table, puts
on it an imaginary bone, and continues to fondle the dog as he
eats it. Then he suddenly says, “You know, I don’t believe
Fowler knows where that dog is. I think I ’ll call him on the
telephone and let him know.”
70
T H E POSTHYPNOTIC SUGGESTION AND AUTOSUGGESTION 71
So he goes to the phone and puts through his call, all the time
talking in a perfectly normal manner about his garden, his
auto or any other topic of conversation in which he may have
been engaged, Fowler, who knows what is happening, comes
over for a cup of tea. All the time he is in the room the subject
keeps playing with the dog and finally says good day to the pro
fessor and his phantom pet in quite normal fashion.
Such is the typical picture of a posthypnotic suggestion. Some
subjects act in a dazed condition while carrying out such orders
but this is easily corrected by the suggestion that they will be
wide awake and perfectly normal during the whole procedure.
Let us examine this type of suggestion more closely, for as we
will see later it explains a great deal in abnormal psychology.
It is a curious thing that the subject does not have to be in the
deepest trance or in somnambulism to get the posthypnotic
suggestion. To be sure it is much better if we start off from the
deep state, but not absolutely necessary. We say to a subject
in hypnotism, “After you awaken, I will tap three times on the
table with my pencil. You will then have an irresistible impulse
to take off your right shoe.” Then we awaken him and find out
that he remembers everything. Nevertheless we tap three times
on the table and at once there is dear evidence of an inner con
flict. He wants to take off that shoe but has made up his mind he
will not. Like one possessed of a devil, he runs his hands through
his hair, shakes his head, gets up and walks around the room
muttering to himself, “ I won’t. I won’t do it.”
Finally the strain becomes too great and he says, “Oh! All
right, then. Have it your own way.” He takes off the shoe and
sits down looking vastly relieved. While we can get this re
action in some subjects who do not enter somnambulism, în
general they can fight off the suggestion. They still show
evidence of a desire to carry out the order, but will sit still,
grit their teeth, smile triumphantly and say, “No,” And in
most of these cases “no” means “no.”
At this point, we should mention a very necessary precaution
72 HYPNOTISM
which should be taken in all this work. The subject must never
leave the room until the suggestion has been removed. There
are two ways of doing this. Re-hypnotize the subject and re
move the suggeslion, or, far easier, have him c a r r y it out with
his own consent. Simply say, "Very well. That test failed but
I want to make sure that we have no trouble with it in the
future. Take off your shoe and put in on again, just to clear the
wires.”
A doctor friend reports a very interesting case which
happened to him iwenty years 3go. A patient came complaining
that he was being followed by a big, black dog. The patient
knew quite well that there was no dog around, but for all that
he could not escape from the delusion that this dog was always
at his heels. The doctor worked with him for a week with no
success. Then the patient himself gave the answer. A stage
hypnotist had been in town. He had volunteered as a subject,
went into deep trance and remembered nothing of what
happened until he was awakened at the end of the show. But
the next day this dog delusion started and had been with him
ever since.
The doctor found the answer in short order. Inquiring
among his friends he found that the subject, the night of the
show', had kept the house entertained by running around the
stage for half an hour always pursued by a big, black dog. He
was one of several subjects and this was his "stunt." He was
hypnotized at once, the posthypnotic suggestion removed, and,
after a couple of seances, had finally got rid of his phantom
friend.
One of the real dangers of hypnotism lies right here. We may
easily instill in the subject’s mind some conflict, without in any
way intending the same. One of our best operators reports the
following case. The subject, in deep trance, was told to drink a
glass of whisky. He was a prohibitionist, had never tasted
liquor and refused. But the day after the trance, he told the
hypnotist that, for some unknown reason, he had developed a
the po sth y pn o ttc s u g g e s t io n and a u t o s u g g e s t io n 73
crazy idea of entering every saloon he passed and having a

glass of whisky. The operator said nothing, re-hypnotized the
s u b je c t and this time took care that he removed all post
hypnotic suggestions.
The best procedure is as follows. After each trance, if any
posthypnotic suggestions have been given, explain to die sub
ject in the waking state just what lias occurred. Then assure
him that the suggestion in question has now' been completely
removed. If he has any hint of its still persisting, he is to look
up the operator at once. W ith experience the hypnotist will
never have any trouble along these lines but he must always
realize that he must exercise great care.
There are two outstanding facts about these posthypnottc
suggestions which link them very closely to the so-called
Freudian “complex.” First, these suggestions, as do those in
hypnosis proper, have a very curious compulsive force. When
given to a subject in somnambulism they simply “must” be
carried out. The writer recalls one very interesting example
while doing graduate work at Harvard. Professor William
McDougall was always greatly interested in hypnotism. Under
his leadership some very valuable research work was always
under way.
On one occasion a group was gathered in his office. One of
these graduate students was an excellent hypnotic subject and
the professor hypnotized him. Before awakening the subject,
McDougall said, “When I light my cigarette, you will take the
ace of spades from the pack of cards on the table and hand it to
me.” Then he awakened the subject and later lit his cigarette.
Now it happened that this particular subject was greatly
interested in hypnotism and quite familiar with its use. He at
once reached over for the pack of cards, then suddenly stopped.
<fDo you know,” he said, “I believe that is a posthypnotic
suggestion.”
“Very probably,” McDougall replied, “ what do you want
to do?"
74 h y p n o t is m :
“I want to give you the ace of spades.”

“That’s right. It is a posthypnotic suggestion. W hat are you
going to do about it ?”
“I won’t do it.”
“I bet you fifty cents you will.”
“Taken.”
Then came a very neat demonstration of this compulsive
power of the suggestion. The subject was obviously in difficul
ties. Extremely restless, he would keep drifting toward that
pack of cards, then pull himself together, and sit down only to
be on his feet again in a minute’s time wandering around the
room in a most unhappy fashion. But he did resist and at the
end of an hour and a half he collected his fifty cents, wiped his
brow, and left the room.
But his troubles had only started. McDougall had purposely
omitted removing the suggestion. The subject had a great deal
of work to do but simply coutd not settle down. H e was haunted
by the ace of spades. Finally at four o’clock in the afternoon
he gave up the struggle, returned to the building, had the jani
tor let him into the office, got the ace of spades, looked up the
hypnotist at his home, and handed it over plus a one dollar
bill.
These compulsions arising from the posthypnotic suggestion
work in very curious ways. For example, we say to a subject,
“ When you awaken I will reach for a cigarette. You will then
hand me the ash try from the mantelpiece.” When he is wide
awake the operator reaches for his cigarette and the subject
promptly hands him the ash tray.
“W hy did you hand me that tray ?”
The subject looks puzzled. “Well, why not? You are smoking
and have no ash tray.”
“It was a posthypnotic suggestion. See if you can pick out
the next one and resist it.”
We try again. This time we say, “When I stand up to leave
the room you will hand me a coat. By accident, however, you
the p o s t h y p n o t ic s u g g e s t io n and a u t o s u g g e s t io n 75
will hand me Mr. Jones’ coat, the one with the velvet collar.”
This time when we stand up, he immediately hands us Jones’
coat, then notices his mistake and apologizes profusely. We say,
"Fooled again! Another posthypnotic suggestion. See if you can
catch us.”
In hypnotism we then say, "W hen you awaken we will
mention the shipping losses caused by the submarines. You will
then reach for the N ew York Times and quote us the losses for
the last four weeks.”
He is awakened. Five minutes later the hypnotist mentions
shipping losses. H e promptly reaches for the Times and just as
promptly stops.
“No, you don’t. Not this time. That is a posthypnotic sug
gestion. I won’t carry it out.”
"How do you know it is a posthypnotic suggestion?”
“I just feel it in my bones. Sort of an urge to do it and a
very uncomfortable feeling when I resist That feeling would
never come from anything else.”
“I bet you can’t resist it.”
“Yes, I can. Much as I want to get my hands on that Times,
the thing is not irresistible.”
"Very well. Look up the figures any how just to ease your
mind.”
This subject, highly intelligent and himself a psychologist,
could pick out the curious drive to carry out the suggestion and
so was able to identify it. The reader will note a point which is
very important for later discussion. The subject tends to carry
out these suggestions without any hesitation, especially when
they fit into the social situation in which he finds himself. How
ever, immediately he finds out the cause of his actions, he just
as quickly decides to resist. W hether this resistance will be
effective depends on many factors, especially the depth of the
trance and the attitude of the hypnotist.
Sidis in his Psychology of Suggestion brings out the impor
tance of operator attitude very clearly. H e quotes from his-very
76 HYPNOTISM
wide experience to show that the subject will resist a sugges

tion if he has the least idea that the operator does not fully
expect him to comply. On the other hand, if the hypnotist
makes his suggestions in a firm voice which does not express
the slightest doubt as to their acceptance the order will be
obeyed.
Science here tends to lean over backward in its effort to be
come scientific and in doing so becomes very unscientific. We
cannot adopt completely the methods of the physical sciences,
such as chemistry. The attitude of the experimenter matters
nothing here. If he adds zinc to sulphuric acid, the result is
quite dear cut and definite, whatever may be his attitude. But
in suggestion this attitude is tremendously significant. A sug
gestion given in a voice which does not express conviction is
not nearly as potent as one given with determination and
force.
W e do not have to experiment with hypnotism to see the
truth of this statement. Any effective public speaker knows that
confidence, conviction, and force are necessary to sway his
audience. We will later see that a Hitler uses all the techniques
of a stage hypnotist and uses them with excellent results.
So we must always bear in mind that, while psychology
claims to be a science and to follow the sdentific method, this
personal factor introduces an element which is quite foreign
to chemistry, physics or geology. The psychologist, in his de
termination to get standard conditions, may, in some cases,
completdy defeat his own ends and become a very unscientific
scientist. Hypnotism supplies us with our most glaring examples
and, for this reason, hypnotism is probably the most difficult
of all subjects in psychology to investigate. The personality of
the operator is of such great importance.
The reader must bear this constantly in mind when, in later
pages, we discuss such subjects as the possible use of hypnotism
for criminal ends and for the detection of crime. Here we will
see that some of our very best men, such as M. H. Erickson
at Eloise State Hospital, are emphatic that hypnotism cannot
be used in either situation. But we will also see that others of
equal reputation, as W. R. Wells of Syracuse University or L.
W. Rowland of University of Tulsa, are jusfc-as emphatic that
it can. This presents a very confusing picture to the average
reader and tends to discredit this branch of psychology. Actually
such results must be expected until we find some way of evalu
ating the personal factors of both the hypnotist and the subject.
There is a second characteristic of the posthypnotic sug
gestion which is of the very greatest importance. This we term
rationalization. The subject tends to rationalize, to find excuses
for his actions and, strange to say, while these excuses may be
utterly false, the subject tends to believe them.
For example, the writer says to a very good somnambulist,
“ After you awaken I will sit down by the piano. You will then
go to the bookshelves, select the third book from the left hand
side, second row from the top, turn to page 127 and read the
first paragraph,” The subject remembers nothing of what the
operator has said, yet, when he seats himself by the piano, the
subject wanders over to the library, selects the proper book,
opens to page 127 and starts reading. It happens to be a text
book on biology.
The operator interrupts. “W hy are you reading that stuff to
me?”
“Well, yesterday I had an argument with Professor Smith
about the action of the chromosomes in reduction-division, and
I thought you could help me out.”
The subject was a medical student, the story fitted together
neatly, and he evidently believed it—only it was quite untrue.
He had not seen Professor Smith for a week and had had no
argument about the action of the chromosomes. This case is
typical. The subject always finds an excuse to justify his con
duct, and this conduct may be pretty hard to justify, as in the
following case.
The operator hypnotizes a subject and tells him that when
78 HYPNOTISM
the cuckoo clock strikes he will walk up to Mr, White, put a

lamp shade on his head, kneel on the floor in front of him and
“cuckoo” three times. Mr. White was not the type on whom
one played practical jokes, in fact, he was a morose, non-
humorous sort of individual who would fit very badly in such
a picture. Yet, when the cuckoo dock struck, the subject carried
out the suggestion to the letter.
“W hat in the world are you doing?” he was asked.
“ Well, I ’ll tell you. It sounds queer but it’s just a little ex
periment in psychology. I've been reading on the psychology
of humor and I thought I ’d see how you folks reacted to a joke
that was in very bad taste. Please pardon me, Mr. White, no
offence intended whatsoever,” and the subject sat down with
out the slightest realization of having acted under posthypnotic
compulsion.
Next came a very curious situation. Mr. W hite was a lawyer
and interested în the whole problem of hypnotism în crime.
“Do you think hypnotism is dangerous?” he asked the
subject.
“ I’m sorry but I know nothing about hypnotism,” came the
puzzled reply.
“But you were hypnotized only five minutes ago.”
“ Now you’re having your little joke, but I have never been
hypnotized in all my life,”
“ I certainly saw you in hypnotism right in this room not five
minutes back.”
“ You certainly saw no such thing. I know nothing about
hypnotism, never have been hypnotized, and know that no one
could put me to sleep.”
It is a very curious thing that, with the use of the post
hypnotic suggestion, we can remove from the subject all knowl
edge of ever being in the trance. W e merely assure him in
hypnotism, “In future you will have no memory of ever being
asleep. You will remember nothing about hypnotism but will
insist that you have never been hypnotized in all your life”
t ±1E f o s t h y f n o t i c s u g g e s t io n AND AUTOSUGGESTION 79
After such a suggestion has been repeated a few times the

subject has no knowledge of going into trance. W e seat our
selves opposite him at the table. He is hypnotized and we talk
along for half an hour. Then we awaken him and he at once
picks up the conversation where he left off before being hypno
tized. We ask him about the trance and he looks puzzled. He is
quite sure that we have been talking quietly in our chairs ever
since he entered the room. When he is told that he was in the
trance, and is a good subject, he is inclined to think that we are
trying to play a very poor joke on him. He reacts in exactly the
same way as would the reader if his doctor were suddenly to
enter the room and tell him that for the last hour he had been
walking in his sleep. The whole thing doesn’t make sense and
the subject says so.
We can go even farther with the posthypnotic suggestion.
Not only can we, with its aid, remove all knowledge from the
subject of ever having been hypnotized; we can make it im
possible for anyone beside the operator to hypnotize him at any
future date. This again is the result of suggestion in the hyp
notic trance. After such a suggestion the subject, no matter how
good a somnambulist he may have been, becomes the most
obstinate of all people when we try to get the trance.
In the waking state he not only denies that he has ever been
hypnotized but is very unwilling for anyone to try and induce
the trance. He claims that hypnotism is something he never
liked, that he thinks the whole thing silly and does not wish to
make a fool of himself. If we press him, he will consent very
reluctantly to allow someone present to try, but the operator in
question can get nowhere. The subject is definitely hostile and
merely goes through the motions of co-operation but nothing
more.
Finally, to complete this curious picture we use the post
hypnotic suggestion to induce hypnotism, after the first trance.
We say to the subject, "Listen carefully. In future, whenever I
take the lobe of my left ear in my left hand and pull it three
80 HYPNOTISM
times, you will at once go sound asleep.” This suggestion may |

have to be repeated several times, depending on the subject, but |
with a little practice it will work. To hypnotize the patient, the '«
operator now merely strokes his left ear three times and the 1
subject is in trance. Needless to say, we may use any cue, as \
long as we make it clear to the subject what this cue is to be.
W e may say to him, “You are asleep’’ or may use any other
phrase as “Mary had a little lamb,” if we wish it to be verbal,
while the range of visual cues is unlimited.
The resulting picture of hypnotism is something with which
the reader will be quite unfamiliar. We will see later that hypno
tism has nothing to do with sleep, a good subject may be in
deepest trance yet behave for all the world as if he were wide
awake. For example, the writer has used a somnambulist as
his bridge partner for an evening, had the subject play every
other hand in the trance state and no one in the room was any
the wiser. Control of the trance was exercised by means of post
hypnotic cues, in this case scratching the left ear or scratching
the right ear to hypnotize or awaken the subject.
This shift from waking to hypnotic states can be extremely
quick and subtle. The writer recently saw a very beautiful dem
onstration. Another operator was demonstrating with a very
good subject, hypnotizing and awakening him, with the writer
trying to detect the change. It turned out to be quite impossible,
so well concealed were the cues and so quickly did the change
occur. The only way the writer could decide was to ask the
subject, quite frankly, “Are you asleep ?” and take his word. In
the last analysis it would have been easy to check up by using
some test, such as anaesthesia, but under the circumstances this
was not necessary. The subject was quite honest and enjoyed
the game as much as anyone. This certainly is a very different
picture of hypnotism from that which exists in the mind of the
average layman. It is this very confusing, one might almost say,
deceptive aspect of hypnotism to which we later devote several
chapters.
W e have noted the main points of interest in the posthypnotic

suggestion. Anything which we can get in hypnotism we can
get by posthypnotic means. We pointed out the weird com
pulsive power which these delayed suggestions have, especially
when the subject does not realize the cause of his actions; also
that the subject will tend to rationalize, to give reasons for his
actions. These reasons he believes just as much as if they were
genuine.
Then we have the curious fact that with the posthypnotic
suggestion we can remove all knowledge of ever having been
hypnotized and render it impossible for anyone but the operator
to use hypnotism at any future date. Finally we can use post
hypnotic cues to aid in hypnotizing at a future date. These
can be employed so cleverly that an experienced operator can
not detect their use, cannot even detect, without tests, that the
subject is in the trance.
There are a few other questions which seem of interest to the
public. How long will the posthypnotic suggestion last? Frankly
we have no idea. Liebeault reports a case in which a very com
plicated suggestion was carried out after a year. The writer
recently ran across a case where the posthypnotic suggestion
seemed to be fairly strong after twenty years.
During the last war he was interested in the study of hypno
tism and was far more inclined to go in for “stunts” in those
early days. He had a favorite trick with one subject. H e would
say, ‘‘Watch the front,” Whereupon the subject would stand
up and shout, “ Call out the guard. Here comes Paul Revere.”
It happened that recently the operator met this subject and
in the course of the conversation suddenly said, “Watch the
front.” The subject looked puzzled, then said, “Call out the
guard. Paul Revere is coming.” Then he immediately looked
even more puzzled and added, “ I wonder why I said that. Some
how something you said recalls the last war and all the muck
in the trenches. I never recalled the whole thing quite so vividly
before.”
< W . HYPNOTISM
W e generally accept the fact that these suggestions tend to

wear off unless we give some very specific time and date as four
o’clock, Christmas afternoon, 1941. However with occasional
reinforcement in the hypnotic trance there seems no reason why
the posthypnotic suggestion would not last indefinitely. It seems
to do so in the treatment of alcohol and tobacco. It is reasonable
to suppose that it will do so in other situations.
The statement was made at the beginning of this chapter that
any of the phenomena which could be obtained in hypnotism
or by the posthypnotic suggestion could also be produced by
means of autosuggestion. This is literally true but it is by no
means as easy to demonstrate as are the various conditions we
obtain in direct hypnosis. However, it can be shown quite con
clusively if we use hypnotism as a “spring board” and reinforce
or initiate the autosuggestion by suggestions given in the hyp
notic trance.
Perhaps the general public is most familiar with autosugges
tion through the works and lectures of the Frenchman, Coue,
This man spent most of his life in Nancy, France, home of
Liebeault and Bernheim, fathers of modem hypnotism. Actually
he was neither a doctor nor a psychologist, but only the proprie
tor of the “corner drugstore,” so to speak. However, living in
that city with its traditions of achievement in hypnotic research,
he picked up a considerable knowledge of technique, if not of
theory.
Autosuggestion, as explained by Coue, was nothing new.
Bernheim was quite familiar with all the phenomena he de
scribes as we can see by reading his book Suggestive Thera
peutics.. However Coue had somewhat of the showman’s tech
nique and probably did psychology considerable service by
bringing this phase of suggestion more to the attention of the
public. His own writings are not convincing but, if the reader
should be interested in following the subject further after our
discussion in the following pages, we would refer him to the
work by Baudouin Suggestion and Autosuggestion,
T H E POSTHYPNOTIC SUGGESTION AND AUTOSUGGESTION 83
Let us first consider autosuggestion as initiated în the hyp
notic trance. For example, we say to the subject, after he has seen
an imaginary black dog in hypnotism, “Listen carefully. In the
future whenever you wish to see the black dog when you are
awake, you have only to take a pencil and a piece of paper, print
the word ‘dog’ and the dog will appear before your eyes,” We
repeat these instructions carefully and then awaken the subject-
When awake, we say to him, “By the way, have you ever
had a vision?” He admits he has not. “Well, how would you
like to have one?” He says it would be a very interesting ex
perience, so we hand him a pencil and paper, then say, “ Now
print the word 'dog' on the paper and tell me what you see.”
He does so and expresses great surprise at seeing a black dog
standing beside his chair. This little trick may not succeed the
first time, but given a good subject, and the repetition of the
suggestion in several seances, we can usually count on success.
The various implications of this technique are fairly obvious.
The writer recalls one very good subject who was troubled with
inability to sleep. He was instructed in several seances that in
future when he wished to sleep he would relax and repeat the
first five letters of the alphabet “a ” through “e.” He would
then have an irresistible impulse to go sound asleep and would
remain asleep for as long as he wished.
This particular subject became so very good at this game
that he was quite willing to show off his abilities before any
one, H e would guarantee to go asleep on ten seconds’ notice in
spite of anything we could do, physical violence excepted. Not
only that but it would be quite impossible to awaken him
until he decided to awaken, say at the end of some fifteen
minutes or half an hour.
The use of very specific autosuggestion to reinforce hypnotic
and posthypnotic suggestions has, in our opinion, great pos
sibilities. For example, we take a subject who complains of
great difficulty in concentrating. H e wishes to attend night
school and does so, but finds it very hard to concentrate on his
84 HYPNOTISM
work after a day a t the office. W e try the usual hypnotic sug
gestions with considerable success, then clinch the matter with
some very specific suggestions which are to take the form of
autosuggestion.
W e say to him, “ In the evening when you wish to concen
trate, you will prepare all your work so that you will not have
to leave your room. You will then put your watch on the table,
take a card and print on it ‘Concentrate until 10:30.’ You will
place this card beside the watch. From then on you will have no
difficulty whatsoever in attending to your work. Everything
will leave your mind except the determination to work hard
until 1 0 :30 or whatever time you may print on the card.” This
little trick seems to help very much in securing the much desired
ability to concentrate.
Here, of course, arises a very neat point. Is this actually
autosuggestion or posthypnotic suggestion? In this book we
will side-step the issue by saying that the question is only of
theoretical interest. We could argue indefinitely over many
such problems, as, for instance, is all suggestion autosuggestion
or is all suggestion hetero-suggestion, that is, suggestion with
the aid of an operator, real or imagined? The reader may feel
he has the answer but we can assure him that much ink has been
shed on this issue and it is still an open question. For our pur
poses we are entitled to avoid such problems on the plea that
we simply go “round and round the mulberry hush.” If the
professional psychologist can not find the answer, we can not
hope to do so.
As with the hallucination, we can obtain all other hypnotic
phenomena by means of autosuggestion and by using the same
technique. Paralyses, anaesthesias, even control of the heart rate
lend themselves to this attack. But its real practical use would
be in giving man command over himself, over his powers of
concentration, and over his personality, so that he could re
build himself along the lines of success and happiness. There
may be here a great future for autosuggestion.
the f o s t h y p n o t ic s u g g e s t io n and a u t o s u g g e s t io 85
However, all autosuggestion need not be initiated by hypno

tism. Coue was not interested in this approach and Baudouin
outlines in his book very carefully the ordinary procedure. This
is literally to give to yourself, when relaxed, the desired sug
gestions. Coue’s famous formula, “Every day and in every way
I ’m getting better and better,” was quite the rage a few years
ago. Undoubtedly such a general formula can be of great help
in many cases.
Coue in his writings on autosuggestion stresses the impor
tance of imagination. If we can imagine a thing vividly enough,
then it’s true. This point is very open to argument. We must
realize that in autosuggestion, as in hypnotism, people probably
vary greatly in their openness to such suggestions. Success will
not be uniform with any technique, some people will get results,
others will not.
Nevertheless, the writer has found that the following pro
cedure seems to be the one which is easiest and which can pro
duce most of the things we get in hypnotism. The subject
should relax on a couch or in a chair, close his eyes, and “Talk
sleep” to himself. W ith a little practice he will recognize the
coming of hypnosis, that “faraway" feeling accompanied by
numbness in the limbs and a general laziness.
When this stage arrives the subject should then shift over
to active suggestion, but without awakening himself. He must
suggest to himself that, let us say, all sensation has gone out
of his right arm or that he is listening to a symphony. The
technique of autosuggestion is difficult, but it can be mastered.
Once the subject has obtained this mastery he will find that not
only can he produce, say. hallucinations în the trance itself but
can actually suggest posthypnotic hallucinations to himself It
does sound weird but it can be done.
For example, the writer while in military hospital had ample
time to experiment with autosuggestion. H e was able to suggest
to himself that he would wake up at 2 a . m . and hear a sym
phony. Even more interesting he could suggest that he would
86 HYPNOTISM
awaken and hear spiritistic raps. Sure enough at 2 a . m . he was

wide awake listening to very distinct raps from the spirit world.
Then came a very interesting experience, almost a state of
divided consciousness. He heard the raps distinctly but knew
they were the results of autosuggestion. He was even able to
make a “mental request" that they group themselves in twos
and threes and the spirits obliged. We will see later that hypno*
tism provides us with a key to explain most psychic phenomena,
when these are genuine and not the result of magician’s tricks.
Autosuggestion gives us an excellent device with which to
study many strange things. The writer had a pet polar bear
which he was able to call up merely by counting to five. This
animal would parade around the hospital ward in most con
vincing fashion, over and under the beds, kiss the nurses and
bite the doctors. It was very curious to note how obedient he
was to “mental” commands, even jumping out of a three story
window on demand.
But there is a certain menace to autosuggestion which this
phantom bear illustrated. He became so very familiar that he
refused to go away. He would turn up in the most unexpected
places and without being sent for. The writer was playing
bridge one evening and almost threw his hostess into hysterics
by suddenly remarking, “There’s that damn bear again. I wish
someone would shoot the beast.” He also had a nasty habit of
turning up in dark comers at night, all very well when one
realized he was just made of ghost-stuff but rather hard on
one’s nerves for all that. So he was banished and told never
to return, but it was fully a month before the writer felt quite
sure that his ghostly form would not be grinning at him over
the foot of his bed during a thunderstorm.
There is a real danger here in connection with autosugges
tion—a much greater menace than can ever arise from straight
hypnotism. In the latter, the situation is always in skilled hands.
Any bad effects can be remedied on the spot once and for all, but
this is not so with autosuggestion. The subject is his own doc-
tor, which has all the dangers this would imply if he were
allowed the run of a drugstore to treat his ills without previous
training. It is very hard for the average man himself to recog
nize trouble which may be the result of autosuggestion and just
as difficult for him to treat it.
The writer recalls the case of a very gifted lady who became
interested in spiritism. As we will see, the spiritistic phenomena
are largely due to autosuggestion. She became so completely
deranged through talking to the spirits— St. Augustine in this
case—that she had to retire to a sanatarium. She has since
regained a certain amount of her former mental balance but,
left to herself, she could never have handled the situation. This
was largely because she did not realize how very near she was
to complete insanity. St. Augustine was a very real person, she
valued his friendship immensely and resisted treatment until the
supposed spirit was ousted by hypnotism. W ith this aid she
recovered sanity enough to see how serious her situation was
and from then on could help herself.
The writer cannot become very enthusiastic about autosug
gestion. W e will see in later pages that it may easily result in
dissociation. In theory the subject should be able to guide his
own treatment and become the master of his own personality.
But it may just as readily encourage a tendency to dissociation
which is latent in so many people, and with this lead to the
development of neurotic traits which are far from desirable.
The reader will do well to read through the next two chapters
before he passes judgment on this statement. As yet we have
not talked enough on the theory of hypnotism to give us a
proper basis for discussion.
Anything which occurs in hypnotism or the posthypnotic
suggestion we can get in autosuggestion. Finally any of these
hypnotic phenomena may occur in everyday life, when we
refer to the individual as "queer,” an hysteric, a neurotic, even
as insane. For this reason hypnotism is of very great impor
tance, and we refer to it as the "laboratory” of abnormal
88 HYPNOTISM
psychology. I t provides us with a key whereby we can under

stand the insane, and the neurotic.
For instance, the operator can suggest to a subject that, on -
awakening, he will have an irresistible impulse to kill every cat
he sees, telling him in hypnotism that cats spread bubonic
plague through their fleas and that by killing cats he will confer
a great service on humanity. When the subject awakens he
may very easily have an urge to kill any cat he meets. Asked
for a reason he will insist that they are a menace to the country,
that they spread the plague. Yet he will have no idea of where
this idea comes from.
Should we run across such a case in everyday life we would
say that he is suffering from a "compulsion.” Actually we do
have many examples of these compulsions as in the case of the
kleptomaniac who must steal even worthless objects, the pyro-
maniac who must set fires, and many others. Moreover, we
will point out in later pages that the kleptomaniac, and the
pyromaniac are really working under a posthypnotic suggestion
—minus the hypnotist. They act in exactly the same way as
if they had been hypnotized and given their instructions in the
trance. As a matter of fact we will see that they have been hypno
tized at some time in their life and have been given the sug
gestion in question. The fact that no hypnotist was involved,
that they may never have seen a hypnotist in all their life, we
will see, has no bearing whatsoever on the case.
Similarly hypnotism gives us the explanation for many cither
types of mental disorder. The man who has a fear of cats, a
phobia as it is called, acts exactly as if he had received the
suggestion in hypnotism. And he did—only it was not labelled
hypnotism. Likewise we will point out that an understanding
of hypnotism helps us to understand “ Napoleon” in your nearest
state hospital for mental diseases. W e can procure him in any
psychological laboratory, and in so doing understand how he
"gets that way” in normal life. As a matter of fact, the writer
can see no difference between the Freudian complex and the
posthypnotic suggestion. W e will be in a better position to

understand that statement after the next two chapters, but we
would like to re-emphasize the thread of continuity. Hypno
tism, posthypnotic suggestion, autosuggestion; what we get
in one we can get in the other. And the phenomena we obtain
in any of them occur in everyday life, when we refer to them
as various mental disorders. But actually we can best under
stand them as forms of the posthypnotic suggestion or auto
suggestion. This is why our subject is so very im portant
Just a final word. Hypnotism may explain many forms of
insanity. T hat does not mean to say that hypnotism can cure
them. In some cases it may help, but the fact is that, while we
may know why Mr. Smith is in hospital and thinks he is Napo
leon, this does not guarantee a cure by hypnotism or any
other means.
Chapter I V
SOME CUEIOUS STATES IN EVERYDAY LIFE WHICH ARE

DUE TO HYPNOTISM
ET us now examine some of those states which are closely

related to hypnotism, for in so doing we will not only
understand the underlying cause of these related phe
nomena but will obtain a fuller picture of hypnotism itself. Take,
for instance, automatic writing as a first example. The reader
is probably familiar with this curious state, wherein the sub
ject's hand writes “automatically” with no reference to what
is in the conscious mind.
This may take many forms. The subject may lose conscious
ness completely while the hand writes, but in general he retains
his full conscious faculties. He may be able to interrupt the
hand but again the writing hand îs generally a law unto itselţ
It scribbles along until it has finished, perhaps in five minutes,
perhaps in fifty, then stops and is again a part of the normal
body pattern.
The usual picture is somewhat as follows. The subject relaxes
in a chair with a pencil in his hand, a paper on the desk. After
one or two minutes the hand makes a few convulsive move
ments, then starts writing. The letters are generally large and
ill-formed, but in some cases as in that of Stainton Moses the
writing may be beautiful. The hand guides itself largely by
touch and writes until it comes to the end of the page, then
pauses with pencil uplifted awaiting a fresh sheet of paper. The
subject himself may supply this with his other hand, or, if in
trance, his associate will put the fresh sheets in place.
The strange thing about this whole procedure is that the
subject has no control over the hand in question. He has not
the slightest idea as to what it will next write and is often badly
90
SOME CURIOUS STATES IN EVERYDAY L IF E 91
embarrassed when the hand makes a “remark,” so to speak,

which should not occur in polite society. W e can screen the
writing hand from the subject’s sight, passing it through a
cloth curtain. Then the subject can quietly read a magazine
while we experiment with the hand. It will write along, in no
way disturbing the subject and in no way disturbed by what
he may be reading or thinking.
We stick a pin in the hand, but the subject does not pay the
least attention. But the hand promptly writes “stop it,” “cut it
out,” or some such phrase. The writer had an ex-army friend
on whom he tried this litde trick. Everything was going along
in fine fashion until we pricked the hand with a needle, where
upon the hand burst into a stream of cuss words that would
have made any regimental sergeant-major blush with shame.
For full five minutes it told the operator just where he could go
and how to get there. All this time the subject was reading
OH for the Lamps of China without the slightest idea that his
good right arm was fighting a private war.
We refer to automatic writing as an example of dissociation.
The am i in question is dissociated, is cut off from the rest of
the body. This must mean that those parts of the brain which
control the arm are for the time being disconnected with those
parts responsible for normal waking consciousness, which could
be explained in terms of the synapse theory we have already
mentioned. At any rate, the arm acts by itself and seems to be
an outlet by which the unconscious mind can express itself with
out completely unseating the conscious mind. Certain we are
that this hand will often mention facts which are quite unknown
to the subject.
This often has great use in medicine. We take a subject, aged
twenty-five, who is a victim of the hand-washing mania; he
simply must wash his hands forty times a day. He also does
automatic writing, and as we can get no real information from
him which might explain his compulsion to hand washing, we
ask the hand itself în automatic writing.
92 HYPNOTISM
“W hy do you have this compulsion to wash?"

“ I don’t know.”
“ Now, think. When did it first make its appearance?”
“ Sometime when I was about eleven or twelve.”
“That is not dose enough. You can do a lot better. Now,
think. When? When and why?”
“Good heavens. Now I know,” and the hand scribbles out
the story. It appears that, as a boy, he had a dog of which he
was very fond. On one occasion this dog fell into an open cess
pool, and was in danger of drowning. The boy had a friend hold
his legs, then reached down and rescued the dog, getting him
self filthy in the process. Worse than this he also collected a
sound thrashing from his father, who told him that he had
probably contracted various diseases, including syphilis. On
this basis was built up the morbid compulsion to wash his
hands. We will see later that the most important step in curing
many such conditions is that of learning the original cause.
We can find examples of these automatic movements in much
simpler form than those involved in automatic writing. Most
of the readers have probably been present at a “table tilting
seance,” wherein the table is in contact with the spirit world
and raps out its messages to friends on this side of the border.
Science now generally concedes that the movements of the
table are due to automatic— and quite unintentional— pushes
and pulls on the part of the “sitter.” The fact that these always
protest that they have exerted no conscious effort means noth
ing, for we get these automatic movements in far more elaborate
form with automatic writing and here the subject may be
totally ignorant of what his hand is doing. Moreover, the plea
that the table sometimes raps out information of which no one
present is conscious also means nothing. These automatic move
ments, as coming from the unconscious, would have much
material at their disposal of which the normal mind would be
in ignorance. I t is difficult for the average reader to grasp this
possibility, but we will refer him to the cases of multiple per
sonality which we discuss in later pages of this chapter. This

weird condition probably gives the most convincing illustra
tions which psychology can muster.
In this same class, of course, comes work with the ouija
board, an instrument with which we are all familiar. Here the
automatic and wholly unconscious movements of the sitter guide
the little table over the board as it spells out answers to the
various questions. It is interesting to note here that some people
can work the ouija board with great success obtaining from it
all kinds of information of which they have no knowledge. It
comes from the unconscious. Others can get nothing at all from
the board. It simply refuses to budge. This is in strict accord
with what we would expect if susceptibility to these automatic
movements had anything to do with a similar openness to
hypnotic suggestion.
And it has, very definitely. The writer, in his experience, has
met many people who, as a pastime, practiced automatic writ
ing. Whenever he has tried hypnotism with these people, they
always turned out to be excellent subjects. And we find the
same with people who can get good results from the ouija board.
As a matter of fact an experienced operator has to waste very
little time looking for subjects. A little inquiry will show that
in any group there are people who consistently walk or talk in
their sleep, who have practiced automatic writing, who like to
work with the ouija board or who have success as “crystal
gazers.” W ith such people the operator can proceed under the
almost certain assumption that he is dealing with good hyp
notic subjects.
He is dealing with a person who is highly suggestible and it
would appear that most of these automatic movements, so often
associated with spiritism are largely the result of autosugges
tion. The subject becomes interested in spiritism, and has an
intense desire to get some of the “mediumistic” phenomena in
himself. So he seats himself in front of paper, with a pencil in
his hand, relaxes and hopes for results. This is simply one form
94 HYPNOTISM
of autosuggestion and if the individual is a good hypnotic sub

ject, he gets the results he wishes. If not, he becomes dis
couraged and concludes that the whole thing is a fraud. But
there is nothing supernatural or supernormal about automatic
writing or the ouija board.
The results depend on dissociation produced by suggestion.
We will see later that while dissociation may not be the whole
explanation of hypnotism, the fact remains that we almost never
get hypnotism without dissociation. They are psychological
Siamese twins bom of the same parent, suggestion, and both
dependent on the suggestibility of the individual in question.
That analogy is not quite correct, but it gives a pretty good
picture for all that.
Then again we see the relationship between these states and
hypnotism in the fact that we can easily obtain them in most
good hypnotic subjects by means of suggestion in the trance.
We make use of the posthypnotic suggestion, saying to the
subject, “ In the future whenever you wish to do automatic
writing, you will sit down before a sheet of blank paper, take a
pencil in your hand, and relax. You will then recite the first five
letters of the alphabet at the end of which your hand will begin
to write.” I t may be necessary to repeat these suggestions in
following seances, even to give some very specific suggestion as
“ your hand will write ‘Mary had a little lamb’ ” just by way of
getting the subject into the knack of the thing. But with per
sistence the somnambulist can generally succeed with auto
matic writing while the automatic writer will almost always
become a somnambulist.
Another curious phenomenon we see in everyday fife is
“crystal gazing.” Here again the unconscious seems near the
surface and in this case vision is used as the outlet. Also it can
be obtained as a result of posthypnotic suggestion and very
probably most crystal gazers are good hypnotic subjects. The
writer has had too little experience here to say but feels certain
that such is the case.
some curious states in everyday life 95
By the way, we do not need a crystal for crystal gazing. A
glass of water is just as good especially if we have a point of
concentration on the surface, such as a small drop of oil. Even
this is unnecessary. And the technique for developing the
“power” is exactly the same as is that in the case of automatic
writing. Sit down, relax, gaze into the water, and hope for
results, all of which is a perfect setting for autosuggestion. The
process can be made much shorter by using the posthypnotic
suggestion, showing again the close tie-up between the hypnotic
states and these odd conditions of everyday life.
Moreover, the “visions” we get in crystal gazing are the same
as the revelations through automatic writing. Material drawn
from the unconscious mind, sometimes dealing with events of
which the subject has no conscious knowledge. The reservoir is
the same but the “pipe line” leads in different directions. In
automatic writing to the hand, in crystal gazing to the eyes,
but nothing supernatural in either case. A very excellent and
authoritative book on this subject is that by T. Besterman. x J
All these conditions illustrate a very important principle of
which we will later deal at greater length. Certain experiences
of childhood and later life are “repressed,” are forced out of
consciousness because of the fact that they are very unpleasant.
These are completely forgotten so far as our everyday life is
concerned, but while “down” they are not “out.” As a matter
of fact, they may cause a great deal of trouble, being the origin
of all sorts of mental disorders.
“ Shell shock” is a case in point. It really should be called
“war neurosis” since it has nothing to do with shells neces
sarily, but is a reaction to fear. In general, it will be found that
these shell shock cases have a period of amnesia, a memory
blank, for some very terrible experience. They remember noth
ing about it, yet for purposes of a cure it is necessary that it be
restored to consciousness. Hypnotism is excellent, or any other
trick, which taps the unconscious, including crystal gazing.
The writer recalls one such case in the last war. The patient
96 HYPNOTISM
was suffering from a violent tremor all over his body, so violent
that he could not walk or even feed himself. The doctor, think
ing that he would try hypnotism, began explaining to the subject
just what he would want. In the course of the conversation the
subject volunteered the information that he had once been very
much interested in crystal gazing and had been quite successful
in obtaining visions. This seemed a good lead so the doctor
proposed he try it and report his experiences.
The patient did so, and saw in the glass the whole terrible
experience of a bombing attack in which most of his company
had been killed and he himself had bombed three of the enemy
in a dugout under very harrowing circumstances. Yet previous
to this vision he would not recall any details of the attack, his
mind being a complete blank for a period of roughly twenty-
four hours.
Another type of automatic activity which is not so generally
known but which further illustrates our point îs the phenomenon
of “shell hearing.” We are all familiar with the fact that if we
cover an ear with a shell we get a peculiar confused roaring. In
some people this roaring refines itself into voices and these
become a series of auditory hallucinations. Moreover, we do
not need the classic shell. A tea cup held over the ear does just
as well and as usual the voices heard tell of events with which
the subject is already familiar or which are in his unconscious
mind.
Both automatic writing and shell hearing naturally lend
themselves to another line of activity. The writer or listener is
able to express his own philosophy of life in such a way that he
may easily rank himself as a prophet. For some strange reason
the average man is very much impressed with these automatic
phenomena both in others and in himself. Consequently if he
has a vision, receives a message by automatic writing or hears
"voices” with or without the “shell,” he is very liable to regard
them as direct from the supernatural and act as if he were re
ceiving guidance from, the deity.
SOME CUKIOUS STATES IN EVERYDAY L IF E 97
All the aspects of automatic phenomena are summed up best

in our final example, automatic speech, speaking with tongues
or glossolaha. The best book on the subject is that by G. E.
Cutten. W e are all familiar with the Bible story of Pentecost
day, when the tongues of fire descended on the disciples' heads
and they began talking in “tongues.” Whether or not this orig
inal experience involved actual foreign languages in which they
were to preach the reader may judge for himself. Suffice it for
our purposes to say that fifty years later, in the days of St. Paul,
the “gift of tongues” was understood by no one. S t Paul him
self advises his followers to expend their energies along other
lines since no person can understand what they are talking
about. Since his time there has not been a case, acceptable to
psychology, wherein an individual has been able to speak any
language without first going through the process of learning
the same. T o be sure, we have heard of many such cases in
popular literature, even have certain religious groups who insist
that their members talk all sorts of foreign languages with no
previous training, but the psychologist would still say “un
proven.”
What happens here is exactly the same sort of thing we have
already seen in automatic writing. A case of dissociation, only
here it is the muscles of the throat which are no longer under
control of the normal waking personality. The individual starts
talking just as the automatic writer writes, the throat muscles
appearing to run themselves without any conscious control from
the person in question. The words the subject utters may be
utterly unintelligible, a language of his own, a “divine lan
guage” as it is sometimes called or he may speak his own native
tongue, expressing what is in the unconscious mind.
In this latter case we again have an analogy from automatic
writing. The thoughts expressed may be utterly trivial, even
foolish, or they may represent the working of a profound, even
artistic mind. It might be well here to introduce a case which
98 HYPNOTISM
achieved considerable fame a few years back, fame which was

justly earned, to illustrate some points.
W e refer to the case of Patience W orth. Here we have a;-
lady, Mrs. Curran in everyday life, who lived the healthy nor- 's
mal existence of millions of other American women. She ha<$V
a high school education, had early hoped to become a singer*
or an artist of some description and again, like millions cf'
others, had been forced to realize that she simply did not have
the ability. Fortunately she had the good sense to accept this
fact, a point of view which all too many humans never w ill;
realize.
But, strange to say, Mrs. Curran ended up as an artist, one
of the best; yet not Mrs. Curran, but the unconscious of Mrs.
Curran, Patience W orth. This curious situation illustrates very
nicely how these automatic phenomena merge into one another ■
just as do the various stages of hypnotism. Table tilting and the
ouija board are more or less crude manifestations of the uncon
scious a t work, an outcropping which is not too convincing and
is purely temporary, but in the case of Patience W orth the un
conscious has assumed the role of a separate and distinct per
sonality, one which is in some respects far superior in ability
to the original. H ere we are verging on multiple personality,
which we will discuss very shortly.
This organized unconscious of Mrs. Curran gave itself the
name of Patience W orth and claimed to be the spirit of an Eng
lish girl who had lived in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, during
the latter half of the sixteenth century. Moreover, while Mrs.
Curran had no particular artistic ability, Patience W orth was
an author of the highest grade, writing several books and pub
lishing many poems which are admitted good by our best critics.
And, strange as it may seem, these books contain a much higher
percentage of sixteenth century English than almost any other
novel or poem written in America! If the reader wishes a
thorough and scientific discussion of this case we refer him
to the book, The Case of Patience W orth, by W . F, Prince.
¥ SOME CURIOUS STATES IN EVERYDAY E lE E 99
While science will not accept the claim that a spirit from past
years occupies the body of Mrs. Curran, science win admit that
the case is very complex, showing to a very high degree that
ingenuity of the unconscious so evident in hypnotism. This
unconscious, having assumed the title Patience W orth, has been
remarkably consistent, as shown by the fact that she always
uses a preponderance of old English words in all her writings.
We leave the reader the task of reviewing the evidence and
deciding for himself whether o r not she has proved her point.
This particular case illustrates another very interesting phase
of automatic activity. W ith practice it sometimes becomes far
more efficient, the unconscious itself becoming better organ
ized. Patience W orth began her communications with the
planchette, a crude form of ouija board. But this was a very
slow and clumsy method for such a brilliant personality so she
"graduated” to automatic writing. Even this proved too tedious
so she now does her work by automatic speech. Moreover, she
has the most remarkable control over this speech. She, Mrs.
Curran, sits down and relaxes. Immediately Patience W orth
comes to the surface and begins work on her latest novel or
book of poems, Mrs. Curran being conscious all the time and
literally attending to her knitting. Should the phone ring Mrs.
Curran immediately answers it, tabes over control of her throat
and talks as Mrs. Curran. A minute later Patience W orth is
dictating her book!
This evidence of unconscious ability is by no means as rare
as many of the readers may think. W e find it in many spirit
mediums, a group whom we discuss later in this chapter. And,
as would naturally be expected, we find it in certain hypnotic
subjects when we take the trouble to look, sometimes the evi- ■
dence of artistic ability approaching genius. After all, that is not
so unreasonable as it may sound. W e have repeatedly said that
the subject in hypnotism is not “asleep.” H e is very much
awake, but a different personality. We know that a great deal
of genius in humanity is held down by social pressure; the in
ii
V
100 HYPNOTISM
dividual does not dare give vent to his artistic talents for fear;
of making a fool of himself. But we also know that hypnotism
may lift these "inhibitions,” as we term them, in some casei!
freeing the subject in the sense that he cares very little for the',
opinions of his social group. Under these circumstances genius;;
if it exists, might have the cliance of pushing to the fore. For'-
instance, Coleridge claimed to have written Kubla Khan during";
his sleep, which was very probably a state of unconscious,
activity.
As we mentioned before, these automatic phenomena tend,
to merge into one another. Patience W orth, as the unconscious
of Mrs. Curran, is so well organized that we may regard her
as a separate personality, which brings us to the most curious ;
of all these automatic, these semi-hypnotic conditions, that of
multiple personality.
And with this field of multiple personality we find a gradual:
increase in complexity. The most simple cases we refer to as
the fugue or flight. William James, reported on such cases,
among the earliest in the literature. A man named Ansel Bourne
lived in Boston. Suddenly he vanished and after careful search
was given up as lost. Six months later a man in Philadelphia,
who had been running a grocery store suddenly “woke up,”
gave his name as Ansel Bourne and asked to know what he was
doing so far away from home. Apparently he had run his gro
cery business fairly well for six months while in this “uncon
scious” condition, his “secondary” personality taking charge and
giving the appearance of normalcy.
Such a case îs very simple. From here we can go to the type
of case represented by Rou. Here the reader will see the very
close resemblance between this particular type and somnam
bulism as seen in sleep walking. We have already pointed out
the very close relationship between somnambulism and hypno
tism. Rou was a poor boy of Paris, France, who lived with his
mother, a small storekeeper. But Rou was m the habit of fre
quenting saloons where he was fascinated by the tales of sailors.
SOME CURIOUS STATES IN EVERYDAY L IF E * 101
He longed to become a sailor himself and escape from his un
interesting world. Then something very curious began to hap
pen. He would suddenly lose consciousness and start for the
seacoast, doing all sorts of odd jobs to keep himself alive and
fit. His unconscious had taken over control and decided to be
come a sailor. Then at the end of a day, a week, or a month, he
would suddenly come to himself or “wake up” without the
slightest knowledge of where he was or how he got there. He
would be sent back to Paris and would be quite normal for a
period, then once again he would have a fugue, would walk in
his sleep, and start out for the coast. This case we will see is
more complex than that of Ansel Bourne in that the subject
had recurrent attacks.
We could devote many pages to other cases by way of show
ing their growing complexity but will proceed at once to a very
interesting and complex example, which was carefully studied
by Professor Morton Prince of Harvard. W e refer to the
famous Beauchamp case of multiple personality.
Miss Beauchamp was a young lady, a nurse in training at
a Boston Hospital, when Dr. Prince was called in to take over
the case because of very peculiar actions on the part of the lady
in question. After long and careful study he made a very in
teresting discovery. H er body contained no less than four dis
tinct personalities. When he first met her she was under the
control of the personality he later called B l, or the Angel. As
such, she was a very sickly, nervous, highly religious, over-
conscientious type, easily tired and always worrying oyer the
sins of humanity and her own lost state.
Then he made a further discovery. Another personality
made its appearance, B ill, Sally, or the Imp. Sally was a totally
different proposition. She was a girl of eight or nine, absolutely
irresponsible, with tireless energy and apparently no conscience
whatsoever. Sally was always present but generally as an un
conscious personality, “squeezed” by the Angel, as she said.
She knew everything that was going on and thoroughly hated
102 HYPNOTISM
the other personality which insisted on taking the body to

church, or keeping it quietly in its room while she, Sally, could
think of far more interesting things to do. This was because
Sally could not generally get control of the body but as the
condition became worse, as the dissociation became more
marked, Sally found it easier and easier to take over charge
and then, ah then, she had a delicious revenge.
The Angel loathed even the appearance of sin. Sally was not
by any means so conscientious. One of her delights was to take
the body out on a wild “party” including beer and young men.
Then to suddenly withdraw, leave the body to the Angel and
watch her squirm as she got herself back to the hospital. This
case occurred in the early 1900’s, when the morals of the coun
try would make such a situation even worse than today.
Then again, Sally was tireless, the Angel fatigued very easily.
Sally could go for a five mile walk and end fresh as a daisy.
Five hundred yards would leave the Angel exhausted, so Sally
would get control of the body, take it on a particularly long
walk and then withdraw, enjoying the tortures which the Angel
suffered in getting herself back home again.
The Angel also prided herself on being very neat, both as to
clothes and to room. This gave Sally a glorious opening. When
particularly displeased with the Angel, she would take over
control of the body and then wreck the room, turning the
drawers inside out and piling everything in a heap in the
middle of the floor. All these little tricks Sally used as a club
on the Angel. In other words, “don’t take the body to church;
or else------ . Do as I say, and I ’ll leave you in relative peace, be
obstinate and I ’ll 'turn on the heat’.” The reader will please note
that this is not a case taken from a novel, as Dr, Jekyll and Mr.
Hyde, but is an actual situation reported by one of our ablest
psychiatrists. If the reader wishes further details than those
we give, we refer him to Dr. Prince’s own book, The Dissocia
tion of a Personality.
Dr. Prince then discovered that a third personality was
appearing; namely, BIV or the Woman. It is curious to note

that neither the Angel nor the Woman were actually conscious
of Sally's thoughts and actions. Sally communicated with them
0r rather delivered her ultimatums by letter and Prince ex
plained what it was all about. Neither were the Woman nor
the Angel conscious of each other. But Sally, from her position,
was aware of both thoughts and actions of the other two. As
we said before, these cases of multiple personality can be very
complex.
The Woman had a different personality from either of the
others. She was headstrong, vain and spiteful; moreover, she
also insisted on taking the body to such places as good stores
and good concerts, which Sally loathed. So Sally started a
campaign against this new menace, but discovered that the
Woman and the Angel were quite different people to handle.
She tried her tricks but they did not work. She made a jumble
sale of the Woman’s clothes, and piled them on the floor. The
Woman promptly took Sally’s toys and threw them into the
fire. The conflict was short and sharp, ending in an armistice
with both sides in a position of armed neutrality. Unfortunately
they both occupied the same body, so there were definite limits
to which either could go. Sally would cheerfully have cut off
the Woman’s nose but she would have been literally spiting her
own face. It happened to be her nose as well.
Then Dr. Prince made another discovery, and here we find
again the tie-up between hypnotism and these various states of
dissociation. If he hypnotized either B l, the Angel, or BIV, the
Woman, he got a new personality, BII, which had all the
memories of both. Moreover, this new individual was a much
more evenly balanced person than the other two, more of a real
woman. This led Prince to conclude that this was the real Miss
Beauchamp, that the Angel and the Woman were only halves,
so to speak, of BII,
Yet whenever he awakened BII, he always got BI or BIV.
However, with persistence and by insisting in hypnotism that
104 HYPNOTISM
BII should awaken with the memories of both the Angel and
the Woman he finally succeeded in awakening BII as the real'
Miss Beauchamp. And Sally ? She could not be included in the
personality synthesis. By means of hypnotism she was robbed ■
of her power to control the body and “squeezed” back into her
comer until she would no longer trouble the real Miss Beau
champ. That involves a very neat question in ethics. Sally was
a real personality. To what extent was Prince guilty of psy
chological murder, so to speak ?
We would wish to make a point before we proceed, since we
wish later to show more clearly how and why hypnotism is of
such use in these cases; in reality they are caused by a form of
hypnotism in the first place! We will see that emotional shock
produces exactly the same results as hypnotism, that hypnotism
may in reality be a form of emotional shock. We are not clear
on this point, but we do know that shock gives us all the phe
nomena of hypnotism and vice versa.
If we read over the Beauchamp case or most other such cases
we will see that the condition has been caused by some severe
emotional strain. W hat actually happened in the Beauchamp
case appears to have been somewhat as follows. A very severe
period of fear in childhood ending about the age of seven in a
bad fright received from the father. This “ split” the personality
into the Sally, or B ill and the BII parts, Sally remained the
childish creature she was at that time as a “co-conscious” per
sonality, while B II continued her development. Then around
the age of eighteen came another great shock, this time in con
nection with her love life, when B II split into BI, the Angel,
and BIV, the Woman.
The reader will recall that BI or B IV hypnotized gave BII.
The cure consisted of binding these personalities together again
by means of hypnotism in the B II stage and then in being able
to make this personality strong enough so that it would still
remain BII on awakening and not return to BI or BIV. But
B ill or Sally had had too long and independent an existence.
It proved impossible to unite her personality with that of B II,
so the only way of solving this problem was to repress her com
pletely. Somewhat of a Chinese puzzle but a very interesting
study accepted as true in all psychological circles.
When Dr. Morton Prince was investigating the Beauchamp
case, a namesake of his on the west coast, Dr. W. F. Prince,
was unwittingly making a very important contribution to this
subject of multiple personality and its very close relationship
to hypnotism. The reader must be careful to keep these two
men separate for they were both friendly enemies during their
entire lives. W. F. Prince passed his later years in Boston so
that, with Morton Prince at Harvard, they could really quarrel
to their hearts’ content. Both, we should add, were men of the
very highest ability, names that are respected and honored in
the history of psychology.
Dr. W. F. Prince was probably America’s greatest authority
on psychic research or spiritism for the last ten or fifteen years
before his death. Yet he conducted his research în this very
difficult subject in such a way as to hold the respect of science.
This is the more remarkable when we bear in mind the fact that
his, of all fields, is open to suspicion of fraud, prejudice, and
poor scientific methods. His writings, found among the publica
tions of the Boston Society for Psychic Research as well as
the American and British Societies, are always characterized
by moderation and a keen sense of scientific judgment.
The unwitting contribution of W. F. Prince to this subject
of multiple personality came about somewhat as follows. Dr.
Morton Prince was receiving great publicity in scientific circles
for his excellent work with Miss Beauchamp, and in the early
1900’s very little was known about such cases. W. F. Prince
m his, ceaseless search for the one best spiritistic medium was
working with a girl, Doris Fischer. H e was astonished to find
that Miss Fischer was also a case of multiple personality and,
following the technique of the Harvard man, he used hypno-
■tism to investigate his very interesting subject. To his astonish-
t
106 HYPNOTISM
ment and that of the world in general this case developed hi;
almost identical fashion to that of Miss Beauchamp. There w as;
a Sally, an Angel, and a Woman, although W . F. Prince did
not use these names. Moreover in the course of the treatment
he cured the condition in a fashion very similar to that used
by Morton Prince. His Angel and his Woman were brought
together as the real Miss Fischer through hypnotism, while hit
Sally was “squeezed" into oblivion. It is of interest to note that
he adopted Miss Fischer as his own daughter and after the cure
she gave every appearance of being a very healthy, well bal
anced personality.
The great significance of this case lies in the fact that W. F.
Prince, one of the most careful investigators almost certainly
created this case of multiple personality through the use of
hypnotism, and this result was quite unintentional on his part.
A striking example of the effects which operator attitude may
have. W e can visualize the process. Miss Fischer was an ex
cellent hypnotic subject and of more than average intelligence.
Morton Prince was just publishing his remarkable Beauchamp
case. Dr. W . F. Prince, later her adopted father, was very much
interested in this, doubtlessly the literature was lying around
and he probably discussed the case in her presence. He certainly
had in his own mind a very clear cut image of how the Beau
champ case was progressing.
When he began his work with Miss Fischer, somehow this
picture was conveyed to the subject’s mind, whether through
her own reading, his discussion or through unconscious hints
which he let drop. This is almost certain because these cases of
multiple personality simply do not follow a fixed pattern. The
many examples we have in the literature are extremely varied
a s to number and type of personalities. That these two most
complex of all cases should be identical is almost impossible.
The evidence is all in favor of the fact that the Doris Fischer
case was built up on the spot.
In fact there are some who will go even farther and claim
SOME CUBIOUS STATES IN L 7E8YDAY L IF E 107
that the Beauchamp case itself was at least guided in its develop
ment by the use of hypnotism. Even as late as 1905 or 1910 we
did not know nearly as much of the importance which operator
attitude may assume. If two men of this capacity could be com
pletely deceived, the reader will see our reasons for questioning
a great deal of the experiments reported by older investigators.
The work of the two Princes carries us still farther into this
matter of hypnotism and multiple personality. It sheds some
very interesting light on the problems presented by spiritism,
their argument here centering around the famous spirit medium,
Mrs. Chenoweth. The reader will find her work discussed at
length by W . F. Prince and others in the proceedings of both the
American and the British Societies for Psychic Research. She
was probably the best “mental” medium in America outside the
famous Mrs. Piper, at the time of this investigation an old lady.
Mrs. Chenoweth gave the typical picture of the spirit medium
when in trance. She was controlled by the spirit of an Indian
girl “ Sunbeam” who had been killed by a fall from a horse in
the West many years ago. Mrs. Chenoweth would sit at her
table with the “sitter” on the opposite side. Then she would
pass into the trance state and Sunbeam would come to take
charge. She would chatter along at a great rate in a girlish voice
until the sitter interrupted by reminding her that he was there
for a purpose. Then she would suddenly come “ down to earth”
as it were and give the sitter information which was supposed
to come from the spirit world.
Some of this was very hard to explain unless we admitted
supernormal power on the part of the medium. For example,
one of the writer’s friends reports the following. Sunbeam
said that she saw standing beside him the form of his father,
now dead. The sitter naturally asked how he was to be sure it
was his father. T o this Sunbeam replied.
“He says for you to carry out the following directions as
proof. Go home, go to the cellar, look up his diary for April 16,
108 n Y P N O T isM
1896. There you will find that he bought five acres of land from
a Mr. Jones on Long Island.” The sitter went home, looked up
the date in the diary and found the entry as described. He sayg
he had never looked into his father’s diary.
Which proves that he was talking to his father ? By no means.
There are several other possibilities which might have explained
it. The medium may have been a fraud, have gotten hold of the
diary beforehand and so had the information, although this
seems very improbable. O r the sitter may have an hallucination
himself and have looked up the diary after the manner of post
hypnotic suggestion, rationalizing later as any good hypnotic
subject will.
Fantastic? Possibly, but let us see what Dr. Morton Prince
says. He was one of the world’s best and he also lived near
Boston, so that he could easily check up. And he did ( His con
clusions after investigating Mrs. Chenoweth were that she was
a most interesting case of multiple personality—nothing more.
“ Sunbeam” was a sort of Sally and the other controls—for
there were others—were merely the same thing he had already
seen in the case of Miss Beauchamp. Certainly they were not
visitors from the spirit world communicating with man through
the body of Mrs. Chenoweth.
His opinion was thus in flat contradiction to that of W. F.
Prince. To be sure, the latter was always very careful in his
statements but the writer, who knew both these men, is con
vinced that Dr. W. F. Prince felt Mrs. Chenoweth did have
supernormal abilities. Just how one would explain these abilities
was a different matter, whether by spirit-intervention, telepathy,
or clairvoyance, but he was convinced they existed.
Our point is this. Here we have possibly the two best men
in the world as to qualifications investigating the best medium
in America. Their conclusions were directly contrary, the one
leaning towards an explanation only in terms of multiple per
sonality, the other strongly inclined to see die supernormal in
the revelations oi the medium. If two men of this ability could
not come to a solution of the problem, we must not expect too

niucb from ourselves.
But we feel ceriain that we voice the vast majority of psy
chological opinion when we say that the medtumistic trance is
nothing more than a state produced by autosuggestion, and as
such is almost identical with the trance we see in somnambulism.
Moreover, the various spirit controls are only manifestations of
multiple personality, which again is so closely associated with
hypnotism. We know that, with hypnosis, we can produce
multiple personality. Hypnotism is also recognized as the best
means to effect a cure. Furthermore, every case of multiple
personality which has been subject to a psychologist’s experi
mentation has always turned out to be an excellent hypnotic
subject. If he does not prove to be such, we may take it for
granted that he is bluffing—-for an attack of multiple per
sonality, a fugue such as that suffered in the case of Ansel
Bourne, can be easily faked and affords the “patient’’ a beau
tiful “out” when home conditions become unbearable.
The writer was present when Professor William Brown of
Oxford attempted to hypnotize one such case which had re
ceived wide publicity in the English press. Although one of
the world’s best operators, he had absolutely no success and
promptly stated that he thought the subject had bluffed the
whole thing. And such was probably the case.
It is quite impossible to discuss spiritistic phenomena at any
length in a book devoted to hypnotism. Space does not permit.
The writer had the opportunity of doing two years' fairly inten
sive work on psychic research while on scholarship at Harvard
under the direction of the late Professor William McDougall
and Professor Gardiner Murphy, now of City College of
Mew York. If the reader chooses, he may look up reference to
part of this work in the two excellent books of J. B. Rhine of
Duke University, N ew Frontiers of the Mind and Extra
sensory Perception. So the writer has at least a bowing ac
quaintance with the field and feels that his following statements
110 HYPNOTISM
would be regarded as fair by the vast m ajority of psychological

opinion in the country.
First as to the existence of “spiritistic” phenomena. Definitely
unproven. The writer would, however, place himself on record
as being far more optimistic here than most of his colleagues.
H e insists that there are many reports of experiments and of
occurrences which cannot be explained by the normal laws of
psychology as we now know them. Further that it may be quite
impossible to prove “spiritism” by the laboratory method. The
cold scientific atmosphere which exudes from any professional
psychologist may kill something essential to the manifestation
of the supernatural. But that is only a personal opinion in which
the writer realizes he is in a definite minority.
So first, “unproven.” Secondly, why? Various reasons.
Above all things, fraud. This is a commercial world and many
people find it very easy to make a comfortable income by
capitalizing on the desire which we all possess for absolute
assurance of a life hereafter, for tile ability to communicate
with those we love who are now dead. The writer recalls one
very interesting and amusing case. He was attending a spiritistic
seance in London, England. During the course of this seance,
which was held in very bad light, a chair travelled from one
side of the room to the other with no visible means of propul
sion. After the meeting came to an end he wandered over to
the chair and noticed it had stopped over a hot air register.
The answer was obvious. A string down the hot air vent was
the cause of the movement.
A t the next seance he arrived early and seated himself near
the opening in question, hoping that the chair would repeat its
performance. It did. So the writer kept his eyes glued on the
chair convinced that sooner or later someone would untie a
string. And they—or rather she—-did. For when everyone’s
attention was concentrated on a guitar which was floating over
the medium’s table, a small hand clothed in a black glove stole
out from behind a near-by curtain to untie the string. The
writer reached down and shook hands with no intention what

soever of creating a scene. There was a ten second pause and
the owner of the hand suddenly thrust a needle into the unwel
come hand. This hurt like sin so the writer squeezed and pulled,
dragging a lady into the middle of the floor. The Light imme
diately went on, the medium had hysterics, and the writer left
at once by the window. Only on his way home did he realize he
had left his hat behind where it still resides to this day for all
he knows.
We divide the mediums into two broad groups: the physical
mediums and the mental mediums. W ith the physical medium
"things happen.” Lights float around the room, music is heard,
forms materialize, and objects, such as chairs, tables, or guitars,
also float in mid air. Unfortunately these seances almost in
variably take place in light so bad that it is impossible to detect
fraud if such exists. The medium claims that the spirit forces
cannot work in light. This is very unfortunate, for it also
makes fraud very easy. We would also point out that the
greatest of all physical mediums, D. D, Home, did his work
in broad daylight. H e produced better phenomena than any
medium since, on one occasion floating out one window and
in another six stories up! And this in excellent light! Unfor
tunately he did his work over fifty years ago. N o one has been
able to duplicate it since and so science is naturally sceptical.
W e are probably on safe ground when we say that the work
of the physical medium does not deserve serious consideration
from science. No matter how good the “controls” in darkness
there will always be the suspicion of fraud. One English in
vestigator recently tried to use the infra-red camera, which
takes pictures in darkness by means of rays invisible to the
human eye. But again the “spirits” became sensitive and de
manded that it be withdrawn. Science cannot waste its time in
tiresome investigations under conditions which will always be
open to question.
The “mental" medium, on the other hand, gives us a some
112 HYPNOTISM
what different problem. Here it is a question of messages from

the dead, of clairvoyance, or of telepathy. To be sure there is
plenty of fraud among mental mediums but at least they meet
us on a fair basis. They do not demand conditions which a
priori make investigation impossible. We may divide this
“mental” group into the fraudulent and the genuine. For an
expose of the method employed by the fraudulent medium we
would refer the reader to two books, Abbott, Behind the Scenes
with the Mediums and that by Price and Dingwall, Revela
tions of a Spirit Medium.
The genuine spirit medium is in a class by himself. There
can be no doubt of his—or her—sincerity. The “trance” is
genuine and the various spirit controls certainly act as if they
had nothing to conceal. How, then, does psychology explain
the results obtained by such great mediums as Mrs. Piper,
Mrs. Leonard, or Mrs. Chenoweth?
In the first place the trance is an excellent example of auto
hypnosis. The spiritistic trance and the hypnotic trance are
identical to all intents and purposes. One is induced by the
subject himself, the other with the aid of an operator. W ho are
the spirit “controls” such as “ Sunbeam” who take over the
control of the body during these seances, reporting messages
from the spirit world and describing the various dead friends
whom we contact? Simply the various personalities in a case
of multiple personality, which as we have seen is so closely tied
up with hypnotism.
The messages we receive? That is another question. In the
writer’s opinion, a question with not nearly as convincing an
answer as the first two. First, we have the matter of uncon
scious cues and the possibility of great sense acuity on the part
of the medium, or at least great concentration on tiny details
as we mentioned in the case where the subject finds his mother’s
“picture.” Remember that the hypnotic and mediumistic trance
are essentially the same. W hat applies to one will hold for the
other. For example, the writer was conducting some card
reading experiments with a very intelligent sitter. The subject,
not in hypnotism, was trying to guess the playing card on which
the operator was concentrating. The operator cut the jack of
hearts and the subject immediately named the card com edy.
Then he added, “I ’m sure of that one.”
“W hy?”
“ I heard you whisper it.”
Yet the writer would have sworn he had made no sound.
He found this occurring several times with this subject and
also in isolated cases with other subjects. Now, in theory, this
subject may have had very acute hearing quite apart from
hypnotic or mediumistic trance. We know from psychology
that thought generally involves tiny speech movements. The
thinker literally “talks to himself.” It might be that some people
have such extraordinarily keen hearing that they could pick up
these unconscious and very tiny sounds, so receiving some very
valuable information. Farfetched, perhaps, but possible.
This also would apply to the sense of vision, even more so to
the sense of touch. Some mediums ask to hold the sitter’s hand.
We all have at least heard of the marvelous ability of some
people at “muscle reading.” Suffice it here to say that this
ability seems quite genuine and is accepted by psychology. Here
the medium could possibly pick up expression of assent or
dissent through muscle “twitches.” This also may seem like a
pretty difficult theory to accept, but it has its points.
More important, possibly, than either of these is the subject’s
recognition of changes in the sitter's face. Those subtle expres
sions which would tell her when she is “hot” or “cold,” as she
starts out to make a statement. Here again some people may
have this power of discrimination developed to a very high de
gree, much higher than that found in the average.
Then again we find that some mediums are expert at “fish
ing" for information. They will throw out a hint or suggestion,
watch the sitter's reactions very closely and immediately follow
up with “ No, that’s wrong,” if the sitter seems to register dis-
114 HYPNOTISM
approval. If the suggestion is acceptable, they will at once follow

up cautiously, feeling their way, fishing for information, and get
results which are quite astonishing. All this without the sitter’s
being in any way aware of what is taking place.
The psychologist also has another very potent criticism
against the sitter himself^ The human memory is very un
reliable. For a fine treatise on just how unreliable, read the
book by Hugo Miinsterberg, On the Witness Stand. We can
not accept any reports of a mediumistic seance unless a secre
tary was present and took down all the proceedings in short
hand.
The writer had a case w'hich illustrated this in very fine style.
A friend of his had a sitting with Mrs. Chenoweth. He came
away enthusiastic reporting that the medium had given him
fine evidence that she was actually talking with his father. The
writer had this friend hand in a report on the sitting, and then
proceeded to “work” on him for the next two weeks with a
view to making him change his story. Certain parts were
greatly magnified during various conversations, others were
completely omitted, certain new details were seized on and
inserted.
At the end of this two weeks period the sitter was asked for
another report on the plea that the former one had unfortunately
been lost. The two reports turned out to be very different, so
different in fact, that they were quite worthless as evidence.
The average sitter does not realize bow unreliable his own
memory is or how his memory of the seance may be changed by
later additions and subtractions. So, in scientific investigation
we always insist on a secretarial report of what has taken place
at a sitting with the “mental" medium.
Yet, for all these objections, the writer still feels that there
are many points which have not been cleared up. Read, for
example, Podmore’s Phantasms of the Living, or look up the
sittings of Piper, Chenoweth, or Leonard in the proceedings
of the various societies previously mentioned. The writer does
«o£ claim that they prove spiritism, even the supernatural but
they certainly have not been explained away to his .satisfaction.
Also many experiments on straight telepathy included in these
proceedings as well as evidence for clairvoyance. Whatever the
explanation, they are not as yet explained. Nor are the results
obtained by Rhine at Duke University to be brushed aside
lightly as many of our critics seem to think. The waving of the
magical psychological wand with the word “bunk” may satisfy
the magician but not the audience.
In later chapters we wtU develop at greater length on this
thesis of states closely related to hypnotism. For example, read
Nealy's book, Mental Conflicts and Misconduct. Bear in mind
that emotion gives identical results with hypnotism and see how
easily his cases of kleptomania or compulsive stealing fit into
the picture of the posthypnotic suggestion. No hypnotist in his
laboratory could have done better than nature “ in the raw.”
Indeed, so closely related is all functional insanity to the
phenomena of hypnotism and suggestibility that the picture
seems almost too simple. The compulsions, fears, and delusions
of the insane and the neurotics look very much like the post
hypnotic suggestion while the so-called Freudian “complex”
is literally its twin brother.
Crime, insanity, but most important of all, our everyday life.
We can more or less isolate the two first in our jails and our
asylums. A t any rate we don’t approve of criminals and the
insane, but we do most sincerely approve of ourselves and our
neighbors. And here, unfortunately, is where hypnotism does
its most terrible damage. Consider the present World War. AH
the insanity and crime we have in this world of ours becomes
a colorless grey compared to the lurid red of bursting bombs
and torpedoes.
It has always been the writer’s contention that Hitler is the
greatest hypnotist of our day, and this statement is not just
a play upon words. To be sure he may never have read a book
on the subject or know the meaning of the word. We recall the
116 HYPNOTISM
gentleman in the old French play who was delighted to find he

had been speaking prose all his life. We can I think, make out a
very convincing case that basically Hitler's emotional domina
tion of the crowd— or, speaking professionally, his attack, is
only the attack of the stage hypnotist, one step removed. If we
can only understand the laws beneath mob psychology, perhaps
we can be happier and more useful in this sadly torn world of
today. And then, again, perhaps we cannot. That will depend
on ourselves.
Chapter V
TH E BASIC NATURE OF HYPNOTISM
A N is incurably a mystic. Ever since the day, some one
M hundred thousand years ago, that old Neanderthal

man first began burying his dead, probably long be
fore, man rolled his eyes in horror at the forces of magic and
the spirits of the departed. After all, he had good evidence. He
dreamed and in his dreams he saw his dead enemies, so they
were still alive. His hazy thinking could not keep dreams and
reality separated. Then again in his dreams he visited places
many miles away, so obviously his spirit could leave his own
body in sleep and travel long distances. These events were very
real to him.
We have a story from Australia that on one occasion a tribe
of friendly blacks suddenly swept down on a settlement, killing
and burning in the most ferocious manner. Why? The medi
cine man had a dream. H e was at the white settlement and the
whites were preparing to attack them, their friends. He was so
furious over this treachery that he promptly gathered all his
followers together and tried to wipe out the whole lot. From
his viewpoint he was quite right. His spirit had visited the white
village and, after all, he could certainly believe his own eyes.
This may seem very silly to us but it was terribly real to our
ancestors. W ith the Australian no death was natural, everyone
died by magic. So when your brother died the medicine man,
with his own magic, found out who killed him. Then it was
your duty, as his brother, to carry on the “blood feud,” and kill
the culprit. His relations did the same and everyone was happy,
for these old savages dearly loved the warpath.
One of the very worst tricks you could possibly play on your
117
118 HYPNOTISM
enemy was to move him or disguise him when he was asleep.

In sleep the spirit left the body and wandered over the coun
try. That was quite clear from dreams. So you waited until your
opponent was sound asleep then quietly moved him to another
house. O r just as good, you put a mask over his face. Then the
returning spirit could not find the body to which it belonged
and your hated enemy went insane, robbed of his soul. Ridicu
lous? Yes, but many a savage has died in quick violent fashion,
for playing just such pranks on his neighbors.
Even Plato, the great Greek philosopher, agreed that any
one found sticking pins in a wax doll should be put to death.
It was perfectly reasonable. No one would deny the power of
magic. One of the best ways of killing your enemy was to make
an image of him in wax then stick it full of pins. Better still,
put the wax figure in front of the fire. As it gradually melted
away he would weaken and die. Indeed only one hundred fifty
years ago in Europe we find the hospital conditions terrible.
The insane were cliained in the filthy cells of Bedlam or other
hospitals, sport for the public who were allowed to prod them
with poles or stick them with pins. Insanity was the result of
evil spirits and man could do nothing against these. God was
punishing them for their sins, so man hdlped on the good work,
making their lives a living tragedy.
We must always bear these facts in mind when we consider
the history and the theories of hypnotism. Of all branches of
science it was the most weird, lent itself best to a mystic ex
planation, as is evident even today. Many parents who would
not hesitate to have their children’s tonsils out tomorrow, if
necessary, would be pretty horrified if the doctor suggested
using hypnotism to cure, shall we say, nail biting. We arc not
so very far ahead of our head hunting ancestors.
And hypnotism, without doubt originated right back among
such ancestors. Not as hypnotism, to be sure, but as part of their
religious and mystic ceremonies. For example, in the initiation
ceremony of the Chippewa Indians we have as fine a form of
T H E BASIC NATURE OF HYPNOTISM 119
group hypnotism as the best operator could demand. The boys
at initiation were lulled into this magic sleep by the chanting
of the medicine man and there instructed in tribal customs.
Some even developed anaesthesia to pain and later performed
prodigies of valor without feeling their own wounds.
But this could hardly be classed as hypnotism, although it
was indeed that. The Indian knew nothing of the scientific laws
governing the state and while he used it most effectively it was
always linked with the supernatural. So also were the sleep-
temples of ancient Egypt. To these the sufferer would come,
would be thrown into trance by the priest and while in trance
would be visited by the various gods who were the patron saints
of medicine. These temples later made their way into Greece
and Asia Minor, and represent a very interesting stage in the
development of hypnotism but contributed nothing. The prac
tices used herein appear to have vanished completely with the
arrival of the Christian era.
Then hypnotism and all its many related phenomena passed
into oblivion, so far as actual practice was concerned. The
Church had a hearty distrust of all such “black cults,” linked
them to the devil himself, and anyone practicing the same might
easily find himself burning at a stake. W e have some most
interesting tales of persecution during the so-called dark ages,
by the Catholic Church at first, but in later times by the Protes
tant Church and by the lay authorities themselves. W e cannot
fix blame for this on any one group. All humanity had an
unreasoning fear of black magic and rooted it out with savage
brutality.
One German story shows how, at least in one instance, the
victim turned the tables on his persecutors in tragic style. A
German was to be tried for sorcery. He was an alchemist, one
of those very early chemists who were regarded as the blackest
of the black. He realized he had no chance of escape, so wrote
his daughter asking her to come and watch the fun.
Half a dozen judges presided at the trial under the chair-
120 HYPNOTISM
manship of a prince. The culprit was brought in and formally

accused of being a wizard. H e at once pleaded guilty, and that,
so to speak, was that. But with the victim safely convicted his
judges decided on getting some information. Very famous in
these days was the “witch's supper” at which all these people
were supposed to gather and plot against honest men. So one of
the judges asked the victim, since he admitted his guilt, to tell
them when the witches had last m et
"Sunday at midnight.”
“Will you describe it to us?”
“ I would gladly, but why waste time? You were there.”
“ I was n o t”
“ You certainly were. You and these other two judges,”
singling out two more whom he particularly disliked. “ Prince,
I accuse these three men of wizardry.” Then he went on to
describe a weird scene in which he, the three accused, and the
other witches were plotting to spread a terrible pestilence over
the whole state. Result ?
“Burn the lot of them,” said the Prince.
We imagine that questions were a little more discreet from
then on.
The scientific study of hypnotism begins with a Viennese
doctor named Mesmcr who lived during the American Revolu
tion. As a matter of fact, Benjamin Franklin, as our ambassador
to France, sat on a board of the French Academy of Medicine
which pronounced Mesmer a fraud and drove him from Paris».
Actually this man was not a fraud in any sense of the word.
His ideas are weird as we read them one hundred seventy
years after his time, but Mesmer was probably quite sincere in
all his statements. W e must bear in mind that he lived at th e
dawn of medical science, at a time when Franklin himself said,
“There are good doctors and bad doctors but the best doctor is
no doctor.”
In Teality Mesmer contributed practically nothing to the
science of hypnotism. Hull says, “His theories are of very
t it e b a s ic nature o r HYPNOTISM 121
considerable interest to the historian of the growth of science,
perhaps not so much for the amount of truth they contained as
because it has taken the world such a long time to separate the
grain of truth from its enormous husk of error.” 1
• The University of Vienna at that time had perhaps the
world’s best medical school. Here he wrote his medical thesis
in 1766 on the influence of the planets upon the bodies of m en!
Today no medical school in the world would consider such
trash, but times have changed. Then anaesthesia was unknown,
the germ theory was still one hundred years in the future and
insanity was the work of the devil. So we must judge Mesmer
in the light of his times, a capable doctor who dared to blaze
a new trail and who was master of the medical knowledge of his
time, such as it was. To be sure he had a very shrewd financial
eye and used his knowledge to fill his own purse. But that is
not unheard of, even in this enlightened twentieth century.
Mesmer was a very keen observer. The principle of the mag
net with its two poles was just being investigated. He noted
that the magnet—like the planets— could exert its influence at a
distance. So he worked out his theory. The human body, with
its two sides, was like a magnet, with its two poles. Disease
was Caused by an improper distribution of the magnetic fluid,
the animal magnetism which this living magnet threw off and
to cure disease we had to restore the balance, so to speak.
This animal magnetism was a gas or fluid, therefore some
what different from that of the minerals. It was under the
control of the human will, hence to this day we have the tradi
tion of “ will power” in hypnotism. To direct its flow the
individual must concentrate with all his strength and look his
victim firmly in the eye. Hence the “ dark hypnotic eye.” Then
as it flowed largely from the hand, the operator would make
long passes over the body of his patient, from his head to his
toes, passing the fluid into the sufferer’s body. Should the sub
1 H u ll, C la r k L , Hypnosis and Suggestibility, p, 5.

1 22 HYPNOTISM
ject go into a trance, he was awakened by reversing the process.

The passes went from toes to head, so withdrawing the in*
fluence. Mesmer actually never got quite this far, but such was .
the standard practice of his immediate followers, the “Mesmer*
ists,” and we see many of these practices still used by the stage
hypnotist.
In reality he had quite a lot to go on here, for the magnetic
fluid was quite visible—to some people. Many “sensitives"
could actually see it streaming from the eyes and hands of the
operator. Of course, this was simply a visual hallucination, now
so well known in hypnotism. But in Mesmer's time no one
realized that such a thing existed so there was no reason to
reject the word of those somnambulists wlio reported and de*
scribed the fluid in question.
This fluid had many interesting qualities. It could be re
flected by mirrors. It could operate at a distance. More interest
ing, it could be confined in a bottle and shipped to a sufferer
in any part of the world. Most interesting of all any good
“magnetist" could magnetize any object, generally a tree in the
village green. Then the whole village could gather round this
tree, receive the benefits of Mesmer's great discovery—and the
operator collect his fee.
Mcsmer’s own clinic in Paris deserves special mention, for it
must have been a remarkable sight. The large hall was darkened
and soft plaintive music accompanied the treatment Here was
the famous baquet, a huge open tub about a foot high, large
enough for thirty people to stand around for treatments. The
tub itself was filled with water, bottles arranged in a symmetrical
order, iron filings and ground glass. The whole thing was
provided with a wooden cover and through this cover came
jointed iron rods which the patients applied to their ailing
parts. McsmeT himself would appear at the right moment in a
robe of brilliant silk, passing his hands over the patients, fixing
them with his gaze and touching them with his iron wand.
People suffering from all kinds of sicknesses were cured after a
fe\v such treatments. This is, of course, exactly what we would
expect from our present day knowledge of hypnotism.
Mesmer’s success was probably his undoing, for he drew
much trade away from the regular doctors. These only needed
some excuse to vent their spleen and the opportunity came in
1784 for the French Government appointed a commission—
including Franklin—to investigate the whole thing. This pro
nounced Mesmer a fraud. Immediately his popularity fell off
and he left Paris shortly afterward. This verdict meant very
little when we consider the ignorance of the eighteenth century
doctor. Vesalius was almost burned at the stake when, a little
before this time, he insisted on cutting up human corpses to
study anatomy. After Leeuvenhoek discovered the microscope
and described germs it needed two hundred years and the genius
of a Pasteur for “science” to recognize that they might be of
importance. So, even had Mesmer been right the verdict would
probably have been the same. It so happened he was wrong—
but honestly wrong.
But, as we said before, Mesmer contributed practically
nothing to modern hypnotism. His theories were completely
wrong and must of his pupils followed blindly in bis lead. He
did, however, “throw the fat in the fire,” so to speak. Once he
had invented his technique, it was almost impossible not to
stumble on the phenomena of modern hypnotism. The fact that
it took one hundred years for the story to unravel itself, and that
we still know so little about many important phases merely
illustrates the slow pace at which science must progress.
Mesmer did not hypnotize or try to hypnotize his subjects.
Nevertheless some of then went into spontaneous hysterical
convulsion as they received treatment around the tub. These
convulsive attacks came more and more into the limelight. A
report from the Royal Society of Medicine at this time says,
"From a curative point of view animal magnetism is nothing
but the art of making sensitive people fall into convulsions.”
In 1784 one of Mesmer’s pupils, the Marquis de Puysegur,
124 HYPNOTISM
stumbled across genuine hypnotic somnambulism. H e “mag

netized” a young shepherd, Victor, but this boy fell into a quiet
sleeping trance instead ol into die usual convulsive attack. In
this state he went about his business and when he “awakened"
knew nothing of what had happened. This was something en
tirely new and, as such, immediately attracted great attention.
Mesmerism, by sheer accident was on its way to becoming hyp
notism. To be sure the main interest in this new phenomenon
of somnambulism was mystic. The subject was supposed to
develop clairvoyant powers, to have the gift of thought trans
ference, even to speak with the dead. At the same time the
mesmerists were getting dangerously near the truth, so near
that discovery of die real facts was just a matter of time. By
1825 hallucinations, anaesthesia and the posthypnotic sugges
tion had all been described.
Yet progress was painfully slow. One of the greatest figures
in these days was an Englishman named Braid. H e did his
early work in the 1840's, first used the term hypnotism, rejected
completely the idea of the magnetic fluid and saw that hypnotism
was something quite different from ordinary sleep. H e also
invented an hypnotic technique, still used by many operators,
that of gazing at a bright object held in such a position as to
strain the eyes.
But wre still find that weird mixture of truth and absurd
error. Phrenology was then in vogue and Braid supported the
theory known as phreno-magnelism. H e found with his sub
jects that if he pressed the “bump” of pugnacity, the subject
would promptly want to fight, if it were that of reverence, the
subject might fall on his knees and pray. In his later writings
he saw the absurdity of these claims and even appears to have
hit the real keynote of hypnotism, namely, suggestibility. Braid
was more or less the voice of one crying in the wilderness. With
his death there was no further immediate interest in England.
The French, however, were more alert to possibilities. Around
1815, the Abbe Faria made a very important discovery. If the
T H E BASIC NATUBE OF HYPNOTISM
prospective subjects were seated around the room and allowed

to relax, then the operator had merely to repeat the word
''sleep” several times in an impressive voice. Certain of those
present would at once fall into somnambulism. This was a very
important step and the French investigation finally ended in the
work of Liebeault, the real father of modern hypnotism.
This man was one of those peculiar people who mark off
the milestones in science. A physician, he settled at Nancy,
France, in 1864. Here be proceeded to practice hypnotism among
the poor, refusing any fees for his services. He even wrote a
book, setting forth his theories on the subject—and sold exactly
one copy.
But that did not discourage Liebeault. For twenty years he
kept at his task. Then, fortunately, he won the enmity of a
great French physician, Bemheim, a professor in the medical
school at Nancy. Bemheim for six months had been treating a
patient suffering from sciatica, with no success whatsoever. In
desperation this patient turned to Liebeaull. who quickly cured
him by means of hypnotism. Tins, to Bemheim, was a pro
fessional insult. He knew of Liebeault, thought him a ' ‘quack”
and decided he would expose this medical menace. So he
visited his enemy’s clinic—and realized that Liebeault was
really a genius. Bemheim immediately began a serious study
of hypnotism and for the next twenty years devoted all his
great talents to serious work along these lines. His jiosition
gave the subject respectable standing and to his eternal honor,
he never overlooked an opportunity of directing attention to
Liebeault. The latter even sold the remaining copies of his
book I
Bernheim realized that the key to hypnotism was suggestion,
A doctor, his main interest was along medical fines and his
great book Suggestive Therapeutics covers this held in great
detail. This work stands in a class by itself, only surpassed by
the very recent book of Clark L. Hull, Yale University. Hull, as
a psychologist, has a much wider range of interests than did
126 H YPN OTISM I
Bernheim, so he broadens the field and attacks the problem* J
with modem experimental methods. J
Bernheim perfected the “sleeping technique” now so widely »
used in laboratory practice and described carefully all the J
phenomena which we have noted in Chapter II of this work.
But animal magnetism, like the cat, proved to have the ;
proverbial nine lives. While Bernheim was doing his g re a t'
work in Nancy, France, another Frenchman, Charcot, was ;
investigating hypnotism in Paris. Charcot gives us a classic ;
example of what may happen when an authority in one field 5
attempts work in another. One of the world's great anatomists j
and neurologists, Charcot did pioneer work in these fields which .!
was of the very highest grade. In hypnotism he made about \
every possible mistake. This is the more amazing because J
Bemheim, also in France, pointed out these errors as they j
occurred. s
Major hypnotism, as Charcot labelled his discovery, showed ?
three sharply marked stages; lethargy, catalepsy and somnam-;
bulism. In the first, induced by closing the subject’s eyes, he !
could neither hear nor speak. If now the subject’s eyes were !
opened he— or rather she, for he worked only with women—
was still unable to hear or speak. But In this cataleptic stage ;
the limbs would remain in any position in which they were ’
placed. Finally, if the top of the head were rubbed somnam-
bulism was induced. This was practically the same as the trance i
described by Bernheim.
Many of the results obtained by Charcot were amazing and
can be attributed to his complete ignorance of operator attitude.
He, as Mesmer one hundred years previously, was convinced _
that the magnet and the principle of magnetism explained every
thing. If the subject had a paralysis or a contracture in his
right leg, then, if a magnet were brought close to the leg it
would immediately shift to Hie left. More interesting, certain
drugs could make their power felt right through a corked
bottle. A closed phial of alcohol held near the subject’s head
would give the proverbial “jag,” certainly an inexpensive way
of going on a spree.
Bemheim showed that all these curious effects could be pro
duced when they were described in the subject’s presence, and
jt will be recalled that Charcot maintained his subjects were
completely deaf in his first two stages. How a man of his
scientific skill could have made such a childish slip is diffi
cult to see, but he did. Bemheim produced all Charcot’s phe
nomena by this means, then went a step further. He substituted
for the magnet a pencil, a piece of paper or nothing at all, but
he got just as good results. In other words, the subject knew
what was expected and obliged.
In vain did Bemheim point out to Charcot that the subject
in hypnotism is never deaf, is always on the alert for any
suggestion. Charcot sailed serenely on. More amazing still is
the fact that his great pupil, Alfred Binet, sailed right along
with him. Another classic example of how the greatest minds
may be blinded by prejudice. For Binet was a great mind, the
father of the Binet-Simon test, one of the greatest contributions
to psychology, and also the author of La Suggestibility, an
original and scientific work. Yet with Fere he published in 1888
his classic book, Animal Magnetism. This was no doubt in
spired by Bemheim’s own work, Suggestive Therapeutics,
which came off the press two years before. Binet rose in defense
of his beloved master, Charcot, running a series of experiments
intended to prove beyond any question that Charcot was right.
Hull, who is very impartial on all subjects, writes as follows
on this attempt of Binet, “ Even so, the fact remains that there
has rarely been written a book containing a greater aggregation
of results from wretched experiments, all put forward with loud
protestations of impeccable scientific procedure and buttressed
by the most transparent sophistries, than this work of Binet
and Fere.” 2 I t is curious indeed that two really great men,
aGark L. Hull, Hyimotis and Suggestibility, p. Id

128 HYPNOTISM
Charcot and Binet, could have made such grotesque errors a*

did these two, even when they invaded a field with which they
were unfamiliar.
Bernheim and his “ Nancy” school finally laid the ghost of
animal magnetism, although every so often we find som e'
operator who is still a follower, at least in part, of Charcot's
teaching. One of these is Professor William Brown of Oxford, ;;;jj
a psychologist of excellent repute. H e does not for one moment ,fl|
support Charcot's crude ideas of magnetism but does follow |
the “ Paris” school in one interesting and rather important»!
detail. Charcot worked only with hysterical women patients,
and advanced the theory that hypnotism was a symptom o fv
hysteria. This Bemheim vehemently denied and his views -
are almost universally accepted.
Nevertheless Brown still holds to this attitude and his opinion )
is certainly entitled to great respect The writer, one of Brown’s j
former pupils, feels that he is wrong in this stand. The Oxford;
psychologist is really a psychiatrist It is just possible that tool
much association with mental disease has given Professor-^
Brown a bias in this direction, a tendency to regard everything^
abnormal as symptomatic of a sick personality; but he stifl'jj
lodges a minority protest The great majority of psychologist
would point out that good hypnotic subjects, as a rule seem to
be very normal people. To be sure, cerain signs of dissociatic
as automatic writing, sleep walking, even hysteria, generallj
indicate a good subject. But most people who can be put intc
trance have no such history. Brown would reply that, in the
cases, they are “potential” hysterics and the dispute must re
there until we have more evidence.
Bernheim himself made one serious error. H e linked h j
tism with sleep, regarding the trance as a special form of normali
sleep. As a matter of fact, this is a very natural mistake to make,!
one into which Pavlov, the great Russian psychologist,
fell. But if the reader cares to look up the experimental evide
on the subject, as set forth by Hull, he will be convinced that!
I
sleep and hypnosis have very little in common. The subject is so

much “awake" that it would be quite impossible for the reader
to detect anything wrong, especially when the subject in ques
tion has been coached to act "normal.” Moreover, if we test the
person in trance, we find that he is quite normal in such things
as the conditioned reflex, memory span, psycho-galvanic reflex
and other psychological tests.
Confusion here is very easy, especially when the “sleeping”
technique is used to induce hypnotism and the subject is not
allowed to move about. Actually, many subjects will go into
genuine sleep, even snore and lose alt touch with the operator.
When told to awaken they sleep serenely on. but awaken quite
easily if the operator gives them a slight shake. So the mistake
of Bernheim, Pavlov and many others was quite natural. We
needed the modem experimental laboratory to dear up the fog
on this point.
Bernheim was familiaT with and described in detail every
phenomenon of hypnotism with which we are acquainted a t the
present day. at least in so far as his times and his interests
permitted. Such modern psychological problems as the forma
tion of conditioned reflexes under hypnosis he very naturally
does not mention. And he was essentially a doctor, interested
in curing patients. Here he was eminently successful. But by
the same token he was not interested in the possible uses of
hypnotism in education, crime, or warfare. Such problems were
completely outside his field. Moreover, practically all of these
early authorities, around the dose of the nineteenth century,
Vere medical men, their outlook was essentially that of Bern
heim, so modem psychology naturally finds many a fascinating
problem still unsolved.
Suggestion is undoubtedly the key to hypnotism. However,
from the theoretical point of view we are today faced with a
very interesting problem. Is it suggestion or dissociation
Much is really the fundamental cause of hypnosis? Does sug
gestion cause dissociation as illustrated in automatic writing,
130 HYPNOTISM
speaking with tongues and in all hypnotic phenomena or is it

tendency towards dissociation which makes the good hypnoti^f
subject so suggestible ? The writer feels that suggestion is basin#
For reasons with which we are not familiar the individual i*i|
highly suggestible and dissociation comes as a secondary p h ţ.J
nomcnon, caused by this peculiarity in personality. But the issu®
is still open. Also, in so far as we are concerned purely theoret
ical. We can allow the professional psychologist to ferret out vj
the answer and can proceed with our discussion. We can alao;j
leave to him that very vexing problem as to whether all sug
gestion is really autosuggestion, as Coue maintained.
For our purpose we can say that hypnotism is merely a state ]
of exaggerated suggestibility, induced by artificial means. Thatj
vast majority of psychologists would accept this formula, wit
of course the usual reservations. We do not know what cause
suggestibility. Is it acquired or inherited? Does it depend
dissociation or vice versa? We will admit our ignorance
proceed from the assumption that suggestion is the key
hypnosis.
This at once opens other fascinating problems to the gener
reader. There are other causes of High suggestibility besic
hypnosis. These are very evident in our everyday life, in fac
they are all important. What is the relation of hypnotism
these other factors? Is it not perhaps possible to explain
with one general formula? Might we not, using hypnotism asi
point of departure, be able to understand the phenomenon
Hitler, the basis of mob psychology ?
W ith this end in view the writer advances the theory on
lined in the next few pages. Hypnotism is of fascinating interes
but if it has no use outside the psychological laboratory, or i*
handling the insane it must, of necessity, be of very little
tieal use to humanity as a whole. But if we can advance a simpl
working theory which explains both hypnotism and, say, H it
at one and the same time, then we are being of much gre
service to the general public.
In our opinion we can do so and the reader is asked to grv
T O E BASIC NATURE OF HYPNOTISM 131
special attention to the following pages of this chapter. The
hypothesis we advance is intended to cover the subject in very
simple fashion. We purposely avoid many neat psychological
questions as being of interest only to the professional psycholo
gist. This leaves us open to the charge of oversimplification but
a popular work such as this must view the question “writ large.”
The details we leave for those round-table discussions wherein
men of science delight to go scalp hunting. As a matter of fact
the Iroquois raider and the scientist are twin brothers. Scalp
hunting is the great national pastime and a very legitimate
pastime at that. If the scientist “leads with his chin,” he may be
perfectly certain that, before many harvest moons have passed
he will be defending the old log cabin against the marauding
hordes. That is all to the good. It keeps him on his toes and
guarantees scientific progress.
The human brain is a very complex photographic plate. The
analog)' is crude but it will serve as an illustration. Needless
to say it is a repeater in the sense that photos are being registered
every moment of our waking existence, and by all the various
sense organs of sight, hearing, smell, taste, skin senses and
others which are more obscure. We, however, are interested in
one peculiarity of this plate which is of great importance. It is
provided ivith its own sensitizer. Most of the photographs, the
experiences of everyday life are more or less on a dead level.
They make a certain impression, we note it and act accordingly,
then we probably forget the photo in question for the rest of
our natural lives.
Some photographs—experiences— however leave a lasting
impression. Five years age we were in an auto crash. Why
should we remember that vividly, but not be able to recall any
thing else for that entire year, at least not recall without an
effort. Just common sense! Possibly, but why? We distinctly
and vividly recall that at the age of five, or six, or seven we
were bitten by a police dog while visiting our uncle’s farm. We
will have to think in order to recall any other details of that
visit, yet the dog experience keeps flashing through our mind
132 HYPNOTISM
even when we don’t think. Again it is just common sense

why ? ^
Because at that particular moment the sensitive plate in thfr^
brain was vastly more sensitive than at any other time duringij
the whole year. The negative was “over exposed,” to draw an^ii
other analogy from photography and the photo indelibly burned^
into the plate. Nothing we can do in later life wilt ever remove i
that scar. All other experiences of that entire year may be- \
come cloudy, may finally disappear completely so far as we are ,
concerned, but every time we see a police dog that old experi-:';
ence of thirty or fifty years ago stands out as vividly as if it <
were yesterday.
Moreover, as we will see in later chapters, these are just the»'
experiences which really count. They determine our personali-/”
ties. We could take an entire college course on dogs, could meet I
all kinds of dogs anywhere. We might even write a book on ’
dogs but we know one thing for certain, we do not like the ^
police dog. Why? Because one bit us fifty years ago. It might:;';
just as well have been a collie or a bull, but it wasn’t. Logic j
has nothing to do with the situation. It was a police dog so i
they are damned in our eyes for all eternity.
It is this type of non-logical, highly emotional reaction which j
makes the world go round, which leads us into the state of |
chaos which exists at the present day. For society is essentially |
a society of human beings which, in many cases, takes its cue ]
from some one leader. Should this leader be unbalanced, over- *
ambitious, or a weakling, then all too often his followers will,
be sacrificed at the altar of his fanaticism or his incompetence.'
There are, as far the writer can see, two known devices ■
by which the brain plate can be sensitized. One is hypnotism»;,
the other is emotion. Suggestions given in hypnotism or under
emotional strain are carried out with an energy which is quite:
foreign to normal human conduct. The reader will note that
suggestion does not have to be verbal nor recognized as sug
gestion at the time. Any experience flashing on the mind at such
times may act as a suggestion. In hypnotism these are generally
by the spoken word, but in everyday life this is far from being
the case. The police dog incident was a very strong suggestion.
The newspaper is one of the most powerful of suggestive media,
especially in a controlled press. But the controlled radio is easily
the most potent weapon we have for attaining such ends in our
modern civilization.
What has all this to do with hypnotism? Let us take a little
excursion into psychology for the next few pages and perhaps
we can then see the very close tie-up between hypnotic sugges
tion and the type of suggestion which is so potent in our daily
lives, the suggestion which falls on a brain sensitized by emotion.
The great driving force behind all animal activity is the
pleasure-pain principle, the search for pleasure, the avoidance of
pain. No normal human being will deliberately step on a tack,
unless of course there is a higher pleasure involved. If his child
is in danger of being burned to death he may not only step on a
tack hut get fatally burned himself attempting a rescue. These
tilings are relative, We sit quietly in the dentist’s chair and
submit willingly (? ) to his tortures for we know only too
well that if not today, then six months from today he will have
us at his mercy. And that six months will not make the ordeal
any easier. Also in the human these pleasures may be ideal. Read
the tortures which the early Jesuits suffered at the hands of the
Indians in The Bloody Mohawk by Clarke. It does us modem
pampered humans good at times to realize what men will suffer
for an ideal. Yet that suffering was in answer to the pleasure
principle, weird as the contradiction may seem to the average
of humanity.
This pleasure principle has its basis in the instinct. In view of
the fact that the word instinct is unpopular in scientific circles
these days the reader may think in terms of drives or impulses
if he chooses. Psychology has officially thrown instinct out the
front door, then given it a new name and welcomed it in by the
kitchen entrance. The writer prefers the word instinct and will
use it in spite of its black name in psychological circles.
These instincts are almost alwavs of such a nature that they
134 HYPNOTISM
aid in survival of the species, but not necessarily of the in.

dividual. Pleasure is the reward which the animal receives for
carrying out the instinct, pain is the red light, the warning not'
to repeat the offense in the future.
Moreover, since these instincts are basic, are the foundations
on which a species survives or is exterminated, it is very im
portant that they be reinforced. Closely tied up with these vari
ous instincts we have certain emotions, such as fear, rage or1
love, and these emotions together with their attendant feeling»’
of pleasure or the opposite sensitize the brain. Thus experience*;
which directly arouse our instincts tend to make a greater im- ;
pression on the brain plate, to be remembered better, as we say.
We can look on them as suggestions.
Finally, just a word as to intelligence. It was long the custom
to contrast instinct and intelligence. Instinct represented the
baser side of man, whereas intelligence was something on a
much higher plane, the pure and noble side of man’s nature.
Actually intelligence is the servant of the instinct, of the pleasure”
principle. We use our intelligence to gratify our search for
pleasure, be these pleasures low or idealistic. We may reason
with a child for days to no effect. We may tel! little Johnny
that he is not to play with strange dogs, and he is unimpressed.
Let one of those same dogs take a nip at him and he ha*
learned his lesson. That one experience, falling on a brain:
sensitized by fear, will leave a lasting impression. It is "burned
in” so to speak.
Hypnotism and emotion, be that emotion pleasurable or the i
opposite, are the only forces which we are certain have this",
effect on the photographic plate of the brain. It seems possible
that certain drugs, such as alcohol may under certain circum-'
stances, produce the same results, but we are not certain. It is
highly probable that hypnotism in its turn depends on emotion.
Ferenczi, a psychoanalyst, has given a formula which may very
easily express the situation. H e says, "Suggestion depends on
transference and transference is a shifting of the libido.”
In plainer English, his theory runs somewhat along these
the b a s ic nature OF H YPN OTISM 135
lines. In hypnotism the operator takes the place of the subject’s
parent, father or mother. The subject transfers to the hypnotist
the feeling he had for this parent as a child. The attitude of the
operator in question will determine whether he is to be father
or mother. If the subject, as a child, was submissive to this
parent, he will be a good hypnotic subject and vice versa. This
attitude of the child is obviously one of emotion, so that hypno
tism, according to Ferenczi, would depend on emotion. A neat
theory which may or may not be true. The writer is inclined
to favor i t
Be that as it may, we can now perhaps see a little more clearly
how the laws of hypnotism may become so very important in
our everyday life. Every situation we face in life is a social
situation, tliat is to say it involves other people. Almost in
variably this situation involves a leader. He may be appointed,
he may seize authority, or he may just gravitate to the top.
The boss in the office is a typical example, the dictator on the
radio not so typical but far more powerful. Now if by any device
this leader can arouse our emotions, can "get under our skins,”
then his words, his suggestions, falling on our sensitized brains
will have far more weight than those same suggestions given us
by a stranger or in a magazine article where no emotion is
involved. He is, to all intents and purposes, a hypnotist.
Our reactions may be antagonistic—negative suggestion—
but we will react violently. But if the dictator or boss in ques
tion knows his business he will take care that they do not arouse
antagonism. He will appeal to the pleasure principle in some
form or other. He will tell us that we are being persecuted,
robbed, hemmed in. He will appeal to our patriotism, our love
of home and family. He will promise us security, wealth, glory
if we but do as he says. And if he knows what he is about we
will fall under his spell just as surely as a subject ever falls
under the trance of a hypnotist.
This technique of “direct” or “prestige” suggestion we see
clearly in the stage hypnotist. H is success depends on a forceful,
frontal attack. He never allows the subject's gaze to shift from
136 HYPNOTISM
his own and literally bullies him into the hypnotic trance. Here
we have clear evidence of the emotional factor in hypnosis. Thfcj
psychologist in his laboratory also uses this prestige suggestion,
although in a quieter form. But whether it be the stage
notist, the laboratory psychologist or Hitler on the radio
are the same, so far as psychology is concerned. The sugge
tions fall on a highly sensitized brain and such suggestions hav
tremendous force, a force altogether out of proportion to an
value that the proposals, as such, may liave.
Let us now consider a few facts which we have gather
from our study of hypnotism in the laboratory. One in eve
five of the human race are highly suggestible, at least half a
suggestible to a very considerable degree. But here mere figur
do not tell the story. That one-fifth has a power far beyond i
numbers, for this type of man, acting under direct suggestion,1
no mere average person. He is a fanatic in the highest-
lowest—sense of the word.
The writer several years ago had a very unpleasant expert,
ence which illustrates the point. He wished to show the pow
of the posthypnotic suggestion so he suggested to Smith tha
on awakening he would go over and insist on sitting in Brown*
chair. Smith and Brown were relative strangers. When he
awakened, Smith paused a moment, then got up and walk
over to Brown.
“ Mind if I sit in your chair?”
“Yes. I like the chair myself.”
W ithout a word Smith reached down, took Brown by
shoulder, and literally hurled him across the room. Then
sat down, muttering savagely that if Brown so much
opened his mouth he’d send him through the window as w
And he meant just that. A few such experiences teach
operator to “take it easy.” On another occasion the writ
suggested to a subject in hypnotism that an individual he p?
ticularly disliked was standing in front of the door. Witho
an instant’s hesitation the subject strode up to the door an
T H E BASIC N ATUBE OF HYPNOTISM 137
drove His fist through the panel. The individual who is highly
suggestible, whether from hypnotism or from strong emotion,
reacts with a passionate fury which leaves us other mere mortals
staring in open-eyed wonder. But it is terribly real, as Europe
can testify today.
There is still another line of approach which shows us the
very close relation between the suggestibility of hypnotism and
that arising from the emotions. Basic to psychoanalysis, as out
lined by Freud, is the so-called complex. Freud discovered that
many of our early childhood experiences are forgotten in a
curious sort of way. The forgetting is not passive but active;
they do not just fade away into oblivion, they are literally
thrown out of consciousness, they are “repressed” into the un
conscious.
Such experiences are always unpleasant in nature and are
forced out of consciousness in accord with the pleasure prin
ciple we have already stressed. Not only will the body not un
dergo pain willingly, unless for a future pleasure, but the mind
also turns a way from painful thoughts. The reader can easily
think of exceptions, but we would again warn that many
apparent exceptions are not real. A person may brood over bad
treatment, which is unpleasant, but this in turn may bring up
the feeling of self-pity which is very pleasant. Or he may plan
revenge, thinking out various ways in which he will even up
the score. This also may be pleasant.
Actually, however, the pleasure principle does not work in
nearly as clear cut form in the mind as in the body. T o a great
degree we lose the power of repression after the age of five,
although under great stress, as in war, it may still act very
effectively. But it does work in childhood and Freud discovered
that many of the neuroses have their origin in these repressions.
They are “down’’ but not ‘‘out.’’ Why they are not out is be
side our discussion here, but once they become installed in the
unconscious they can cause a lot of trouble.
For example, a child is badly frightened by a cat. Later in
138 H Y P N O T I S M
life he develops a fear, a phobia of cats. Yet strange to say

original experience in which he was frightened has been cor
pletely forgotten. Note the close resemblance to the posthypnoti
suggestion. All we need is the hypnotist, rather than the cat,’*
to give the suggestion and the parallel would be complete.
These complexes act in very curious fashion. We can tell
what causes them but we cannot predict results. A little boy?,
was going to the store. He had to pass through a narrow alley'
way closed at both ends by a door. He got into the alley, the
door behind him snapped shut, the door in front was closed.
Then he found there was a dog in the alley as well, which
promptly attacked him. This frightened the child very badly. {
In later life this incident was forgotten, repressed, but th e 1"
complex did its work. Strange to say, however, he did not
develop a fear of dogs, as one would have expected, but a fear
of closed spaces— claustrophobia. His main idea was to get out ;
of that closed alley. This was the autosuggestion which, given
in a state of great emotion, later came out as a complex—a
posthypnotic suggestion.
Another little boy was sliding down hill. His sled collided
with a fence and his hand was badly cut. The doctor could not
give him an anaesthetic, but had to sew up the hand while he
was wide awake, a very painful and terrifying experience. This
was repressed and later came out, not as a fear of doctors, but
a fear of black bags. The doctor had with him a black bag and
the eyes of the child were riveted on this bag, for from here the
doctor took the instruments which caused him so much pain.
This particular type of posthypnotic suggestion may come
out in various ways, but the complex is, to all intents and pur- {
poses, a posthypnotic suggestion. Fright by a cat may appear
in later life as a fear of cats. But it may just as easily come out
in the form of a compulsion to kill cats. The writer had a friend
who got himself in no end of trouble with his neighbors because
of this. Or again it may appear as an obsession that people are
looking at him with cat’s eyes. This may become so strong that
the individual may be very dangerous, even murdering his

supposed persecutor.
But note again the very close tie-up between the complex
and the posthypnotic suggestion. The complex, we know, is
definitely caused by. strong unpleasant emotion. Moreover, it
works along almost identical lines with the posthypnotic sug
gestion. Not quite as specific, to be sure, but just as compulsive.
Also we would find the other characteristic of the posthypnotic
suggestion present if we cared to look, namely rationalization.
So here again we see that emotion and hypnotism seem to
sensitize the brain in identical fashion. The suggestion which
is given in either case leaves an indelible impression and pro
vokes to acts which are quite apart from any intellectual pro
cesses the individual may use.
We may summarize the last few pages somewhat as follows.
Suggestibility, present in all people to a greater or less degree,
is very marked in certain individuals. This appears due to the
fact that their brains can be very easily sensitized to “photo
graphs”—experiences—either by hypnotism or by emotion. W e
do not know whether the hypnotic subject is always the one
who in adult life is open to emotional sensitization, for no great
amount of investigation has been done on this question. It does
seem highly probable that hypnotism is closely linked to emotion,
and these two types of brain sensitization are essentially one and
the same.
Hence comes the great importance of hypnotism as a “lab
oratory” in which to study this whole problem of suggestibility,
for the phenomena of suggestion are tremendously important.
Around this question centers the whole problem of mob psychol
ogy, the psychology of such leaders as Hitler. Without in any
way juggling words we can truthfully say that he is one of the
greatest hypnotists of all time. Yet he may never have heard of
the subject. We will return to this in the later chapters of the
book.
Chapter VI
MEDICAL USES OF HYPNOTISM
H E sanity of insanity. Strange as it may seem the man
T or woman whom we class as insane is, in one respect,

far more sane than we. The great quest of man is
happiness—the pursuit of the pleasure principle. As a group the
insane are the happiest of all people. To be sure, there are
exceptions, especially among the "organic” or "structural”
insanities—psychoses—where the brain is actually damaged by
syphilis, brain tumor or bursting blood vessels. But the "func
tional” insane, those in whom the brain is in no way diseased,
have realized the full truth of the words when wrongly inter
preted, “The kingdom of God is within you.” These people have
learned that they can retreat into a life of daydreams, cut off
all contact with reality, and be happy ever afterward. Napoleon
in the asylum is Napoleon, To be sure, the French Government
would not agree, but he will present you with the province of
Normandy or with French Indo-China as a gift, if he happens
to like the cut of your nose. Further, he absolutely believes that
he can do so. To be sure he has to explain why he, Napoleon,
is in the asylum. But that is easy. He is a great man persecuted
by his enemies. Soon he will be free and then—ah then—just
watch what he does to the President of France for his low
tricks.
We can understand Napoleon fairly well if we understand
the psychology of suggestion. He is fairly typical of these
functional psychoses, the most numerous of all the insane. Some
will be more degenerated than he as regards intelligence, some
others will substitute bodily actions for his grandiose ideas but,
by and large, the picture is the same. An individual who has
140
MEDICAL USES OF H YPN OTISM 141
retreated from reality in following the pleasure principle. And
this we can best explain by the laws of suggestion.
Let us take an example. Little Johnny, as a boy, is much
like other boys but not quite as husky. He does not like the
rough and tumble of his street, with its accompaniment of black
eves and bloody noses. So be tends to withdraw from the group
and live with his books and pictures. But he still craves power
and recognition, as do all of us. Then, in some such cases, he
makes a very splendid discovery. If he just imagines hard
enough, he can have a lot of fun from building castles in the
air. In his own mind he becomes a great inventor and likes to
picture himself as a new edition of Edison or Steinmetz. He
overlooks the fact that such geniuses climbed the ladder by
facing, not retreating from, reality. Tbe blistered hands and
long hours of hard mental work which were their preparation
he neglects completely. He retreats more and more into his life
of daydreams until this becomes the only real life so far as he is
concerned.
Then as a young man, he snaps the last bond. He discovers
that in the moon is a great dynamo of energy which is subject
to his will. He can direct it in any way he wishes, either to de
stroy this world or convert it into a modem Utopia. He explains
his ideas to his friends, may write the President of the United
States about it, even threaten him with destruction if he does
not “play ball.” Most do not go to this extreme but whether
they do or not their friends realize there is something wrong,
get in touch with the authorities, and next they arrive in the
asylum, probably for the duration of their natural lives.
Let us see exactly how suggestion, of which hypnotism is
only an exaggerated form, explains such a case. Emotion
sensitizes the brain and these daydreams are very pleasant.
Every time he dwells upon them the photo plate—to use this
crude analogy—of the mind is highly receptive. They become
“burned in,” as it were. Moreover, since they are pleasant, he
is following the pleasure principle when he daydreams on every
142 HYPNOTISM
possible occasion. The whole thing slowly becomes a closed and

vicious circle. His thoughts become more and more centered
around these ideas, until they cannot escape from that orbit
even if they would. A t this point he loses all contact with reality
and we say he is insane.
We get this picture very clearly when we talk to these people
in the asylum. Their minds are far, far away. They are “absent
minded” to the most extreme degree. Now and then we can
establish contact and for a minute or two they seem perfectly
sane. Then again they are off on their delusions, describing
to us how their insides are of solid gold. Finally they give up
even talking to us and retreat again into their very pleasant
thoughts.
Hypnotism—or suggestion—can explain such cases but can
not effect a cure. Suggestion lias already done its work. They
have arrived at their goal of happiness and actively resist any
attempt at cure. After all, this îs quite reasonable. They have
spent ten, twenty, thirty years building up this beautiful dream
palace and along comes a silly doctor who wants to tear it down
over night. Their answer is an emphatic “no.” So the reader
must bear in mind that while, in many cases we can explain
accurately why a patient is insane, and that while this insanity
may be due to suggestion, nevertheless we are quite helpless in
effecting a cure by hypnotism.
In cases such as those quoted above, the patient is now
suggestible in the wrong direction. He is “negatively” sug
gestible, For example, we may take one of these cases of
dementia praecox or schizophrenia, as it is called, stand him
up in front of us and say “ Sit down.” He remains standing.
Then we say, “Very well, stand where you are.” H e promptly
sits.
W e say, “That's fine. Now just sit there while I take your
blood pressure.” He immediately stands up.
In other words he has arrived at his goal of happiness. He
senses that the doctor in question wishes to tear down his dream
m e d ic a l u s e s OF HYPNOTISM 143
palace, so in defense he does exactly the opposite of any re
quest. From his point of view this makes good sense, but
certainly* does not help toward a cure. Most of the insane are
so unco-operative that it is quite impossible to induce hypnotism
even to a slight degree.
However, there are a great many people whom the layman
would say are insane or at least “queer1', whom the psychologist
would call neurotic. The subject is still in touch with reality, he
is living in a real world, even if he is very poorly adjusted to the
same. Here we would class the hysteric.
We explain the hysterical individual by saying that he or she
is a grown-up five year old. W e can explain it again on the basis
of the pleasure principle, the pleasures of a child. The hysteric
has an intense longing for attention, for sympathy. He does
not realize that the proper way to get this attention is by hard
work and real accomplishment. As a child he learns that he
can become the center of attention if he lies on the floor, kicks
and screams. This works so well that as an adult he does the
same, and we say he has an attack of convulsions.
There are all kinds of hysterical symptoms besides these con
vulsions, such as attacks of weeping, paralysis of an arm or a
leg, even hysterical blindness or deafness. These can all be ex
plained on the basis of autosuggestion. The patient finds it very
pleasant to be the center of attention. This sensitizes the brain,
so each time he repeats the hysterical “attack” that line of con
duct becomes more deeply burned into the brain plate. H e
repeats as often as possible because of the pleasure involved, so
we again have that vicious circle.
• But the hysteric lives in a real world. He does not retreat
from reality, so much as he manipulates reality. He still lives
with his family but he uses all his tricks to make its members
his slaves. H e learns that the very best device with which to
center attention on himself is to be sick, hence the endless list of
pains, convulsions, indigestion, “heart” attacks and so forth
with which the hysteric dominates his world.
144 HYPNOTISM
Now, strange to say, this type of person is very easily hyp

notized, so much so that William Brown claims hypnotism to
be a symptom of hysteria. We have already noted our dis
agreement with this point of view. But here again, while the
patient is easily hypnotized, and while hysteria is caused by
suggestion, it is very difficult to effect a cure by the same means.
And for the same reason as insanity proper. The patient has
spent all his life pursuing the pleasure principle toward the goal
of hysteria. He is an hysteric by choice, not by compulsion. The
choice may be one of the unconscious mind, and the patient may
deny indignantly that he wishes to be sick, but psychology now
realizes that the unconscious mind is quite as important as the
conscious, at least in this matter of mental health.
So the hysteric actively resists cure but at the same time
wants to be cured, strange as that may seem. Consciously he
insists that he will co-operate but it is always the proverbial
way to hell paved with good intentions. He cheerfully co
operates in any line of treatment and is delighted to find it
doesn’t work. He, of all people, enjoys being sick.
Yet he is very suggestible and hypnotism in many cases can
produce a cure, more or less by the “strong arm” method. We
have already pointed out the tremendously compulsive power of
the posthypnotic suggestion. If now, in hypnotism, we point
out to the patient the pleasure he will get from being well
and healthy, the pleasure it will give his family, and above all
things, the added esteem he will have from all his friends, we
may be able by the sheer force of suggestion to swing the
pleasure principle into new channels.
But these cases are notoriously unstable. Grown-up five-year-
olds, they use their pains and aches to get the sympathy and at
tention they crave. Tf this attention is not forthcoming under
the new line of treatment they are always liable to “back slide.”
They have never faced reality on the adult level, which is a
pretty difficult task even for well adjusted people in this year
of 1943. The slightest discouragement or reverse and they are
MEDICAL USES OF HYPNOTISM 145
right back where they started from. Yet în some cases hypno
tism, carefully used, works wonders. The reader is referred to
Bemheim’s book Suggestive Therapeutics for a very careful
discussion of many hysterical cases.
The psychoanalyst has noted this weakness in the hysteric
and has pointed out the fact that hypnotism is not always suc
cessful. There is a tendency for the hysterical symptom, when
cured, to return in another form, because of the basic weakness
in the patient, his search for attention and sympathy on the
five-year-old level. The psychoanalyst explains hysteria by the
complex, which we have already mentioned. In his opinion the
only way to cure hysteria is to search out this complex and
bring it back to consciousness—the process of reintegration.
The patient will then realize just what is causing the trouble
and will cure himself.
But the psychologist is always suspicious of the psychoanalyst
in his blasts against hypnotism. To quote a well known passage,
“The lady protests too much, methinks.” More than one article
has been written pointing out the great effect with which the
psychoanalyst uses suggestion, generally without the slightest
intention of so doing. It is the old problem of “operator atti
tude.” The psychoanalyst tends to react to these charges with
much too vehement, denials. Instead of admitting the uses of
suggestion he tends rather to adopt the other extreme of com
plete denial, at least in so far as his own technique is concerned.
The truth probably lies somewhere between the assertions
of both camps. The hysteric is notoriously difficult to handle,
because of that tendency to backslide— to regress in the psy
choanalytic language. Hypnotism has certainly affected some
striking cures, unless Bemheim and his followers were com
pletely mistaken. That is hardly possible. On the other hand
psychoanalysis has also had some very startling successes. It
would seem that we can, at present, only say that both are
useful. To wholeheartedly condemn one or the other is to fly
in the face of our evidence. A cure by either method would seem
146 HYPNOTISM
to depend on the patient himself, his co-operation, the duration

of the trouble and the strength of his whole personality in the
matter of facing reality.
When we shift to the other so-called psychoneuroses the pic
ture is distinctly different. Here we have the phobias—fears—
the compulsion and the obsessions. For example, let us consider
the hand-washing compulsion, previously mentioned. Here the
patient must wash his hands forty times a day. This condition
can become terribly exasperating. One patient fought against the
compulsion furiously and finally solved the problem in drastic
fashion. He put oik hand on a block and hewed it off with an
ax. The other he thrust under a rotary saw. That ended the
compulsion—and the sufferer.
In these psychoneuroses it would seem that the symptoms
are no longer directed by the pleasure principle. The patient does
not enjoy washing his hands, neither does he enjoy his fear of
cats or his obsession that everyone is looking at him. Quite the
contrary, for he does everything he can to resist, but to no
avail. With kleptomania, tile morbid compulsion to steal, for
example, the patient has a compulsion to steal which cannot
be resisted even if a policeman is at his shoulder. Yet, strange
to say, the theft is often of worthless articles which tire in
dividual could easily afford to buy. The book by Healy Mental
Conflicts and Misconduct gives a very good picture of the state.
Here, it would seem to the writer we have another condition
caused by suggestion. The patient, as a child, is badly fright
ened by, let us say, a cat. This experience falling on the brain
sensitized by fear gives us the suggestion, which later turns up
as a posthypnotic suggestion, the phobia of cats. Yet, strange
to say, while we know the cause it is very difficult to apply the
cure. The reason seems to be largely the time dement. The
picture is so deeply burned into the brain plate with the passing
of the years that no amount of counter suggestion in hypnotism
can erase the same. Healy gives us a very useful rule of thumb.
If we can treat such a patient before the age of twelve, we will
MEDICAL USES OF HYPNOTISM 14/
probably have success, but if we begin such treatment after that
age we will likely fail.
That rule, of course, is by no means hard and fast, but it does
emphasize a very important fact about all mental disease. Time
is a very important factor. Unless the compulsion, phobia,
tendency to hysteria or to dementia praecox is checked very
early, it tends to take on the nature of a habit. This does not
make a cure impossible but it does make one much more diffi
cult. W e see this very well illustrated in the new type of treat
ment used for dementia praecox, namely insulin shock. Here we
have very good success if only the patient is taken early. If
treatment is given within the first two years the rate of cure—
remission is a better word—is about eighty per cent. Then it
drops off very sharply and it would appear that insulin is not
of much use with older sufferers. There are the usual exceptions
but such seems to be the rule.
To the average reader insanity is just insanity and he tends
to label all people who are a little odd as being also a little
“ crazy.*1 But the psychologist is very particular about his word.
First of all he does not use the terms “ insane” or “crazy” at all.
They are social definitions, they are more or less utilitarian in
view. Is the individual a menace to society? If so, then he is
insane and away with him. If not, he is sane so we allow him
his liberty.
The psychologist looks at things somewhat differently. The
man who has a compulsion to wash his hands forty times a day
is just as ill mentally as the man with a compulsion to cut the
ears off every red headed man he sees. One is quite safe to have
at large, the other is very dangerous. The individual who must
touch every other lamp-post is no menace to society but the man
who must set fires, the pyromaniac, may very easily land în the
penitentiary. Yet they are both equally ill from the mental
viewpoint.
The really "insane’3 we term psychoties, although oar Jaw
courts would put others in this group. The psychoses we divide
148 HYPNOTISM
into the structural and the functional. In the former the brain
itself is injured by syphilis, tumor, bursting blood vessel,
hardening of the arteries. Here it would seem natural to suppose
that hypnotism can be of no use.
We would expect something better, however, when we come
to the '‘functional” psychoses. There is nothing wrong with the
brain. If we examine, after his death, the brain of a patient with
dementia praecox or manic depressive insanity we find his brain
is quite as good as our own. It is a “ habit” psychosis; he has
learned the wrong habits of thought. He has pursued the
pleasure principle up the “wrong alky,” so to speak, the street
which leads to the asylum. Yet we can do almost nothing with
him for he is happy in his insanity. His condition is his own
choice. Not only, as a rule, can we not hypnotize him but he is
negatively suggestible. He does just the opposite from what
we wish.
Hysteria we wou[d class as a psychoneurosis. The subject is
in touch with reality. He is still living in a real world, as opposed g
to the psychotic, but in an unreal fashion. A grown-up child,
he uses childish devices to center sympathy on himself. Gen
erally the hysteric is a good hypnotic subject so we would hope
for a high rate of cure in these cases. And such is the picture
we get, but unfortunately these cures tend to be very temporary.
The hysteric is the world’s worst “backslider,” Basic to the
picture is that childish personality which cannot face reality,
which seeks pleasure on the five-year-level. W ith time and
great patience we may persuade the patient to grow up and
“act his age,” but he needs constant supervision.
The compulsions, phobias and obsessions we also class as
psvchoneurotics. Here the patient is also living in a real world
and we have a distinct advantage in dealing with him. H e
actually wants to get well. He doesn’t enjoy being sick, being
afraid of cats, having to set fires or being obsessed with the idea
that he is being poisoned. So we can generally count on real
co-operation, not the lip service we expect from the hysteric.
MEDICAL USES OF H YPN OTISM 149
If the reader would review the literature he would find that
hypnotism was fairly successful in handling these cases, but
again much depends on the time factor. If the case is not of long
standing, that is to say if we begin treatment before the age of
twelve, the outlook is good; if not, it may be bad. But even here
success will depend on so many intangibles, especially the nature
of the original “hypnotic” trance on which this “posthypnotic”
suggestion is based. This is exactly what we would expect from
our knowledge of hypnotism. Some people, even if fairly good
subjects can resist the posthypnotic suggestion very nicely,
others cannot. And these neurotic symptoms are essentially
posthypnotic suggestions.
The world has heard a great deal of psychoanalysis. We have
already pointed out that, according to this school, many human
ills are caused by childish and very unpleasant experiences being
“ repressed,” forced into the unconscious, and that these so-
called complexes act in almost identical fashion to the post-
hypnotic suggestion. The cure in psychoanalysis is accomplished
when these forgotten experiences are dragged out of the un
conscious into the conscious mind. The subject then remembers
the childhood incident, reacts to it as an adult and it loses its
power. To accomplish this end the psychoanalyst uses two main
devices, free association and dream analysis.
There can be no doubt that the complex is a very real thing
and that it does cause a gTeat deal of trouble in adult life, even
as the psychoanalysts claim. We would expect this from our
knowledge of the posthypnotic suggestion. Also we agree that
it should be brought to the surface and "reintegrated” with the
conscious mind. W e know that the subject in hypnotism can
resist the posthypnotic suggestion much easier if he remembers
the suggestion having been given. All this makes very good
sense.
So the psychologist proposes the use of hypno-analysis and the
psycho-analyst immediately objects. W ith the use of hypnotism
we can explore the unconscious mind very quickly and effec-
150 HYPNOTISM
tively, often recovering these lost childhood memories in »

fraction of the time taken by the psychoanalyst. We can then
have the subject remember these experiences when awake, and
we have accomplished our end.
By the way, it may interest the reader to know some of the
curious things which happen when we insist on the subject
remembering very unpleasant experiences. In cases of shell
shock we have already mentioned that the patient has generally
forgotten some very horrible occurrence. It has been thrown out
of consciousness and, lodged in the unconscious, ît îs respon
sible for the various symptoms. The first move is to recover
this memory. So we hypnotize the patient, have him describe
just what happened in the trance state, then tell him he will
remember it on awakening. We wake him up and find that he
still has no memory of the incident.
We re-hypnotize him and return to the attack. W e again
have him describe the scene and again insist that he must
remember this when he is awake. Then we again awaken
hint—only we don’t. He refuses to wake up. That is his way
of protecting himself. But tn the long run, by sheer insistence,
we generally succeed in getting the experience once more back
in consciousness. Curiously enough, it does no good to describe
the occurrence to him. We can do so in the greatest detail, as
suring him that it actually happened to him twenty-four hours
back. It is just the same as some one telling us what we did
when we were '‘out on our feet” from a blow or from a drug,
let us say alcohol.
Hypno-analysis is slowly coming into its own. The psycho
analyst opposes it for reasons which seem wholly inadequate.
We suspect, as we have already indicated, that it is a guilty
conscience. Hypnotism explains so much of psychoanalysis,
especially the nature of the complex, that the psychoanalyst
here is afraid to use hypnotism tor fear the tail will begin to
wag the dog. Yet he cannot get away from the fact that it is a
tremendous time saver and, if psychoanalysis is ever to be in
MEDICAL USES OF HYPNOTISM 1 5Î
general use, something must be done. The time used is tre
mendous. A t least three hundred hours with the analyst. When
we remember that the high grade practitioner will charge
twenty-five dollars an hour for his time we can well appreciate
the weight of Freud’s statement “ Psychoanalysis is not for
the poor.”
Outside this realm of the “ insane” and the “queer” there are
other branches of medicine where hypnotism has a possible use.
This is especially so along the lines of so-called bad habits. For
example, let us consider the problem of the pervert, the in
dividual whose sex life takes some outlet generally disapproved
by society. This outlet is often toward the same sex, giving us
the typical homosexual.
Here we run into exactly the same problem we do in the case
of the hysteric. The sex life is on a very immature level and
the individual follows his line of action because of the pleasure
principle. The pervert, in general, does not want to be cured.
He is quite happy as he is, so we may count on very little co
operation, even as with the hysteric. Lip service, to be sure.
Plenty of assurance that he or she will do everything possible
to “ reform,” but experience soon teaches the operator to place
very little reliance on these protestations.
However, the subject does have one real advantage, which
may not appear so to him. He is where he is because of the
pleasure principle. But he is living in a very real world and the
hand of society may fall with brutal force on the pervert, much
more so than on any of the eases so far mentioned. The results
may be very unpleasant, so unpleasant in fact that they will out
weigh the immature pleasure drive which is the cause of his
trouble. In this case he may give the doctor genuine co-operation
when he seeks a cure.
Even so, results are none too hopeful. Rarely indeed does the
homosexual succeed in readjusting to a normal sex life. The
reason is the same as with the hysteric. The pleasure principle
has lead him where he is and, frankly, he is quite satisfied with
152 HYPNOTISM
life—unless he crosses die law. The psychoanalyst would say

there is a weak spot in his personality synthesis. Instead of de
veloping into a normal adult, facing adult reality, he became
arrested—fixated—at an earlier stage of development. A more
simple explanation would be in terms of suggestion. Seduced
at an early age. this experience—suggestion—made such an
imprint on the sensitized brain plate that it cannot be removed.
In as much as the resulting activity is pleasant, he does not try
seriously to fight the trend but accepts it. There will always be
this weakness with the constant danger of a backslip into the
perversion.
The reader may easily get the idea that hypnotism is not of
much use in the treatment of mental disease. As a matter of
fact it is—as much as anything. Neurotic states are notoriously
difficult to handle by any method. There is a fundamental per
sonality weakness basic to all these patients, a weakness dating
generally to childhood, acting with all the power of the post
hypnotic suggestion and which has probably been accepted for
twenty or thirty years. It is extremely hard to remake the per
sonality after such an experience. The time element alone is a
great factor in mental disease—and generally the psychiatrist
does not see his patient until the condition is hopelessly “burned
in.’* One authority says “the neurotic is remarkably consistent
in his inconsistency." He will make all sorts of promises to
reform, may really mean to do so— at the moment. Twenty-
four hours later there is great danger that he will again be faced
with his old trouble.
W e can claim that hypnotism is as successful as any other
attack in this very difficult field. We would have to make an
exception in the insulin and cardiazol treatment of dementia
praecox which is producing such startling results. But com
pare hypnotism with psychoanalysis or any other standard treat
ment for mental disease and results will be favorable. In the
great majority of cases the condition is quite incurable by any
means. Hypnotism, where it can be used, is in our opinion the
best form of attack. At least we can begin with this. If we fail,
we can resort to other methods. One great advantage of hypno
tism is that results are quick and relatively clear-cut. You do
or you don’t! By the end of twenty-four hours we can either
say that we are making definite progress or that we are getting
nowhere. This is a great advantage.
We cannot be too encouraging on this subject of the neuroses
and psychoses. They are difficult to deal with by any method.
For a very sane discussion of the use of hypnotism in this field
see the book by O. Dîethelm, Treatment in Psychiatry. But we
can very definitely get results in many cases of so-called bad
habits. Alcoholism is an excellent example and for a much more
detailed discussion than we give in the next few paragraphs we
refer the reader to The Psychology of Alcoholism, by G. B.
Cutten.
Here we can use the posthypnotic suggestion with devastat
ing and often humorous effect. It is simply an endurance game
and should the patient lie a good hypnotic subject the operator
holds all the aces. The attack is based on that curious control
which hypnotism gives us over the autonomic nervous system
and through it the organs of the body. We suggest that the
subject in future will be deathly sick to bis stomach every time
he touches alcohol, that the taste will be bad and that he will
vom it We may have to return to the attack several times but
with a good subject we will probably succeed. Once we get this
posthypnotic suggestion working it is only a matter of time.
No human being will get much pleasure from liquor if the very
smell of it makes him vomit. He cannot even keep it on his
stomach long enough to register a “jag."
The reader will please note, however, that the problem is not
quite that simple. Alcoholism is not a disease, it is a symptom
of a diseased personality, of one which cannot face reality and
chooses the relaxation supplied bv liquor as a way out. a retreat.
So we must strengthen the personality or. having ejected one
devil we may find seven others in its place. The others in this
154 HYPNOTISM
case, may be drugs and the last state will be much worse than
the first.
So we do everything in our power to make the individual face
reality, and also to supply an “out” which meets with social
approval. This substitute retreat may take one of many forms,
depending on the nature of the case. Religion is excellent, but
we have to discover, if possible, some natural liking of the in
dividual which can be used. Then we try to make the patient
just as much an addict to, say, chess, as he was to alcohol. All
sorts of hobbies can be used to take the place of alcohol, but
always we must bear in mind that the individual really must
have some retreat and this retreat must be one which will i^ t
cause trouble. One patient became such a chess fan that he
would wake up at 2 a . m . and spend the rest of the night doing
problems. Not a very desirable situation perhaps, but certainly
better than reaching for a bottle.
We must never take the alcoholic for granted. Always in the
back of his mind will be the longing for some substitute which
may take the place of liquor. The great danger is drugs and
any move in this direction is very certainly one from the pro
verbial frying pan into the fire. Hypnotism supplies us with
a very effective weapon against alcoholism and illustrates neatly
the psychoanalysts great criticism of hypnotism. The doctor
cures the “symptom” and calls it a day, overlooking the fact
that alcoholism is merely a symptom, a sign of much more
serious trouble. Block the outlet here and we may very easily
have a much worse “symptom” with which to deal.
Hypnotism seems to lend itself also to the treatment of ex
cessive smoking and by much the same technique as that advo
cated for its use to combat alcohol. Here, of course, the condi
tion is by no means as serious and the treatment appears to be
much easier.
But, strange as it may seem, hypnotism is of very little use
in the treatment of drugs such as morphine, cocaine or hashish.
The public tends to confuse the action and nature of these drugs
•with alcohol, but in reality they are totally different. Alcohol is
not a “habit former,” in and of itself. It simply provides an
escape from the care and worries of this life, little more. If we
can substitute another escape the individual will accept this,
and in the long run will find it quite as satisfactory as was
alcohol.
Morphine, as an example of the other group, acts in quite
different fashion. To be sure, the individual generally starts
“dope” as an escape. The feeling of peace and relaxation which
comes from morphine compares very favorably with that ob
tained from alcohol. But once the individual has obtained the
morphine habit, is an “addict,” then morphine and only mor
phine or some other derivative of opium will satisfy the craving.
And this craving is a craving of the body itself, is physiological,
as we say. The body demands and literally must have the drug
in question.
This is well seen in the so-called tolerance which the body
builds for the drug, something quite foreign to alcohol. For
example, if we should take the average reader and give him by
hypodermic syringe one half grain of morphine, results might
be serious. One grain would probably cause death. But if that
same reader became an addict, then in a year’s time he could
safely take fifty grains a day. One hundred grains is quite com
mon with addicts and even daily doses of two hundred fifty
grains by no means unknown!
Now suppose we wish to “cure” the individual in question.
We put him in a sanitarium and take away the drug completely.
We at once have a very sick man on our hands. The “with
drawal” symptoms may be so severe as to cause death. As a
result the withdrawal of the drug has to be under very careful
medical supervision. Even after the subject is “off” the drug
the danger of a return is very great. There is always that con
stant craving for morphine which can only be met by one
particular brand of drugs, tire opium group.
This picture is quite different from that given by alcohol ot
256 HYPNOTISM
tobacco. The body builds little, if any tolerance and there are
no withdrawal symptoms. We can take an alcoholic and cut off
all his liquor tomorrow. We will have a very unhappy in
dividual on oar hands but he is not physically sick; certainly
there is no danger of death. But with these other drugs the
craving for the specific “dope” is quite different.
We know definitely that three drug groups act in this fashion.
Opium and all its derivatives as morphine, codeine, heroin is
perhaps the best known. Cocaine and its relatives are equally
dangerous, while marihuana—the American version of hashish
—is only lately becoming known in this country. Hypnotism
can do very little against these. It can strengthen the will power,
the determination to resist, but the subject will literally go
through hell for the drug in question. We can suggest vomiting
and will succeed but it means nothing. The counter drive is far
too strong to be counteracted by the fear of a sick stomach.
It would seem that there would be a fertile field for hypnotism
in the bad character habits of childhood. Bad sex practices
naturally occur to us in this respect but there are many others.
The tendency to truancy, to bad temper, to stealing, even to
actual crime. We must bear in mind here that the child is far
more suggestible than is the adult. Bernheim found that about
four fifths of children after the age of seven could be thrown into
somnambulism. Very recent work such as that by Reymert and
Kohn would seem to uphold this claim. So we may safely say
that the child in general is a much better subject than is the
adult.
We must also remember that time is very much of a factor
in the establishment of all these bad “habits.” Healy gives us a
rule of thumb with reference to kleptomania, the compulsion
to steal. If we attack the problem before the age of twelve, we
will probably succeed, but if after this age we are probably
faced with failure. Very little work has been done in this field
and it is no fault of the doctor. Blind prejudice on the public’s
side is so strong that any medical man or educator who dares
use hypnotism to cure the bad habits of childhood is immediately

placed in the ranks of the quacks and charlatans. Humanity is
curiously and wonderfully made. We will gladly have our chil
dren listen to Hitler or any other high power orator over the
radio while he uses suggestion to warp their judgments. But if
the doctor or educator should use identical suggestions on these
children with the aid of hypnotism he would be due for a coat
of tar and feathers.
Some day, perhaps fifty or one hundred fifty years from to
day, our descendants will look back at us with the same curiosity
and wonder with which we regard our own ancestors of a
while back. Pasteur was held up to ridicule when he asserted
that the germ might cause disease. Vesalius was almost burned
at the stake when he dared cut up the human body to get some
knowledge of anatomy. One hundred years from now the
scientist will be amused at the strange ignorance which banned
the use of hypnotism in the formation of youthful character
and the correction of “nervous” ailments.
For example, the writer once listened to an excellent paper
on stammering by a well known authority read before a medical
society. Following this paper the writer asked the author if he
had ever tried hypnotism in the treatment of speech disorders.
The let down was terrific. The speaker looked confused, then
embarrassed. How was he to be courteous and answer such a
silly question ? He was obviously puzzled to find that any mem
ber of a self respecting medical organization could “lead with
lus chin” in such childish fashion. But he displayed the usual
tact which is so characteristic of the medical profession and
passed the question off much as the reader would pass off a
child’s question about black magic or fairies.
Yet, hypnotism is a well recognized means of attacking speech
defects in Europe. Not a sure cure, by any means. Those of us
who have tried to handle cases of stammering know how ex
tremely resistant to treatment this condition may be. W e do
not even know what causes it. There are seven good theories
158 HYPNOTISM
and probably seventeen more that are not so good. Moreover

we can cure some cases with everything from the gypsy’s thread
around the finger to psychoanalysis. Some others seem abso
lutely incurable.
Hypnotism has its list of cures and also its list of failures.
It is a very curious thing to note that the stammerer is gen
erally a fairly good subject. Moreover he will usually talk with
out any difficulty in the hypnotic trance. This is so much a
relief to the sufferer that the writer has had cases in which the
stammerer refused to wake up, pleading to remain hypnotized
just a little longer so that he could really enjoy talking.
It is very difficult for the average reader to realize how very
strong this power of popular prejudice may be. The writer has a
friend, one of the great psychiatrists of the country, a former
president of the American Psychiatric Association. This man
made the statement that even if he were convinced of the value
of hypnotism in treating nervous disorders he would not dare
use it in his institution, one of the country’s best state hospitals
for nervous diseases. There would be too many unpleasant ques
tions to be answered!
Yet this particular doctor is well known for courage and for
broad-mindedness.
There is not one member of the medical profession in either
Utica or Syracuse, to mention specific cities, who uses hypno
tism in his practice. W hy? Popular prejudice, nothing more
The medical profession is the most liberal of all groups, but
even medicine must bow to the popular will on certain sub
jects. This, unfortunately, is one. Yet the reader of this book
will by now realize how much this is pure prejudice, how very
little he knows of the real science of hypnotism. The stage
hypnotist, the “professional,” has so disgusted the average citi
zen with his exhibitions that it will be many years before
hypnotism will regain the prestige which it now enjoys in
Europe, where such stage shows are illegal.
Hypnotism has another possible use which will probably be
more carefully investigated as time passes. In many conditions

rest and quiet are very necessary if a cure is to be effected. We
cite tuberculosis as one example. It would seem that hypnotism
is admirably suited to obtain this rest and relaxation. By this
means the patient could be kept in trance during the “ rest period”
and, with the aid of suggestion, be convinced that his co-opera
tion at all times was necessary to a cure.
More important, however, might be its use in certain treat
ments during which the patient suffers great discomfort, either
at the time of treatment or afterward. The “fever cure” of
various diseases, such as arthritis, gives us one such example.
Here the patient undergoes the greatest discomfort and even
becomes delirious as a result of the high fever induced by the
treatment. If this individual were hypnotized in advance, he
could be thrown into trance during the treatment and thus could
be saved great suffering. In such a case hypnotism would be
definitely superior to any drug, since we would not have to
worry about possible complications.
Then again hypnotism might be of real use in one phase of
curing the drug addict. Many patients refuse to take the cure
because of the severity of those “ withdrawal” symptoms. We
mentioned before that these cause the most acute suffering on
the part of the victim in question. If this patient could be put
in trance we would at least overcome one barrier to the effective
treatment of drug addiction.
Certain situations would lend themselves very nicely to a
novel form of technique; namely, the use of the phonograph
record. These can now be so conveniently prepared that they
are no longer a novelty and it is quite possible for the operator
to dictate his suggestions to the disc. Needless to say, these
suggestions can vary for every specific case. The record will
put the individual to sleep, give the necessary treatment in the
doctor's own voice and then awaken the patient. There is noth
ing impossible, or to the psychologist, unusual in this attack.
Such records are well known in his laboratory.
160 H YPN OTISM
The writer is strongly of the opinion that this technique

offers very great possibilities. One great objection to the use
of hypnotism hinges on a question of time. The doctor must be
in personal attendance and our treatment may well consume an
hour. This is quite impractical in normal medical procedure.
Doctors are very busy people. But with the victrola record he 1
I
could prepare the record, after first preparing the subject and i
then give genuine “absent treatment.” Such a device lends itself 1
to the quack and the charlatan, but this is no reason why it
cannot be used for quite legitimate medical ends.
At this point it seems right to give brief consideration to
j
possible dangers which may accompany the use of hypnotism,
especially in unskilled hands and when used for medical ends.
First, and it seems to us, most obvious is the danger of treating
"symptoms” rather than diseases. This is very well illustrated
în the case of pain. There can be no doubt that hypnotism can
relieve pain, but very grave doubt that it can relieve the cause ■i
of this pain, especially if it should be an organic cause. 3s
The writer is quite certain that he could in many cases re
1
move all pain accompanying an acute attack of appendicitis, but i
that would by no means cure the appendix. Quite the opposite.
By removing this danger signal he might very easily be respon
sible for a case of ruptured appendix, which might be fatal.
Similarly a toothache may seem a very trivial affair, but the
cure for toothache is a dentist, not a hypnotist. Pain is nature’s
great danger signal and we do not remove the danger of a crash
simply by turning off the red light.
This has always been a potent criticism against the use of
hypnotism as practiced by the old masters. It lent itself so very
easily to the treatment of symptoms. Alcoholism could be cured
in almost miraculous fashion, but it did not always occur to
these folks that alcoholism was merely one symptom of a weak
personality. Remove liquor and the craving for a retreat was
still there. Similarly with many of the hysterical symptoms.
Take away one of these “escapes” and the individual would
I
MEDICAL IISES OF HYPNOTISM 161
come back one month later proudly flaunting another; and very
frequently it was a worse symptom.
We must admit a certain truth in these criticisms. But now
we can use hypnotism not only to cure the symptom but also
to clear up the underlying difficulty, provided of course this is
not organic. And hypnotism may be of considerable help in
treating some organic complaints, more from the angle of ob
taining proper co-operation from the patient. We are quite
certain that some organic diseases as gastric ulcer, exophthalmic
goiter, perhaps diabetes and even heart disease have a mental
origin. They result from the strain of our high strung civiliza
tion on body organs which were not evolved for such an
existence. While it seems very doubtful that we can reverse the
process, that we can cure gastric ulcer by mental means, we
can use hypnotism to aid în the treatment.
The hypnotist must guard against the subject becoming so
very susceptible to the trance that he can be hypnotized by any
one, but this is a simple matter handled by suggestion while in
hypnotism. Incidentally, as we mentioned in an earlier chapter,
the operator need never worry about “awakening” his subject.
He will rapidly find that the real problem is to induce sleep, not
dispel it. Possible criminal uses of hypnotism we discuss in a
later chapter. Blackmail, by the way, is always a danger. W e
have had some cases in which patients have even taken the
matter to court, suing for enormous damages under the advice
of some enterprising lawyer. This is a very real danger, and
the answer is insurance with any reputable firm. The enthusiasm
of this blackmailing type cools in remarkable fashion when they
find they are to do business with the lawyers of a great in
surance company. This form of protection can be written
cheaply, since it generally guards against pure blackmail and
as such will never call for court action.
The writer feels that the real danger in hypnotism lies to the
operator himself, at least to the experienced operator. Never
has he as yet seen a case wherein the subject has experienced
162 HYPNOTISM
any bad effects from hypnotism when this is used by a careful

experienced hypnotist. So great, however, is popular prejudice
in this field that this sanie operator may easily find himself in
very hot water when this prejudice takes specific form and
centers itself on one individual. For this reason the President
of Colgate University foibade its use on the campus. This is cer
tainly not due to any unreasoned reaction on his part for Presi
dent Cutten was acknowledged the leading American authority
on the subject in the early twentieth century.
Colleges are made that way. If the parent finds that his son
is being used for such research purposes, his reactions may be
very hostile. If he chooses to bring this matter to the attention
of the board of trustees things may become very unpleasant
indeed for the professor in question. The only safe answer to
this situation is to use hypnotism with students only in specific
cases where the consent of the parents has been obtained. This
îs frequently possible, especially when the student in question is
low in his school work and the operator is able to offer some
definite hope that, with the use of hypnotism he may be able to
remedy matters in this field.
The same type of prejudice applies to the doctor. Any medical
man who would dare use hypnotism in his daily practice might
very easily commit professional suicide. N or is there any remedy
in sight at the present time. We must educate the layman to the
point where he does not get a cold chill every time the subject ‘
is mentioned and have visions of a twentieth century dracula
forcing his unhappy victims into horrible crimes against man
and God. As the situation now stands there is far- more danger
to the hypnotist than the hypnotized.
The reader will note that we have given very little attention
to the use of hypnotism in the diseases of everyday life. We
have made this oversight intentionally because these conditio!»
liave been covered very fully by several of the older writers, as
for example, Bemhcim. We quote several cases from his work,
Suggestive Therapeutics, as translated from the second French
edition by Herter. We choose a random selection to illustrate
the very wide use made of hypnotism by these older authorities.
For example, Observation 101 in his book is a case of chronic
lead poisoning and final complete cure with the aid of hypnotism!
Hardly a condition in which one would expect a “mental” cure.
Observation 2012*4 is headed “Violent hysterical paroxysms
dating back one year. Complete cure from time of first sugges
tion.” This is more the type of ailment we would expect to find
referred to hypnotism.
Observation 30a : “ Nervous aphonia (loss of speech) of one
month’s standing. Cure by simple affirmation." All these cases
have a description of the treatment following the case descrip
tion.
Observation 40*: “ Melancholy, insomnia, anorexia (loss of
appetite). Rapid cure by hypnotic suggestion." Again more or
less the sort of case on which we would expect to use hypnotism.
Observation 50s : “Trouble in writing consecutive to chorea.
Cure in a single seance of hypnotic suggestion." The inability
to write here was very marked and the cure clear-cut.
Observation 59**: “ Nocturnal incontinence of urine since
infancy, relieved by a single suggestion." Hypnotism is of
definite use here.
Observation 71*: “Tubercular diathesis. Restoration of sleep
and disappearance of thoracic pains by suggestion.” Decidedly
not wrhat we would expect. Tuberculosis is not a “mental” con
dition by any stretch of the imagination.
Observation 80s : “Rheumatic paralysis of the forearm and
right hand. Sensation totally restored in one seance. Total cure
1 B e m h e im , H , Suggestive Therapeutics, p. 257,

1 B e r a h e im , H , Suggestive 'Therapeutics, p . 2 8 4 .
4 B e m h e im , H., Suggestive Therapeutics, p. 382.
* Ibid., p. 314.
• Ibid., p. 3 3 0 .
* Ibid., p . 3 5 1 .
4 Ibid., p. 364.
*Jbid., p . 3 7 0 .
f
164 HYPNOTISM
in four seances,” It sounds impossible but Bemheim was a w

careful observer.
Observation 90° : ‘‘Lumbo-crural muscular pain with obsti.1
nate sacro-sciatic neuralgia dating back six months. N o ta b il
improvement after several hypnotic seances; almost complete
cure after five weeks of repeated suggestion.”
Observation 10010: “ Sciatic pain dating back three day», S
cured by a single suggestion.” "J
The reader will note that we quote every tenth case front '
Bemheim, departing from this order only when the cases are M
too technical for the reader to grasp. This gives us a very good "
idea of the diversity of the diseases, organic and non-organic ;
which Bemheim treated. We would point out that Bemheim \
held an important position as professor in the faculty of medicine i
at Nancy, France. Should the reader care to check, he will find I
that Moll, Bramwell, Tuckey, and others report essentially the jj
same type of result as does Bemheim. These also are respected I
names in the history of medicine. We do not discuss this appli- j
cation of hypnotism to the general practice of medicine because jj
others much better qualified have already recorded the results ;f
where all the world may read. j
There can be no doubt that hypnotism may be of great aid|j
in curing many types of hitman disease. At the present moment,
however, it has practically no real value in America. This is due .
entirely to popular prejudice, that curious quirk in human think- a
ing which sees in hypnotism something closely allied to black J
magic and the supernatural. We must not blame the medicalJ
profession if our own ignorance and superstition robs them of~
this very valuable device for combatting human ailments. First,3
we must educate ourselves. We will then find that the doctor ii jj
the most easily educated of all humanity.•
• Ibid., p. 382.
>« Ibid., p. 393.
Chapter VII
HYPNOTISM IN CRIME
H E R E are two aspects to this problem of hypnotism in
T crime. First, can it be used to further the commission ot

a crime and, secondly, can hypnotism be of use in the
detection of criminal acts. Both are fascinating problems and
both are still very much in the realm of speculation. We simply
do not know, for in order to determine if the subject will com
mit a crime we must literally have him do so. No fake setup
will satisfy our critics, although many of these experimental
situations do come pretty close to giving us the real picture of
a criminal act. But the hypnotic subject is so shrewd, so capable
of detecting what is fake and what is reality that we cannot be
sure unless the crime is genuine; and this would certainly
never be reported in the literature.
Then we dare not use hypnotism in the detection of crime.
So great is the prejudice against its use that any counsel for
the defense could literally shatter the state’s case if he could
prove to the jury that the police had even attempted to use
hypnotism. This is no blind assertion. It has already occurred.
I>et us take a general survey of the situation with regard to
this matter of crime in or as the result of hypnotism. First of
all the statement that the human will do nothing in hypnotism
which he will not do in the waking state. Utterly unproven and
unquestionably false. We need but to watch the performance of
a good stage hypnotist to realize that our friends would not
make unqualified fools of themselves on the stage if they were
in a “normal” condition. Hypnotism is first cousin to somnam
bulism. to talking in one's sleep, and we have cases in the
literature where sleep talkers have literally “talked." Again we
165
166 HYPNOTISM
have many cases oi compulsions in ordinary life, such as the

compulsion to steal or to set fires. We know that these are
irresistible,, we know further that they are in reality posthypnotic
suggestions of a somewhat unusual type. We can infer that
what we obtain here we could also obtain in hypnotism.
W hy not make crucial experiments with hypnotism itself and
find out? Because such experiments at once leave the experi
menter open to criminal action and could never be reported in
the literature. Will the subject steal one hundred dollars from
his brother’s pocket? Suppose we try. He either does or he
. does not which seems to depend on the operator and on operator
attitude. W ith Erickson he does not, with Wells he does. But
we get nowhere in either case. If he refuses the writer of this
book will say it is a matter of attitude on the part of the opera
tor. Erickson, one of the very best in the country, will naturally
deny this but he will have a difficult time proving the contrary.
And if the experiment succeeds? Still unsatisfactory. The
critic will say that the subject realized all along it was a hoax
and only did the act to please the operator. To be sure, it looks
genuine but what will happen if we pull this subject up before
a judge, with the prospect of six months in jail staring him in
the face. Will he still protect the hypnotist ? No one knows for
it cannot be tried. We cannot bring such things to court action
for the court does not play. If that money was stolen, some one
goes to jail, either subject or hypnotist, and no operator would
dare take the risk. It would mean professional ruin in either
case if he ever published his results.
The best we can do is to arrive at a conclusion of probably
yes or probably no. The subject in hypnotism is not “asleep"
in any sense of the word. He is just as wide awake as he ever
was, just as alert, just as discerning. But he is highly suggestible
and very co-operative. He will do anything to oblige the hypno
tist, within certain limits.
But it is very important to note that those limits are very
different with different people. Some people may refuse point
H YPN OTISM IN CRIM E 167
blank to forge a check under any circumstances when, in the
trance, others appear to have no particular objection on the
subject. The reader must bear in mind that we do not claim ait
good hypnotic subjects would commit a criminal act as the result
of hypnotism. Far from it. W e only assert that, from the evi
dence we have, it seems highly probable that many subjects
would so do if urged on by a good operator.
Let us take one of the very best experiments as demonstrating
the difficulty of proof, L. W. Rowland of Baylor University
arranged a very ingenious apparatus to see if the hypnotized
subject would act in such a way as to harm himself or others.
He placed a rattlesnake in an open case and irritated the beast
until it was in a very dangerous mood. Then he ordered his
subjects to reach for the piece of rubber pipe. This sounds very
dangerous but between the subject and the angry snake was a
sheet of "invisible glass," a new preparation which is literally
invisible, [or it is so made that it reflects no light at all. Strangely
enough, the subjects promptly reached for the snake and were
saved only by this obstruction. The writer would have sworn
that such an experiment would fail, which merely goes to show
that one cannot tell beforehand what will happen.
Rowland now altered his procedure. Fie himself was to be
the victim, so an assistant took over the handling of the subject
while Rowland sat behind the invisible glass. The assistant ex
plained to the subject just how dangerous sulphuric acid is,
especially when it comes in contact with human flesh. Next he
handed the subject a glass of genuine acid and suddenly said,
“Throw it in his face.” The subject promptly did so, Rowland
being saved only by that invisible barrier.
Conclusive and satisfactory? Not at all, but the best work
yet done along this particular line. Not conclusive because the
critic can find at least one flaw in the experiment, possibly
others. The writer took this report, on its publication, to one
of our best authorities on hypnotism. He read it through and
said at once, “ How do you know that glass is invisible? To
168 HYFKOTISM
you, yes. But the hypnotic subject may, probably does, have
much greater keenness of vision than does the normal in
dividual.’'
He then referred to the type of experiment, mentioned in an
earlier chapter, wherein the subject picked out his “mother’s”
picture—from an earlier hallucination—from twenty perfectly
plain white calling cards by recognizing some trifling flaw in the
surface of the card. Such skepticism is pretty hard to meet
Asked how it would lie possible to have this experiment made
“air tight” he replied, “Take away the glass.”
“ In that case there might be a corpse in the laboratory.”
“ Exactly. But I see no other way to meet the objection.”
In other words, these experiments by Rowland would seem
to indicate that in ail probability a person will act in snch a way
as to injure himself or others as a result of hypnotic suggestion.
To prove this to the satisfaction of science, lie would literally
need a corpse in the laboratory.
W. R. Wells at Syracuse University has also experimented
along original lines in his investigation of the possible use of
hypnotism for criminal ends. He uses what appears to the
author as a much more promising line of attack in that he tries
to avoid too great a conflict on the subject’s part. His experi
ments have consisted mostly in having his subjects steal small
sums of money from various acquaintances. He eases the shock
by, for example, telling the subject that he himself left a dollar
bill in the friend’s room, thus producing a delusion that the
money is really his own. Then the subject is instructed to get
the same—and does so ! Moreover Wells finds it very easy to
remove all knowledge from these subjects of ever having been
hypnotized.
This line of attack used by Wells seems to the writer excel
lent. H e does everything possible to avoid conflict, to obtain
the co-operation of his subjects, to “fool” them if you will by
assisting the operator in an important psychological experi
ment. This line of approach seems to offer greater possibilities
HYPNOTISM IN CRIME. 169
than the amazing “frontal” attack by Rowland. Every time
the writer has tried Rowland’s technique he has failed miserably,
which does not in any way cast reflection on that investigator’s
work. The writer did not believe it possible and that old prob
lem of operator-attitude carne in. The subject realized this and
behaved accordingly. On the other hand, the writer has suc
ceeded in having a wealth of bogus checks forged by subjects
who were merely co-operating in a psychological experiment.
Needless to say, the checks in question were torn up before
they caused any embarrassment.
Against this work of Wells, we can lodge that same type of
objection which always meets us like a stonewall. W hat guar
antee have we that the subject was not playing his usual farce,
that he had picked up from other students that he was supposed
to stage his “act” and that nothing serious would happen ? No
matter how carefully those Syracuse experiments are conducted,
the critic can always fall back on this line of defense.
And what guarantee have we that the subject, if brought to
trial, would not recall the whole thing and expose the operator?
After all, if the crime were really serious and the subject were
faced with ten years in prison or even death, the unconscious
would have every reason in the world to “talk.” The objection
here seems almost unanswerable. A genuine trial and a genuine
prison sentence would be about the only way to determine
whether or not, in football parlance, the line would hold. There
are ways around this danger, as we will later see, but those
means could only be used in the genuine commission of crime.
M. H. Erickson at Eloise State Hospital, in sharp contrast
with Wells, Rowland, and the author, finds no evidence what
soever that the subject will commit criminal acts. Moreover,
Erickson has probably had more experience with hypnotism
than any of the others. He works in a setting where popular
prejudice means nothing and he works hard. He finds that the
subject balks at every suggestion of criminal action. But the
writer feels this must be due to operator-attitude. The subjects
170 HYPNOTISM
realize Erickson expects negative results and they produce the

same. The reader will note that the writer makes this statement
quite out of “thin a ir/' but he can see no other possible ex- /
planation. If one reliable group of investigators get positive
results and if another finds the results wholly negative then
we must seek some explanation. In this particular field of science
the writer feels that operator-attitude is about the only way to
explain the conflict, not only with reference to hypnotism and
crime but elsewhere as in the case of Nicholson versus Young
quoted in an earlier chapter.
We again stress the fact that hypnotism cannot be treated
with the same outlook with which we approach the physical
sciences. The speed of light is in no way dependent on the at
titude of the experimenter, but the use of suggestion in any
walk of life, including hypnotism, is so dependent. The orator
is a success or a failure as he plays on our emotions and makes
his suggestions with confidence and vigor. Suggestion works
under the same laws, in hypnotism or out of the trance. It
would seem just as difficult to predict the reaction of the hypno
tic subject to a specific suggestion as it is to predict that of the
individual member of a crowd listening to Hitler or Mussolini
“ Probably" they will do so-and-so but then again they may not
behave in such a way.
We would like also to insert a word on that very important
factor of individual differences, so important to the whole field
of psychology. The “average man" for example is a myth, a
very useful abstraction for the statistician but he simply does
not exist. We all differ one from the other, in size, or strength,
intelligence or emotional control, “will power” or lack of the
same. Similarly, even in the very best of subjects we would
expect that we would find a very great range i* their ability to
resist criminal suggestions. If not, this is the only situation of
the thousands with which psychology deals where there is abso
lute, even approximate, uniformity among all members of a
large group. Such being the case we would reasonably suppose
HYPNOTISM IN CRIM E 171
from our distribution according to the normal curve that we

would find some subjects absolutely immune to any such sug
gestion from any operator. A t the other extreme we could
reasonably expect a group who would fall easy victims to almost
any technique. In the middle, we would find the majority of
subjects, people who would be reasonably resistant to a direct,
frontal attack, so to speak, but who might be tricked into crim
inal action just as we can trick them into the trance by using
the disguised technique.
Of course, we have no proof for this statement. It may be
that the present war will give us the answer, for in war the
belligerents are not worried over the ethics of a situation. They
demand results. The use of hypnotism for either the commission
or detection of crime is very similar to its possible uses in war
fare, so we may find the answer to our question in this very
unfortunate world situation, which we discuss in the following
chapter.
But we would emphasize the fact that the question, as it now
stands, is wide-open. W e do not have the answer nor can we,
from the very nature of the situation, hope to obtain this answer.
Yet the question is of very serious importance, not only from
the viewpoint of crime commission but, far more important,
from that of crime detection. If hypnotism can be so used—
and the writer is of the opinion that it can—then we may find
it a very useful aid to our present methods of detecting crime.
Needless to say, the great barrier at present is that senseless
prejudice which exists in the mind of the public. We must treat
the criminal as a gentleman. As a nation we believe that every
one, including the murderer, should have a sporting chance.
There is much to be said for this attitude—and much against
it. To the writer it would seem that the criminal was no longer
playing the game and could not demand that the rules apply in
his case.
Let us consider some of the possible applications of hypno
tism to criminal ends. Most of the actual work here has been
172 HYPNOTISM
done in Germany and we find it fairly well agreed that hypno-

tism could be used for sex offenses. Beyond this there is no
such agreement.
There are several approaches to this problem. Would the
criminal operator use the trance itself or would he prefer to
work by means of the posthypnotic suggestion? Very probably
the latter although there would be certain situations in which
he could use the somnambulist himself without “waking*’
him up.
How would we expect him to proceed ? If he were a criminal
worthy of the name, then obviously not the way most of us have
seen him presented in book and movie. There seems to be a
tradition that, with hypnotism in crime we hypnotize our vic
tim, hand him a club, and say, “ Go murder Mr. Jones.” If he
refuses, then we have disproven the possibility of so using
hypnotism. Such a procedure would be silly in the extreme.
The skillful operator would do everything in his power to avoid
an open clash with such moral scruples as his subject might have.
He would impress on the subject that he was taking part m
some very important psychological experiments. Hypnotism
gives a great increase in muscular control. Let us see how well
he can forge Mr. Brown’s signature.
After he has had practice in this and is reasonably good, we
would go on to the next step. We are carrying on some in
teresting work with the police. W e wish to convince them of
the great importance of hypnotism. We are going to have him
forge a few checks with Mr. Brown’s signatures. We assure ;
him they will be torn up at once and we will have a member of
the police force handy to complete the picture. Would it work?
The writer is almost certain that it would with certain sub
jects. The operator would be protected in that he would remove
from his victim all knowledge of ever having been hypnotized
and make it impossible for anyone else to hypnotize him at any
future date.
Under such circumstances and using such a technique the
writer feels there is a very strong possibility that criminal acts

could be obtained from a certain proportion of subjects, but the
reader will see that it is impossible to tell just what would
happen from then on. The subject forges a check, robs a home,
or commits a murder in “good faith,” if this is not too con
tradictory a use of terms. He is quite convinced that he is play
ing in another of those little farces which seem to give him so
much pleasure. When this farce turns out to be very serious
drama, when he finds himself facing a judge and jury with
every prospect of disgrace and imprisonment, what then. Will
he continue to protect the operator? No one knows for no one
dares make the experiment,
In the eyes of the law he would still be guilty of forgery,
robbery, or murder, but he might also indict the hypnotist. This
might serve to ease his sentence but would not acquit him by any
means. Drunkenness, for example, is no excuse for crime and
neither is hypnotism. The reader will now see how very dif
ficult it is to deal with certain of these questions. They are
impossible of proof without the commission of actual crime,
and that is beyond the province of the psychology laboratory.
But there are other possibilities of hypnotism in crime which
have much greater chances of success. When we ask the in
dividual bluntly to commit a murder, we are putting a tre
mendous strain on his moral code. We could only hope to suc
ceed writh the very best subjects. Should we try to trick him into
a murder, we might succeed. The gun was loaded with dummy
ammunition, he thought. Y e titis very open to question whether
we could rely on his not exposing the hypnotist during the trial.
Suppose, however, wre take a different line of attack. We use
him to establish an alibi while we ourselves commit the crime.
This might be just as effective from our point of view and
would have a much better chance of success. Let us take a typical
experiment. We hypnotize Smith in Oxford. He spends the
afternoon and has tea with us, for our friend Brown has made
some very cutting remarks on hypnotism and we decide he
174 HYPNOTISM
should be given a lesson. After the tea we retire to our room.

Smith has been hypnotized all the time and Brown has never
detected it.
“All right. Smith, wake up.” Smith starts, looks puzzled,
and is immediately “on guard.” We find that many subjects
adopt this attitude in such experiments. They realize in a vague
sort of way that something has happened and are preparing
to stall and “cover up” until they get the lay of the land.
We talk about sports for the next ten minutes. The subject
does not recognize Brown although he has been in his company
for the last three hours. Finally we came to the point.
“ Where were you this afternoon?”
“ In London. Spent the afternoon playing bridge with our
friend, Black.”
"You were in Oxford all afternoon and had tea with us here
an hour ago,” says Brown.
Smith has a sense of humor and is not caught off guard.
He turns to the writer with a broad grin. “One of your friends
from Amesbury? H e looks all right to me but you never can
tell.” Amesbury is a State Hospital for Mental Diseases.
Brown is irritated. “Don’t bluff. I say you were in Oxford
all afternoon.”
“ Poor fellow 1 And he probably has a wife and children,” is
Smith’s exasperating come-back as he retires into the after
noon paper. Needless to say, Smith, an excellent subject was
acting under posthypnotic suggestion. He took an unholy de
light in ragging Brown, for he had been told in trance that the
Litter believed hypnotism a hoax.
Rrown was not to be put off. He told Smith he was lying
and that the Black in London was a rnyth. Smith complacently
agreed and suggested we drive him back to Amesbury. Finally,
after much baiting of Brown he agreed to accompany us to
London and see Black. The latter was also a fine subject and
had been coached in advance.
Black met us at his apartment. “ We’ve brought a friend to
h y p n o t is m in c r im e 175
see you,” said Smith. “ Not violent. Just u government guest

at Ameslmry. Come in, my Lord. This is the Duke of N or
mandy.’'
Brown stuck to his point. “Where was Smith this afternoon.”
“Playing bridge in my apartment.”
“He was having tea with me in Oxford.”
“Oh, oh,” said Black, “always best to humor them. You’re
quite right, Sir. He was undoubtedly liaving tea with you in
Oxford. Do sit down."
“W here are the other two partners ?”
“ Sorry, Sir, but they ju st left by plane for Siberia. They
have a pink fox farm there. Remarkable thing. Cross a purple
martin with a Siberian Wumpus and you get a pink fox.
Astonishing, don’t you think? By the way, how is my good
friend, Dr. W right?” W right is superintendent at Amesbury.
Poor Brown was literally stymied and took a terrible riding
for the next quarter of an hour, but the worst was yet to come.
He was getting more and more uncomfortable. Smith and Black
obvious took him for a patient from Amesbury—as they had
been instructed in hypnotism—and were delighted to have him
at their mercy. Finally he arose.
“Well,” he said testily, “ I must be going.”
“And where are you leaving for, Duke ?”
“The station and Oxford.”
“That’s what you think,” said Smith, “but actually you are
going with us on a nice moonlight drive to your castle at
Amesbury.”
“ Now, see here, this is going too far.”
“ Tut, tut, Duke. Think of the consternation at the regal
residence if the Lord of the Manor turned up missing. We are
your devoted slaves and you are going for a little ride. Come
along.” And along he went with the three of us.
Five miles outside Oxford we took mercy on him. H e was
asked to step into a “pub” for a moment. We followed not a
minute later but all was now changed. The writer had removed
176 HYPNOTISM
the delusions when we sat down at his table. They did not even
recognize Brown.
“ Mr. Brown,” he said, “ I wish to introduce two friends,
Smith and Black, both of Oxford. We are driving through.
W hy not come with us ?”
From then on everyone was happy. Later in the evening
Brown asked, “Where have you fellows been all day?”
“Oh, just driving around,” said Black.
“You know,” said Brown, “your friend here has a reputa
tion as a hypnotist. Has he ever tried it on you fellows?”
“ Between ourselves,” said Smith, “that’s what it is. A repu
tation. He couldn’t hypnotize a cat. As for hypnotizing us, he’s
never been so foolish as to try. All pure bunk.”
“ Yes," said Brown, “T hat’s what 1 thought a few hours ago.”
“ W hat’s that?”
“ Oh, nothing. Just thinking.”
This silly episode really illustrates a great deal. H ad the
delusions not been removed Smith and Black would have in
sisted on their original story; namely that they had been playing
cards in London all afternoon. Now, if we care to translate
that into the field of crime, we see the ease with which we could
prepare a watertight alibi. Needless to say, the subjects would
have to be prepared well before hand and we could leave none
of the loopholes which are so very evident in this silly experi
ment. But it could be done and would be a relatively simple
trick. It would have three great advantages. First, the witnesses
in question would believe absolutely in what they said. They
would have nothing to cover up and, with careful preparation,
their stories could be made to agree on all essentials.
Secondly, we would not have to depend for these alibis on
shady figures from the criminal world. Any two or three good
hypnotic subjects would be suitable, and these could and would
be chosen from honorable and law abiding citizens.
Thirdly, there would be much less incentive for them to go
back on their word and for the unconscious to expose the hypno-
H YPN OTISM TN CRIM E 177
tist. N ot only are they in no personal danger themselves but

they are telling what is to them a true story in the interest of
a friend who is unjustly accused. T hat is a very different thing
from being on trial themselves, faced with disgrace and im
prisonment.
It is the writer’s opinion that this line of attack would succeed
with the majority of somnambulists. The reader must bear in
mind, however, that this is pure conjecture. Such an experi
ment has never been tried, at least to the writer’s knowledge.
If tried, it certainly would never be reported in the literature.
The difficulties encountered in arriving at any conclusive results
in the field of hypnotism and crime are very great.
Then we have other possibilities, many in fact, but we will
cite one more specific line of attack. We know that it is quite
possible to induce hallucinations and delusions in hypnotism and
that these can be made to carry over into the conscious state
with great vividness. For example, the writer more by way of
a joke than to prove a serious point, introduces a friend of his
to two strangers. These latter are excellent hypnotic subjects
and have been carefully coached as to their actions.
After a brief conversation the writer informs his friend that
these two strangers have a very serious charge to make. I-ast
night on Boar's Hill, just outside Oxford, they saw him run
down and kill a pedestrian, then leave the scene without re
porting to the police. The night was foggy— common enough
around Oxford—and he evidently did not see their car parked
in a lane not ten feet away. W hat did he propose to do about it?
Needless to say, the friend in question was flabbergasted.
rA's a matter of fact, he had been on Boar’s Hill the night previ
ous and a man had been found dead by the side of the road,
hit by a car. Moreover, this chap had a reputation for reckless
driving. On a foggy night he might very easily have struck a
man walking by the edge of the road and been none the wiser.
The two strangers in question, both friends of the writer, had
also been on the hill to a bridge party, so the situation could
178 HYPNOTISM
have been very nasty. As it was, however, the accused was

quickly relieved by the assurance that the whole thing was a
joke, but not before he realized that the two witnesses quite
believed their story and intended to take action with the police.
May we add that it is best not to play tricks like this on your
friends if you hope to keep them as friends. Even though the
delusions were removed from the minds of the two witnesses
and they behaved like gentlemen from then on, the shock was
so great to the accused that he avoided the group in question
in the future.
The reader will see the ease with which an unscrupulous
operator could “frame” an innocent man, and no one any the
wiser. The witnesses would be telling a perfectly straight and
true story. They saw it with their own eyes, so they believe i t
They actually saw Jones enter the burglarized bank, push his
wife into the river, or forge a check for five thousand dollars.
T o the witness there can be no doubt as to the truth of this
statement, nor has he any great moral struggle to overcome if
he sticks to his story. He is in no danger himself and he is help
ing the law in bringing a criminal to justice.
The reader will now begin to appreciate our impatience with
those writers who make the blanket statement that it is im
possible to induce criminal actions in the hypnotic subject.
Erickson alone has actually experimented on the subject to
any great extent and his opinion certainly carries weight. None
more so and the writer of this book may yet have to eat his
words that Erickson’s negative results are due to operator at
titude. But we must make that statement at the present moment,
and await further results.
But other writers who adopt this negative viewpoint use so
terribly little imagination. Apparently there is only one way
to have a subject commit a crime. We hypnotize him for the
first time at 10:00 a . m . At 10:30 we hand him a knife and say,
“Go murder your father.” The old gentleman is still hale and
hearty by 11:00 a . m . so we have proved our point. If the gentle-
HYPNOTISM IN CRIME 179
man in question had been murdered, the writer, for one, would
have been very much astonished. Things just don’t happen
that way.
When we discuss the possibility of using hypnotism for
criminal ends we must credit the hypnotist in question with
being intelligent and with having imagination. He will do
everything in his [tower to avoid any too direct collision with
this victim’s moral sense. He wilt also recognize that subjects in
somnambulism are almost as different as are normal people. To
be sure all are suggestible to an unusual degree but when these
suggestions cross their ethical standards, then every law of
distribution would tell us that some can resist such suggestions
with much greater effectiveness than can others.
In sober reality there would seem to the writer very little
danger from hypnotism in crime. Granted a highly skilled and
intelligent operator, the possibilities might be great. But there
are very few such people in this country and none of them
have as yet established a criminal record. Any “amateur” or
unskilled enthusiast would be almost certain to bungle the job.
He would not realize the limitations of hypnotism, the fact that
people in hypnotism are very different, the necessity of not
antagonizing the individual’s ethical standards. He would be
pretty certain to end in jail.
We must bear in mind that hypnotism, pretty much in its
present form, has been known since the days of Liebcault in
the 1860’s. Yet in eighty years’ time we have few if any
authentic cases of its use for criminal ends. This does not prove
too much but it does prove that its use for such purposes is
neither easy nor obvious. The criminal would quickly have
absorbed it in his technique had the case been otherwise. Our
modem improvements in methods and the active investigation
of this subject have reawakened a very grave possibility of the
use of hypnotism for criminal ends but even so it would never
be a tool for the incompetent amateur. H e has tried it too often
already and has always come to grief.
180 HYPNOTISM
The police are fully aware of any dangers which may be

inherent in hypnotism and would be quite competent to uncover
die work on any but the most skillful operator. Even in his
case we are still faced with the unsolved problems we have out
lined in previous pages. No one knows the answer for the ques
tion is unanswerable without the actual commission of a crim
inal act. We can.assure the reader, for his own peace of mind,
that our Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example, is fully
aware of every possibility in connection with hypnotism and is
extremely efficient in ail its activities.
Let us now turn to the other side of this fascinating picture.
Hypnotism might be used for criminal ends within the limits
we have already outlined. Can we reverse the process ? Can we
use hypnotism in the detection of crime? It certainly has its
possibilities. Up to the present popular prejudice has prevented
any police department from openly using this device, but we
can look forward to a time when this prejudice may not be
quite as unreasonable.
From the viewpoint of logic the human is totally irrational.
H e will permit our police to use “third degree” methods which
may be pretty brutal but hypnotism? Never! Of course, we, as
individuals, disapprove of the third degree, but, on the other
hand, we don’t get “all het up” about it. That is a matter for
the police to handle and we more or less let them suit them
selves. But those same police know very well that if any police
department dared to openly use hypnotism in the detection of
crime, the public might get very much “het up” over such a
thing. Yet hypnotism would fie far less brutal than the mildest
third degree. And it might be much more effective. Truly the
human mind does work in fearful and wonderful ways.
Perhaps the most evident use we could make of hypnotism
in the detection of crime would be that of obtaining informa
tion. We at once are confronted with the same old question,
will the subject talk. There is very little evidence either for or
against, but in the opinion of the writer there will be a certain
H YPN OTISM IN CRIM E 181
proportion at least of suspected or convicted criminals who,
under direct questioning, will talk.
But why use direct questioning. W hy try to use a club when
there is much better chance of success with more subtle tactics.
The police are seeking information and are not particular how
it is obtained so long as it throws light on the case. The hypno
tic subject has a memory which is often startlingly good for past
events. So we play a little game with him in hypnosis which
apparently has nothing to do with the crime in question. We
are interested, we tell him, in having him demonstrate to us how
well he can recall events in the past. Where, for instance, was
he on Christmas Day a year ago and what was he doing ? Then
where was he two years ago? And three years? Then how
about July Fourth in the same order?
All this questioning is done by the prison doctor or some one
quite unconnected with the authorities. Moreover, the specific
crime with which he is charged is never mentioned. But the
police knew very well that there is always hope if the accused
will talk on any subject. There is a very good chance that he
will let fall the clues which, when bound together, will lead to
his confederates, his “hideouts,” and finally to his conviction.
Only after we had tried this method described above would we
resort to direct questioning. All this would, of course, be with
a subject who had been hypnotized by the disguised method,
who knew nothing of ever having been hypnotized and could
be hypnotized by no one else.
W hat is the objection to using hypnotism on the criminal in
this fashion ? Popular prejudice, which is so strong that no bw
enforcement body has, as yet, had the courage to try, except
in one or two very isolated instances. So strong is the feeling
of the public on this matter that any lawyer or district attorney
knows quite well that his case would be “shot” if the other side
could prove he had attempted the use of hypnotism.
As a matter of fact, proof is quite unnecessary. The writer
knows of one case wherein the prosecuting attorney was also
182 H YPN OTISM
known to be interested in hypnotism. The case for the defense

looked almost hopeless when the lawyer for the defense had a
brilliant idea. He coached the prisoner to claim that the state's
attorney had attempted to hypnotize him before the trial. From
then on the jury was definitely sympathetic toward the prisoner
and the state lost the case.
Perhaps one of the most interesting possibilities for the use
of hypnotism in crime is that of building up an informer service
along the lines we later suggest for hypnotism and counter
espionage in warfare. By the use of the disguised technique
we locate a number of good hypnotic subjects among the crim
inal class. We then isolate and train these subjects, coaching
them in hypnotism to look for certain information which is
very much needed by the forces of law and order.
Under such posthypnotic suggestions, as explained in the
next chapter, the subject would keep his “unconscious ear”
always cocked in the direction of such information, but con
sciously he would have no knowledge of what he was doing.
He would be promised immunity and reward in hypnotism for
his acts, so as to insure his loyalty. Then every so often the
police net would gather him in on some minor charge, collect
the information and release the prisoner in question. Such a
suggestion will impress the reader as being quite impossible
but we suggest he read through the next chapter before passing
any hasty judgment. There is nothing at all impossible about
such a procedure.
This line of attack would have a great advantage. The in
former would have no conscious knowledge of his activities and
this conviction of innocence would be his greatest protection.
Moreover consciously he would know nothing so that any
attempt at forcing him to betray the scheme would be of little
use. Lastly, we would not have any very strong ethical code
to combat in this group of people. Given the proper incentive
many of them would be far more willing to betray their friends
than would the average reader of this book.
Such a technique has other interesting possibilities. Given

a free hand, the authorities could proceed to plant such prepared
subjects from the criminal class where it would do most good,
in penitentiaries, prisons, and in criminal areas of our large
cities, always with the idea of obtaining information which
might, sooner or later, be of real use to the police.
There is another important fact which we must bear in mind
about the use of hypnotism. Criminals, as a class, are not overly
intelligent. They have a healthy fear of anything they do not
understand. This we see clearly in the use of the so-called lie-
detector, a very impressive piece of psychological apparatus
which by the measurement of blood pressure, rate and depth
of breathing, and the psycho-galvanic reflex is often able to
detect the fact that the accused is lying. To this apparatus we
now add the ophthalmograph, a neat instrument which photo
graphs the subject’s eye movements. These seem to behave
differently under emotional strain, as when the subject is trying
to “cover up’* a crime.
A friend in a police department tells a humorous story which
illustrates just how the criminal can often be bluffed into a
confession. Pete was accused of embezzlement amounting to over
one hundred thousand dollars. The case hinged around forgery.
Several specimens of the forged signature had been found in
Pete’s room, but Pete resolutely denied all knowledge of these.
If it could be proved that he had practiced these signatures it
would be easy to convict, but Pete was an old hand at this
game. T ry as they would the authorities could not trap him into
a confession. It was finally decided to use the lie-detector in a
last effort to get a statement.
The lie-detector as we mentioned before is a very impressive
piece of apparatus. All sorts of electrical attachments with three
pens writing automatically on a moving strip of paper. Pete
was introduced to the monster and was obviously uneasy. Then
it was explained to him that this lie-detector was sure to catch
184 HYPNOTISM
him if he told a lie and he was "hooked up." The investigator

asked several noncommital questions and then said:
“ Pete, do you know who forged those signatures we found
in your room ?”
“I do," said Pete, to the amazement of the police.
One or two more irrelevant questions and then.
"Pete, did you forge those signatures yourself?"
" I did,” said Pete.
That tied up the ease but, as the official humorously said, the
lie-detector was a tiat failure. There was no lie to detect. But
it did frighten the culprit into a confession. One of the main
uses of hypnotism might be right along these lines. It would
be held as an unknown, mysterious threat over the head of the
accused, and in many cases the accused might be so Impressed
that he would convict himself, as did Pete.
The reader cannot fail to be impressed with the very unsatis
factory nature of things in so far as the use of hypnotism in the
detection of crime is concerned. But if he is quite fair he will
also realize that this is no fault of science. The research worker
is willing, even anxious, to help law enforcement along these
lines, but he is also anxious to stay out of the penitentiary. As
things now stand, popular prejudice is so strong that he might
very easily find himself in serious trouble if he became a little
over-enthusiastic in his investigations.
Chapter V IU
HYPNOTISM IN WAHFAKE
OR some unknown reason the general public places
F hypnotism in the same class as black magic, voodoo ism

and spiritism. Even when he sees a genuine demonstra
tion on the stage or in the laboratory the layman is still uncon
vinced. The subject was either bluffing or, in the case of the
stage demonstration, results were produced by magic, “â la
Houdini.” First let us make one point quite clear. The psy
chologist is the only person entitled to an opinion on this sub
ject, just as the chemist alone can pronounce on a chemical
formula or the astronomer give a valid opinion on the move
ment and weight of the planets.
No competent psychologist in this country would dare write
an article denying the existence of hypnotism, the fact that
certain phenomena such as “ visions,” paralysis, analgesia (in
sensitivity to pain) and total loss of memory for occurrences
in the “trance,” can be produced in his laboratory. So we are
not interested in proving to the reader that hypnotism exists.
Our interest here lies in some of the more unfamiliar sides
of hypnotism which may make it of use in warfare. Again, no
psychologist would deny the existence of such phenomena. But
some would very emphatically deny our proposal that these
states and conditions could be used for the ends which we
suggest. The reason for this skepticism is obvious, if we but
consider the situation. Hypnotism in crime, either for the com
mission or solution of criminal acts is very closely related to the
possible use of hypnotism in warfare.
The only possible way of determining whether or not a
subject will commit a murder in hypnotism is literally to have
185
186 HYPNOTISM
him commit one. No "fake” setup will satisfy the critics, for
the hypnotised subject is not “asleep.” He is very wide awake,
willing to co-operate in all kinds of fake murders with rubber
knives. But with a real knife or a loaded revolver? No one
knows, for the simple reason that no one dares find out. The
police would not see the point when they viewed the corpse and
were told it was the result of a “scientific” experiment. Nor
would the jury. Sing Sing and the electric chair would prob
ably put an end to the career of the particular “scientist.”
But warfare may, undoubtedly will, answer many of these
questions. A nation fighting with its back to the wall is not very
worried over the niceties of ethics. If hypnotism can be used to
advantage we may rest assured that it will be so employed. Any
“accidents” which may occur during the experiments will sim
ply be charged to profit and loss, a very trifling portion of that
enormous wastage in human life which is part and parcel of war.
Let us glance at certain aspects of hypnotism with which the
general reader may not be familiar. He probably is familiar with
the general picture of the hypnotic trance, whether this be pro
duced in the quiet of the laboratory or the glare of the stage.
He knows that people can be thrown into this trance and while
in it will do weird things. On the stage they will, at the sugges
tion of the operator, hunt elephants with a broomstick or fish
for whales in a goldfish bowl. They will prance around the stage
on all fours, barking like a dog or give a good imitation of
Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address. They will strip off most
of their clothes at the command of the hypnotist or stiffen out
between two chairs while he breaks rocks on their chest.
The reader knows of this. To be sure he may suspect that
it is all “bunk,” but he at least realizes what is supposed to take
place. Suffice it to say here that it does take place and can be
quite genuine. The psychologist in his laboratory may not favor
quite so flashy performance, but he can duplicate the tricks of
the best stage “professional.”
There are other sides to hypnotism far more important than
HYPNOTISM IN WARFARE 187
those shown on the stage for the benefit of a wondering audi

ence. One in every five adult humans can be thrown into the
hypnotic trance—somnambulism—for which they will have no
memory whatsoever when they awaken. From the military
viewpoint there are a few facts which are of great interest. Can
this prospective subject,—this “one-in-five” individual—be
hypnotized against his will ? Very obviously no prisoner of war
will be co-operative if he knows that the hypnotist is looking
for military information. Nor will any ordinary citizen if he
suspects that the operator will use him to blow up a muni
tions plant.
The answer to this first very vital question is “yes.” W e do
not need the subject’s consent when we wish to hypnotize him,
for we use a “disguised” technique. The standard way to pro
duce hypnotism in the laboratory is with the so-called sleep
technique. The operator “talks sleep” to the subject, who even
tually relaxes and goes into a trance, talking in his sleep and
answering questions just as will many people of our acquaint
ance in everyday life. Now suppose we set up a neat little
psychological experiment on relaxation. That sounds harmless
enough. W e attach a blood pressure gauge to the subject’s right
arm and the psycho-galvanic reflex to the palm of his hand,
just to make everything look “shipshape.” These devices are
for measuring his ability to relax, just impressive little gadgets
to remove any suspicion.
Next we tell the subject he is to imagine himself falling
sound asleep, since this will aid in his attempts to relax. We
also point out that, of course, the very highest state of relaxation
will be his ability actually to fall into a deep sleep while we are
talking to him. Needless to say we also stress the great impor
tance of the ability to relax in this modem world of rush and
worry, promising to show him how to get results as one end of
these experiments. All this by way of “build up.” Probably not
one of the readers of this chapter would realize that this was
188 HYPNOTISM
preparation for hypnotism, but would co-operate willingly in

this very interesting psychological experiment.
We then proceed to “talk sleep,” much the same as in ordi
nary hypnosis, carefully avoiding any reference to a trance or
making any tests with which the subject might be familiar, all
the while checking on blood pressure and psycho-galvanic reflex
to keep up the “front.” Finally we make the test of somnam
bulism or deep hypnotism. We see if the subject will talk to us
in his sleep without awakening. If this does not succeed, the
subject wakes up completely, and in this case we simply repeat
the experiment hoping for better luck next time. But if we do
succeed, if the individual belongs to the “one-in-five” club, the
subject is just as truly hypnotized as by any other method, and
from now on everything is plain sailing. By use of the post
hypnotic suggestion we assure ourselves there will no be trouble
the next time. We simply say, “Listen carefully. After you wake
up I will tap three times on the table with my pencil. You will
then have an irresistible impulse to go sound asleep.” The next
trance is just that easy to get, and the subject has no idea that it
is the pencil which has put him off.
Let us follow this process a little farther. The operator has
succeeded in hypnotising the subject without his consent if
not against his will. It is the same thing so far as practical re
sults are concerned. But in this war situation he must go further
if he is to attain the results for which he is striving. There
must be no leakage, no talking outside the classroom. So the
operator now removes from the subject all knowledge that he
has ever been hypnotized. This sounds weird to the reader
but is quite simple, again by the use of suggestion in the trance.
We tell the subject in hypnotism that on awakening he will
have no remembrance of ever having been hypnotized, that if
questioned he will insist he knows nothing about hypnotism
and has never been a subject.
But we must go even farther than this. Once a person has
become accustomed to hypnotism, has been repeatedly hypno
tized, it becomes very easv for any operator to throw him into
the trance. Obviously this will never do if we are to use hypno
tism in warfare. So we plug this gap again by suggestion in the
somnambulistic state. We assure the subject that in the future
no one will be able to hypnotize him except with the special
consent of the operator. This takes care of things very nicely.
The picture we now have is quite different from that which
the reader has associated with hypnotism. We sit down with
the subject in the laboratory. As we are talking on the latest
boxing match the operator taps three times on the table with
his pencil. Instantly—and we mean instantly—the subject's eyes
close and he is sound “asleep.” While in trance he sees a black
dog come into the room, feels the dog, goes to the telephone
and tells its owner to come get it. The dog is of course purely
imaginary. W e give him an electric shock which would be tor
ture to a normal person, but he does not even notice it. We
straighten him out between two chairs and sit on his chest
while he recites poetry. Then we wake him up.
He immediately starts talking about that boxing match!
A visitor to the laboratory interrupts him.
“W hat do you know of hypnotism?”
The subject looks surprised, “Why, nothing."
“When were you hypnotized last?”
“ I have never been hypnotized.”
“ Do you realize that you were in a trance ju st ten minutes
ago?”
“Don't be silly! N o one has ever hypnotized me and no one
ever can.”
“ Do you mind if I try ?”
“ Not at all If you want to waste your time it’s all right
with me.”
So the visitor, a good hypnotist, tries, but at every test the
subject simply opens his eyes with a bored grin. Finally he
gives up the attempt and everyone is seated as before. Then
the original operator taps on the table with his pencil. Im
mediately the subject is in deep hypnotism.
Finally to complete this weird picture we can coach the
190 HYPNOTISM
subject so that in the trance state he -will behave exactly as in

the waking state. Under these circumstances we could defy any
reader, even a skilled psychologist, to tell whether the subject
were “asleep” or “awake.” To be sure there are tests which
will tell the story but in warfare we cannot run around sticking
pins into every one we meet just to see if be is normal.
So rapid can this shift be from normal to tranoe state, and
so “n o rm ar will the subject appear in trance that the writer has
used such a subject as a bridge partner. He plays one hand in
trance and one hand “awake” with no one any the wiser.
W ith this picture of hypnotism in mind let us see what we
might do with it in actual war conditions. The reader is asked
to note that from here we jump into the realm of theory. All
these problems are still in the process of investigation, with
(let us note) the Germans easily leading the field. Practically
no articles have appeared on this use of hypnotism, but on a
closely allied field, namely that of hypnotism in crime. The
Germans, and they alone, have already done 9ome excellent
work here.
First and most obvious is that question of obtaining in
formation from prisoners of war. Will the subject “talk” in
hypnotism? We give the senatorial answer, “Yes, and then
again no.” Frankly, we are in ignorance on this point but the
weight of evidence in the writer’s opinion leans very definitely
to “yes.”
Let us see how we would proceed. The obvious line of attack
is through the prisoners. There are always plenty of these in
modem warfare, with a good percentage in hospitals. So we
begin at the hospital as the logical point of contact. The opera
tor, in the role of a doctor, chooses his battleground. Next he
explains to the patients he has selected that he wishes to try on
them the effect of relaxation. This sounds reasonable enough,
especially in view of the fact that many of them would be in a
highly agitated state, many would be “ shell shock” cases. These,
by the way, make excellent hypnotic subjects.
So the doctor proceeds to show these patients how to relax,

which is merely the disguised technique of hypnotism we liave
already mentioned. In most cases he will not get the deep
hypnotic trance of somnambulism, but neither will the patient
realize the real end of the experiment. So no harm is done. But
with at least one in five—probably more in these hospital cases—
he will induce hypnotism. Then it is a simple matter to isolate
this patient in a separate room and see what information can
be obtained. First the hypnotist would remove from him all
knowledge of ever having been hypnotized and make it im
possible for anyone else to throw him into a trance without the
operator’s consent.
Now as to procedure. Someone has said there are two ways to
kill a cat. One is to mess him all up with a club; the other is
to persuade him that chloroform is good for fleas. The reader
always seems to think that the next move would be to use
"strong arm ” methods, to apply the third degree. Not neces
sarily. We would need just as skillful questioning as that used
by the F. B. I. and would have to try various devices on these
prisoners—for we would not work with only one.
For example, we might call the prisoner before a group of
enemy officers, our own men dressed as such and speaking his
language. These would explain to him that they were very
anxious to get information about conditions at the front and
promise him promotion for his co-operation.
Or again, and probably more effective, we might work to
undermine his morale. W e would point out to him in hypnotism
how badly he had been treated by his own army. A man of his
abilities should obviously have a higher rank than he holds.
And beside that, his government was not treating his family
as it should. Now if he would just come over on our side of the
war we would promise him promotion and recognition.
The reader is asked to remember that, in hypnotism the in
dividual is highly suggestible. To be sure there is a popular belief
that he will do nothing in the trance that he will not d* in the
192 HYPNOTISM
working state. This is sheer nonsense. The writer has seen more
than one stage performance wherein respected members of the
community have made fools of themselves in public, an exhibi
tion they would almost certainly never give if normal. On at
least three occasions these subjects have later tried to "beat up”
the hypnotist for hi a part in the affair. It is simply a question of
degree. We also have cases in the records of hypnotism wherein
subjects have given fraternity secrets or talked of very private
love affairs.
A great deal also depends on operator attitude. If the subject
suspects that the operator doubts his success or expects the
experiment to be a failure, it will fail. But if the operator is
himself convinced he will succeed, then he will succeed, at least
in some cases. We must bear in mind that success is neither
necessary nor to be expected every time. If the hypnotists
isolated twelve good subjects in one day,, and if only two of
these would “tatk" freely, his efforts would have been amply
repaid. We do not for one moment claim that hypnotism is a
“sure file’’ method of getting information from prisoners of
war. We simply claim that with certain subjects it will be highly
successful. The weight of evidence points in this direction.
But this matter of receiving information from prisoners of
war is only one of many possible uses of hypnotism in the war
situation. There is also the possibility of spreading false in
formation. This, to be sure would not be as useful as the first
proposal but it would have its place in the military setup. For
example, we take a subject and say to him. "Yesterday after
noon you were at Floyd Bennett Field, You saw there three
anti-aircraft batteries. Here is a map of the field and here are
the exact locations of these batteries. You will remember this
very clearly after you wake up. Moreover, you will take* the
first opportunity to escape and give this news to your friends.”
Then w t awaken him and make sure that he has every possible
opportunity to escape. We even help hirn on his way.
This, of course, is only a trifling example for the purposes of
illustration. But in actual warfare it might easily lead to dis
aster. Suppose we hypnotize a captured officer of high rank.
We show him a map of our front, pointing out to him that the
weak point is between the cities of Utica and Syracuse. W e
have just withdrawn four divisions to reinforce the line further
south. A heavy attack here may hreak the entire line. Then we
take care he is allowed to escape with this information. If die
trick worked it might easily turn the tide of a whole campaign.
Again we do not say it will work in all cases. Nothing so
foolish. We do say that, in our opinion, it will work with some
subjects and that such subjects can be picked out and trained
very carefully before the crucial test is made. This idea that we
hypnotize Colonel Smith today, then expect him to win the war
for us tomorrow is folly. W e might have to test, train and work
with him for six months. Then he might be a very important
aid in winning the said war. And we are not talking about a
prisoner but hundreds of them.
May the writer point out that no one knows the answer to
these proposals. No satisfactory experiments have yet Iteen
done on the subject. To be sure, M. H. Erickson has done
excellent work, proving to his satisfaction that such uses of
hypnotism would be quite impossible. But W. R. Wells and
L, W. Rowland have done excellent work, proving just the
opposite. So we may cancel them out with a strong scientific
presumption that in certain cases at least it is possible. It would
seem to the writer that this conflict in results is largely due to
operator attitude, a fact, largely overlooked up to now, which
has a strongly clouding effect on many experiments. So ij any
brother psychologist should make the dogmatic statement that
the uses we here propose for hypnotism are quite impossible, we
are quite justified in saying that, as a scientist, he also is quite
inipossible. We must admit that no one knows the answer, but
we at least contend that the weight of evidence is in our favor.
That leaves the subject wide-open.
Then we have a further possible use for hypnotism in warfare.
194 HYFHOTISM
We are all aware, at least în a popular sense, of the difficulty of

transmitting information. Codes are excellent, but we hav*
highly trained men in our intelligence department who are also
excellent in breaking down these, codes. What man has done
n un can undo. If one expert can build up a code, another can
break it down ant! find the meaning, given a few hours and
adequate help. Then again a code must be printed somewhere
and in warfare the enemy will pay good cash Co get his hands
on the printed page. Code books vanish no matter how care
fully guarded, for the “ international spy” of movie fame is a
very real and a very clever person when the reward is big
enough.
Of course we can always send documents by messenger. That
also has its headaches. W ar is grim business, and life is cheap.
If the enemy knows where these documents are, he will stop at
nothing, neither robbery nor murder, in order to get the same.
And human nature is weak. The nightmare of any intelligence
service is a big, glowing double cross. Someone described an
honest politician as one who would stay bought, and spies have
a very bad reputation along these lines. We have already had
some pretty ghastly examples of that in the present war.
W ith hypnotism we can at least take care of one phase of our
private messenger. We hypnotize our man in, say, Washing
ton. In hypnotism we give him the message. That message, may
we add, can be both long and intricate. A really intelligent
individual can memorize a whole book if necessary. Then we
start him out for Australia by plane with the instructions that
no one can hypnotize him under any circumstances except
Colonel Brown in Melbourne. By this device we overcome two
difficulties. It is useless to intercept this messenger. He has no
documents and no amount of "third degreeing” can extract
the information, for the information is not in the conscious
mind to extract. We could also make him insensitive to pain
so that even the third degree would be useless.
Secondly, with this hypnotic messenger we need have no
f
h y p n o t is m in w a rfare 195
worry about the double cross. In hypnotism we could build up

his loyalty to the point where this would be unthinkable. Be
sides, he has nothing to tell. Consciously he has no idea of
what he is doing. He is just a civilian with a business appoint
ment in Australia, nothing more. H e will give no information,
for he has none to give. By this device we could make it much
safer to send information when and where the private mes
senger could be used.
One of the most fascinating ideas with which to play in this
use of hypnotism in warfare runs somewhat as follows. Let us
take a laboratory experiment by way of background. For
example, we can hypnotize a man in an hotel in, say, Ro
chester. We then explain to him in hypnotism that we wish the
numbers and states of all out-of-state cars parked in the block
surrounding the hotel. He is to note these very carefully in his
unconscious mind but will have no conscious memory of having
done so.
Then we awaken him and ask him, in the waking state to go
out and get us a tube of toothpaste. He leaves the hotel and
wanders around the block in search of that tube. Finally he
returns, apologizing for his delay, saying that it was necessary
for him to go entirely around the block before he noticed a
drugstore in the very building itself. This, he says, was very
stupid of him but apparently men are made that way. Did he
notice anything of interest as he made his walk? “Nothing!
Oh, yes, there was a dog fight down at the comer." And he
described the battle in detail.
We now hypnotize him. He knows what we are seeking and
at once proceeds to give us numbers and states of strange cars,
very pleased with the fact that he can recall eighteen. He
evidently enjoys the game immensely and is quite proud of his
memory. Then we awaken him and see what he knows in the
conscious state.
“How many cars are there around the building?”
‘T don’t know."
196 HYPNOTISM
"H ow many out-of-state licenses are there around the build- *

mg.” f
"Good heavens, I have no idea. I think there is a California
car near the front entrance, but I have no idea as to itf
number.*’
A friend tries his hand.
"Now look here. You were hypnotized half an hour ago and
you left this room under posthypnotic suggestion.”
The subject gets irritated. “Look here yourself. I ’m getting
tired of that silly joke. This is the third time today you've pulled
i t All rig h t I was hypnotized and saw pink elephants all over
the lobby. Have it your own way.” And the subject sits down to
a magazine, obviously angry that this man cannot find some
thing more amusing to say. It is interesting to note how often
the hypnotic subject will react in this manner. Push him ju s t;
a little too far and he becomes irritated. Obviously a very neat f
trick of the unconscious to end the argument and avoid any
danger of being found out.
There are some very interesting possibilities to this expert- 1
ment if we care to use it in warfare. For example, we take a,<
very good hypnotic subject and send him to Cuba. We choose
this country because such a situation would be absurd.
is an employee of the X Oil Company and as such his only
conscious interest is to see that his organization is well run and
does a profitable business.
But, in his unconscious mind he has other intentions. The
aggressive Cubans are building a great naval base at Havana,
an obvious menace to our overseas trade. So we station thi*:
man with his oil company in this city. Neither he nor the group
in question need know anything of the arrangements. The in
structions to his unconscious în hypnotism are very definite.
Find out everything possible about the naval base. He is shown
maps of this before he goes and coached as to just what is im
portant N ot is he ever allowed to submit written reports.
Everything must be handed on by word of mouth to one of the

very few individuals who are able lo hypnotize him.
Under these circumstances we may count on this man doing
everything in his power to collect the information in question.
The reader’s very natural reaction is, “Why all this rigma
role. W hy not have any keen executive of that oil company do
the job without calling in the added trouble of hypnosis?”
There are certain safeguards if we use hypnotism. First,
there is no danger of the agent selling out, but this would
probably not be of great importance in this particular case.
More important would be the conviction of innocence which
the man himself had, and this is a great aid in many situations.
Fie would never “act guilty” and if ever accused of seeking in
formation would be quite honestly indignant. This conviction
of innocence on the part of a criminal is perhaps his greatest
safeguard under questioning by the authorities. Finally, it would
be impossible to “ third degree" him and so pick up the links of
a chain. This is very important, for the most hardened culprit
is always liable to “ talk” if the questioners arc but ruthless
enough.
Far more useful than the foregoing purpose, however, would
be that for a counterespionage service, built along the same lines.
This would require both care and time to perfect, but once
working it might prove extremely effective. Here the best
approach would probably be through those of enemy alien stock
within our own gates. Once again let us choose the aggressive
Cubans as examples. In the event cf war, but preferably well
before the outbreak of war, we would start our organization.
We could easily secure (say) one hundred or one thousand
excellent subjects of Cuban stock who spoke their language
fluently, and then work on these subjects.
In hypnotism we would build up their loyalty to this coun
try; but out of hypnotism, in the “ waking” or normal state we
would do the opposite, striving to convince them that they had
a genuine grievance against this country and encouraging them
198 HYPNOTISM
to engage in “fifth column” activities. Here we would be coming

very close to establishing a case of “dual personality.” There is
nothing at all impossible in this. We know that dual, and evaj
multiple, personality can be both caused and cured by hypno-
tism. Moreover, that condition, the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
combination, is a very real one once it is established.
They would, as we before said, be urged in the waking state
to become fifth columnists to the United States, but we would
also point out to them in hypnotism that this was really a pose,
that their real loyalty lay with this country, offering them pro
tection and reward for their activities. Through them we would
hope to be kept informed of the activities of their “friends,”
this information, of course being obtained in the trance state.
They would also be very useful to “plant” in concentration
camps or in any other situation where it was suspected their
services might be of real use to our intelligence department.
Once again these people would have a great advantage over
ordinary “ informers." Convinced of their own innocence, they
would play the fifth column role with the utmost sincerity', and,
as mentioned before, this conviction of innocence would prob
ably be their greatest protection. Again, if suspected, no one
could obtain from them any useful information. Only a very few
key people could throw them into the trance and, without this,
any attempts to get information would be useless. Finally, we
again point out that we are fully aware of the difficulties which
would be encountered in building up such an organization. Not
one somnambulist in, say, ten, even one hundred, might be
suitable for such w ork; and the determining of this suitability
would be no easy task. But it could be done, and once accom
plished would repay amply all the trouble.
A further extension of this same proposal would carry the
w ar into the enemies’ country, into Cuba in this case. These
subjects would be admirable to “plant” in the enemies’ own
army with a view to obtaining information, or even for the ends
of civilian sabotage.
Aind speaking of sabotage, this is probably one of the most

dangerous fields, so far as the use of hypnotism in warfare is
concerned. Here we see very clearly illustrated the folly of taking
an arbitrary statement for granted, namely that the subject in
hypnotism will do nothing against his moral nature. Just to
clear up this point let us take a possible situation from the use
of hypnotism for criminal ends. Will the subject commit mur
der in hypnotism? Highly doubtful—at least without long
preparation, and then only in certain cases of very good sub
jects with, shall we say, no particular moral code.
Yet, strange to say, most good subjects will commit murder.
In the writer’s opinion there tan be very little doubt on this
score. They commit a legal, but not an ethical murder, so to
speak. For example, we hypnotize a subject and tell him to
murder you with a gun. We hand him a loaded revolver. In all
probability he will refuse. Frankly for very obvious reasons, the
writer has never made the experiment. Corpses are not needed
in psychological laboratories.
But a hypnotist who really wished a murder could almost
certainly get it with a different technique. Tomorrow, at three
p . m ., you will undoubtedly be in your office. So just before
three he hypnotizes the subject, tells the subject to go at once
to your office, point the gun at you and pull the trigger.
Then he remarks to his assistant that, of course, the gun is
loaded with dummy ammunition, and that the operator is 1
putting through a very important experiment for the police in
order to prove the possible use of hypnotism in crime. He would
never dream of taking such long chances with you, his friend,
as to allow1the subject to attempt actual murder. Then he hands
the subject a revolver loaded with real ammunition.
W hat would happen ? No one knows, for the experiment lias
never been tried. Erickson has approximated it with negative
results; but the writer strongly suspects his findings are due to
the attitude of the operator. Erickson is emphatic that hypnotism
cannot be used in crime, and that subjects are uncanny in their
200 HYPNOTISM
ability to pick up this attitude. Wells and Roland would dis

agree with him. Personally, from what the writer knows of
hypnotism he would not allow the experiment to be made on
himself for any consideration whatever. It is his opinion that
murder would be committed.
Of course, the reader can lodge a very obvious objection. The
subject has not committed a murder in the real sense of the
word. He was tricked into manslaughter, if we w ish; he did not
really commit murder. But this is a very practical world. We
would, of course, remove from tire subject all knowledge of
ever having been hypnotized and render it impossible for any
one else to throw him in the trance. All he could tell the jury
would be that he had an irresistible impulse to kill a man, which
would only mean an institution for the criminal insane rather
than the electric chair.
Would he still be tmable to recall the incident when under
trial conditions, when his life was actually in danger? Would
the hypnotic suggestions still hold in such a situation? Once
again, no one knows. But take the following case, which is much
more to the point so far as warfare is concerned and which also
eliminates the last objection.
W e wish to blow up a munitions factory, so we pick on one
especially good subject to “turn the trick.” We rehearse him
very carefully, pointing out that he is really doing very impor
tant work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and run him
through a number of fake experiments such as the one about to
be described. All these end harmlessly, and we pay him well
for his co-operation. In this way we both assure ourselves that
he is the subject we want and assure him there is nothing to
fear.
W e then put him to the crucial test. W e explain that the
authorities must see what would happen in a real situation.
We tell him we are putting a bomb in his dinner pail timed to
explode two hours after he enters the plant in question. There
is nothing to fear, for while the bomb looks genuine from the
outside we have replaced the explosive with a harmless com

pound. He is to enter the factory as usual the next day and be
have quite normally, for the authorities will be watching his
every move.
Then we place in the dinner pail a genuine bomb timed to
explode one half hour after he enters the plant. Would we
succeed? A very open question but the writer, for one, would
certainly not enter that plant on the morning in question if he
could possibly avoid it. He will not say he is certain the trick
would work; but he feels there is a very good chance of its
success. And in this particular case there would be no one to
question after the disaster.
We have outlined those obvious possible uses of hypnotism
in warfare which would occur to anyone familiar with that
branch of psychology. Needless to say we are not giving away
military secrets any more than is a chemist who discourses on
the use of gas or a physicist who talks on the magnetic mine.
There are certain broad principles well known to everyone
familiar with the field of chemistry, physics or psychology.
Certain highly technical devices, however, are known only to
the expert and to disclose these would be treason and punish
able as such. We are merely stating the obvious, though in a
field with which the average reader is much less familiar than
he is with those of chemistry or physics.
We might expand on the suggestions we have already made
to an almost infinite degree. During the last war, one leading
authority on hypnotism offered to take a German submarine,
piloted by a German commander under hypnosis, through the
German mine fields and attack the German fleet. Whether he
succeeded or not, his chance of returning was about zero : so we
must at least credit him with the courage of his convictions.
We could tell of other proposals which sound equally weird
to the layman, but which might work.
Strangest of all perhaps in this strange picture is the danger
of “counter-mining,” of setting a trap for the hypnotist and
202 HYPNOTISM
literally blowing him into “kingdom come” with his own device.
Let us cite a laboratory experiment by way of illustration. The
writer would guarantee to take a good hypnotic subject and
defy the best man in America to detect that he is acting under
posthypnotic suggestion. That sounds like a large order but h
would probably succeed.
For example, we choose a very good subject and then let him
in on the plot. We disclose to him that he is an excellent hypnotic
subject and we wish to use him for counterespionage. We
suspect that in the near future someone is going to try hypnosis
on him. He is to bluff, to co-operate to the very best of his
ability, fake every test that is made and stay wide awake all the
time. The test we fear most is that of an analgesia—insensi
tivity to pain. So we coach him carefully with posthypnotic
suggestions to the effect that even when wide awake and
bluffing he will be able to meet every test which may be made
here, be it with ammonia under the nose, a needle, or, worst of
all, the use of electricity, which can be made extremely painful,
and is easy to use.
Under these circumstances it will be virtually impossible to
tell whether this man is bluffing or really in trance. W e take a
subject so trained and allow another operator to try his hand.
So the operator “hypnotizes” his victim and has him see the
usual dog, produces anaesthesia to pin tricks, and is very well
satisfied with himself. Then he “awakens" the subject.
We say to the operator. “That chap is a very good subject.”
“ He certainly is.”
“ He wouldn’t have been fooling?”
“ Not the least chance of it.”
We turn to the subject, “W hat do you say?”
“I ’m afraid I was. I remember everything perfectly. I was
bluffing you.”
The other operator now realizes he was “ taken for a ride.”
So he returns to the attack. “ Let’s see you fool me this time.”
He hynotizes the subject, stretches him out between two
HYPNOTISM IN WABFARE 203
chairs, sits on his chest and says triumphantly, “ Now tell me

he's fooling.”
“That’s right, I am.” And the subject opens his eyes, dumps
the operator on the floor and stands up.
“ How in the world can I tell when you are hypnotized,” says
the very puzzled hypnotist
“ You can’t. I know every trick of the trade and can bluff
you from now till doomsday.”
And he could have. This particular subject was almost un
canny. Highly intelligent, he knew all the literature on hypno
tism and knew also exactly what was expected in every situation.
At times the writer himself did not know what it was all about,
whether the subject was bluffing or in genuine trance, for be
could use autosuggestion quite as easily as the operator could
use real hypnotism. He thoroughly enjoyed the whole game,
and took especial delight in “playing possum.” He would allow
an operator to work with him for an hour under the absolute
conviction that he was handling a high grade subject, and never
crack a smile during the whole performance.
Of course this was a very excellent subject; but a “plant”
carefully coached to meet just such a situation, and such a pre
pared subject would be a nightmare to any intelligence depart
ment using hypnotism. The writer is quite frank in admitting
that he knows of no way to uncover the deception. Babinski,
writing years ago, put his finger on this flaw. He declared there
was no way to determine whether the subject was bluffing.
W ith our more modem techniques we can be quite certain
than an ordinary subject is genuine. We can apply a pain test
which no one could stand outside the trance. But these specially
prepared subjects are quite another matter. W ith posthypnotic
suggestion they can be trained to meet very severe pain while
quite “normal.”
Under the conditions of warfare they would be a constant
source of danger. The enemy, suspecting that we were using
204 HYPNOTISM
hypnotism, would “plant” a dozen or so subjects where he felt

most certain we would find them. He would then stand an
excellent chance of getting the inside track of the whole organi
zation.
But after all, this is a problem with which the Intelligence
Department is continually faced, the danger of a double cross,
of some one selling out to a higher bidder. Given time and care,
the writer is certain this menace could be reduced to a stage
where it would be much less dangerous than in the ordinary
practices of intelligence. While it is certainly a weak point in
the entire technique of using hypnotism in warfare it gives
us not the least excuse to reject this device. W hen we do reject
it we hand the enemy a weapon which may be just as deadly
as poison gas and admit that we cannot meet him on equal
terms.
That, it seems to the writer, is one great danger with which
we are faced in the present world situation. We may easily take
that “holier-than-thou” attitude, and say that such practices
are all very well for our barbarian enemy but we will never
stoop to these means. All of which is, of course nonsense. Every
innovation in war is brutal. W e read that în the old days when
gunpowder was just coming in, it was common practice for
many of these good old knights to strike off the hands of
musketeers when these were captured, and Bayard, the knight
whose name is a byword for courage and honor, skinned alive
the first enemy gunpowder user he captured. The use of gas by
the Germans in the last war was heralded as an act of un
qualified barbarism, but the British later knighted the man who
invented mustard gas, and we Americans manufactured millions
of cubic feet of it.
The aeroplane is another and later nightmare. There are many
who wish that the W right brothers had made sail-boats their
hobby, but they didn’t. Now we can say what we wish, but both
slides will use the bomber in the way best calculated to win the
war. Parachute troops were a blot against international law,
and the British said so. Now they and we are trying to out-
parachute the original parachutists.
W ar is brutal in its very essence. Even should we still regard
it as a glorified cricket match and refuse to use such a novel
device as hypnotism we must at least protect ourselves against
its use by others. For those others may have no such scruples,
and in the last analysis hypnotism is no more unethical than
gas, bombs—or than war as a whole, so far as that goes.
The British are paying a terrible price for refusing to look
reality in the face. We might easily do the same if we became
over squeamish in our determination to protect ourselves
ethically. We may rest assured that certain world powers will
not hesitate one moment to use hypnotism directly they are
convinced of its value. Then it will be incumbent on us to beat
them at their own game, but under these circumstances the hand
of the military must not be tied by any silly prej udices in the
minds of the general public. W ar is the end of all law. When
we speak of keeping within the rules of the game we are childish,
because it is not a game and the rules never hold. In the last
analysis any device is justifiable which enables us to protect our
selves from defeat.
Chapter I X
TH IS MAN HITLER J
S the reader will recall, we have several times made the
A statement that Hitler was the world’s best hypnotist.

Moreover, we said that we were not playing on words.
We can best understand Hitler's success by understanding
hypnotism, which is merely exaggerated suggestibility. One
psychologist defined a suggestion as “the acceptance of a propo
sition in the absence of logically adequate proof,” Let us take
an example which may apply to any one of us in the next five
years, and work back to our explanation from that.
You are seated in front of your fire on an evening with your
thoughts centered on the latest best seller.- Your neighbor,
Graves, arrives for a friendly chat. He is quite calm and
mentions that another of your neighbors, Smith, has come m
for a little gossip lately. It appears that his name was Schmidt
before he changed it and that he was born m Germany. You
like Smith even if he once was Schmidt. Besides, you are very
comfortable and don't wish to be disturbed. Graves mentions the
fact that Smith is suspected of being a German spy, but Graves
is not at all excited, and you let the matter drop there.
This is situation number one. Note very carefully what
happens next when we hear more rumors or facts concerning
Schmidt and proceed to whip up your emotions, in other words
to use suggestion. Two hours later Graves returns. He has obvi ■
ously been drinking and is very excited. He has heard again that
this man Schmidt—alias Smith—is a German spy. W e are at
war with Germany. Graves has a son in the army. So have you-
Why wait until this man has a chance to do his dirty work.
Let’s go over to his house, take him out, and lynch him 1
206
T H IS MAN H IT L E R 207
Now, what happens? That depends pretty largely on you.

Probably when you realize that Graves has been drinking anti
that Schmidt is likely to be the victim of gossip you try to quiet
Graves’ obsessions, but if you are one of those individuals who
is highly suggestible himself, if you belong to the “one-in-five”
club he may very easily convert you to his point of view and the
two of you set off to arouse the town.
You may, of course, be one of those people who are “nega
tively” suggestible, who react contrary to all suggestions. In
this case you will do your best to argue with Graves, to point
out Co him the fact that he has no real basis for his suspicions
and that the whole matter Is one for the police. You might even
call up the authorities after he has left and warn them that
Schmidt may need police protection.
But you are probably one of those individuals who likes to be
fair-minded and also likes to keep out of trouble. The chances
are you will decline to go with Graves and simply sit at home
confused and worried over the whole affair.
Now let us go along to situation number three. Two hours
later you hear a tremendous commotion across the street.
Graves has been successful and a mob of fifty men have assem
bled in front of Schmidt’s house intent on lynching him. You
rush out to see what it is all about, and ask the first member
of the mob what is happening.
“This man Schmidt is a German spv. We are going to lynch
him.”
“How do you know he's a spy?”
“ Everyone says so. Come on. Let’s get him.”
Now what do you do? As you read this book you are con
vinced you would rush to the front and beg that howling mob
to use reason. But probably you would do no such tiling. A
mob is a very ugly proposition. It needs a very brave man to
stand in the way of one of these emotional avalanches, and few
of us have the courage. Experience shows that you probably
will hang around the edge of the mob, feeling very unhappy
208 HYPNOTISM
with everything but making no actual attempt to stop the

lynching.
Then something curious is very liable to happen. You slowly
become interested in that mob. After all, you are an American,
you have a son in the army. Schmidt was bom in Germany.
W hy shouldn’t he be a spy? Everyone says so and who are
you to combat the will of the group. Your open hostility to the
mob changes to acquiescence. They can do what they wish,
so far as you are concerned.
Study of these situations shows us that the next step is liable
to follow in very short order. Your passive acquiescence changes
to active participation. You yourself become one of the mob
and are just as determined to bring Schmidt to a summary
justice as is any other member of the group. Quietly reading
this book, such a statement may seem absurd, but we can
assure you it is anything but absurd. The mob has a fatal habit
of engulfing those who come merely as passive spectators.
W hy? I^et us look at the actual working of your own mind
as you leave the house to reason with that group of angry men.
Emotion is one great sensitizer of the human brain and so leaves
the individual very open to suggestion. You suddenly plunge
yourself into a highly emotional situation.
The first emotion to make itself felt, if you wish to interfere,
will be plain fear. If you attempt to thw art that mob you do so
at the risk of your own life, and there are not many people in
this world who will gamble their lives to oppose a group of their
own friends and neighbors. On the other hand, you may realize
that you should do just that thing. You are tom betwixt duty
and fear, a very upsetting emotional state.
But there is another peculiarity of emotion which will tend
to make you, the innocent bystander, more suggestible and may
very easily drag you into the mob. This we term emotional
contagion. Emotions are as contagious as measles. We see this
clearly in any social situation. At the movies we laugh together,
weep at the same time or all become patriotic when we see the
T H IS MAN HITTE R 209
flag. If we see a group of men laughing before a store window

we are probably smiling very broadly before we have the least
idea what is in that window. Should we see another group col
lected on the road and looking very serious we will suspect an
accident and will not approach that group, ourselves, prepared
to burst into laughter.
This fact of emotional contagion is very important in mob
psychology. More than one writer on the subject has noted how
easily the mob absorbed into itself the stranger who certainly
had nothing in common with that mob and might never see its
members again in alljhis life.
It is very difficult in dealing with this question of the mob
and its high suggestibility to say which of certain factors come
first. One very important factor, however, which probably helps
emotional contagion is that which we term restriction of the
held of consciousness. In normal life we are always attending
to many things at once. This does not allow any one stimulus
to monopolize our attention. But in the mob we aTe attending
to only one thing for there is nothing else to distract our
attention. The roaring of the mob, or the wild exhortations of
the leader are effective in blotting out every other stimulus.
The result is clear. One train of suggestions and only one
fall on the ears of the listener. He already has his emotions
aroused, so he is hyper-suggestible. These suggestions he is now
receiving are also highly emotional in character. As a result
we have that peculiar “avalanching” of emotional fury which
we see in the mob. The more suggestible, the more emotional;
the more emotional, the more suggestible, a terribly vicious
circle which can easily get out of hand and cause great trouble.
The writer was visiting a small American town in the north
one New Year’s Eve. Everything seemed quite normal. At the
head of Main Street the crowd became rough. Perhaps the
police were not as tactful as they might have been but it îs all
very obscure. The crowd started breaking windows, the police
interfered, and the fat was in the fire. The mob thoroughly
210 HYPNOTISM
"beat up” two policemen and raged through half a mile of that
town smashing and looting according to very best mob tra
ditions. Only a detachment of regular troops finally got the
situation in hand. The next morning both the town, the authori
ties and the mob members were completely puzzled as to what
had really occurred.
In another city the writer was present when a lynching
occurred. It was the usual story of a white woman insulted by
a negro. The crowd went wild, wrecked the negro quarter and
finally hanged the culprit to a lamp-post. Unfortunately, it was
not the culprit but a man who, as later investigation showed,
could not possibly have been associated with the crime in ques
tion. But the mob had its way and the man was dead as might
have been anyone, white or black, who interefered with that
group at the height of its fury.
Restriction of the field of consciousness and emotional con
tagion undoubtedly are very important factors in determining
the high suggestibility—hypnotizibility, if you will—of the
mob. It is difficult to say which precedes the other, whether the
high emotion tends to restrict the field of consciousness or vice
versa. But once we have our mob well under way there are
two other factors which tend to give it that irresistible fury
so characteristic of these groups.
One of these we term social sanction. Man is a social animal.
As one authority puts it, every situation is a social situation.
We simply must conform to some group somewhere. That group
may even be an ideal one and have no real existence, but to the
average man the group is not ideal but very real. His religious
sect, his political party, perhaps his secret fraternity command
his loyalty. He is very dependent upon the opinion of this group
and will go a long way to have his conduct conform to its
ideals.
In the mob he suddenly finds himself in another group and
here, as a member of that group, he acts under group sanction.
He has the feeling of omnipotence. Everyone within sight
T H IS M AN H ITLER 211
agrees that he should hang Smith or that he should join the

marines. In his highly emotional and suggestible state of mind
he is quite willing to do either. This “group sanction” is all that
is necessary to turn the scales and he acts accordingly.
The final factor we would call to the reader’s attention in
considering the mob is the removal of inhibitions, a result of
the three factors already mentioned. The individual, highly
suggestible, in a storm of emotion and acting with the approval
of the group will commit acts of which he would never dream
in a more normal state. Destruction of property, looting, even
murder are all familiar phenomena to those who have studied
mob activity. Yet take almost any member of that mob, propose
to him individually after a good meal that he break a plate glass
window, steal a fur coat or murder his neighbor and he would
recoil in horror. Man does not do that sort of thing unless he is
acting under the influence of suggestion or perhaps of certain
drugs. A t any rate, he is not normal according to his own
higher standards.
Let us now note the very close resemblance between the
psychology of the mob and the factors underlying hypnotism.
Both emotion and hypnotism sensitize the brain. There is one
large school of thought in psychology which would claim hypno
tism or exaggerated suggestibility to be simply an emotional
state, that the suggestion we get as a result of high emotion is
identical with that which we obtain from hypnotism. In this
school of thought we would find the psychoanalysts and many
others who cannot agree with psychoanalysis in all its teachings.
We ourselves agree with their viewpoint and claim that the
study of hypnotism is one excellent way of approaching mob
psychology.
Take the five factors we have outlined as the essentials
of mob psychology. First, an appeal to the emotions by prestige
or direct suggestion. To the writer there can be no doubt that
we do the same in hypnotism. This is not quite so evident in the
laboratory technique, perhaps, but is clearly seen in the approach
212 HYPNOTISM
of the stage hypnotist. His whole technique consists in throw*

ing his subject off balance emotionally and then following up
his advantage before the victim has a chance to regain his
composure.
The writer once had one of these professionals as his guest.
Several students who were majors in psychology came around
to make his acquaintance. They asked him to demonstrate and
he demonstrated one or two simple tests which located for him
a couple of good subjects. Then the real demonstration began.
These men knew that, in theory, he could not hypnotize them
without their consent, and were inclined to be a little con
temptuous of this illiterate stage hypnotist, illiterate in that he
was a “show man” and knew nothing whatsoever of academic
psychology. This attitude nettled the visitor and he decided
a lesson was in order.
Approaching one of those he had decided were good subjects,
he made the blunt announcement, “ I’m going to hypnotize you.”
“ Thanks. I don’t wrant to be hypnotized.”
“ That doesn't mean a thing,” replied the professional. He
stepped up quickly in front of his victim, seized him by both
arms, looked straight in his eyes and said, “ Now, listen, my
child, I ’m going to give you a little lesson in manners. You
can’t take your eyes off mine, so don’t waste time in trying.
And you can’t sit down in the chair, so stand where you are.
You are going sound sleep. I will count to five. By the time I
get to five you will be out on your feet.”
And he was. The subject was obviously angry, made abortive
efforts to strike the hypnotist but went into a deep trance, a very
neat display of the highly emotional nature of the “professional”
attack. If any of our readers will take the opportunity of watch
ing the stage performer work on his subject for the first time,
they will see clearly what we mean. He does not “play around,”
but goes right to the point with a direct, domineering, frontal
attack. Such an approach îs highly unpleasant to most people
and awakens strong emotions, closely akin to fear or anger.
This, of course, plays directly into the hypnotist’s hands. The
emotion sensitizes the brain so that his suggestions then be
come irresistible.
This emotional factor is not quite so apparent in the psychol
ogist’s laboratory but the elements are present. The average
individual approaches an hypnotic experiment with mixed feel
ings, generally curiosity and some slight degree of fear. With
certain individuals this emotional outlook is more to the fore
than with others and it seems probable that these people turn out
to be the really good subjects. Why these particular subjects
should react with high emotion while others do not is a point in
theory which is beyond the scope of this book.
After this direct appeal to emotion, which if successful makes
the individual highly suggestible, we have as our next step in
mob psychology a restriction of the field of consciousness. It is
difficult to say whether this precedes or follows emotional con
tagion but we will presume it comes first. This is of funda
mental importance to success in hypnotism as well. All our
techniques atm at confining the subject’s attention to some one
very limited field. The early "mesmerist” accomplished this end
by having the subject look in his eyes while he further held hts
attention by a series of impressive passes.
Braid, working in the 1840’s, used the trick of having his
subjects concentrate on some bright object generally held in a
position where it put a slight strain on the eyes. This technique
reached its culmination in the mirror of Lys, a rotating mirror
which continually flashed a light into the subject’s eyes, so
serving to hold his attention while the operator made his sug
gestions.
The professional on the stage accomplishes the same end with
his direct, domineering attack, trusting to hold the subject's
attention by this method, while the psychologist in his labora
tory strives toward the same end with a somewhat different
technique. Quiet and monotonous repetition are the keynotes
of his "sleeping” technique. "You are falling sound asleep.
214 HYPNOTISM
sound asleep. You are going deeper and deeper. Your limbs
are tired, your elbows and knees feel tired. You are falling
sound asleep.” He repeats this formula world without end, trust
ing that his voice will monopolize the subject’s attention and
restrict the field of consciousness.
Thus we see another point of close resemblance between the
psychology of the mob and the psychology of suggestion or
hypnotism. The reader will bear with us as we follow through
this line of attack, for once we have established the very close
relationship between the two we will be in a position to really
understand the secret of Hitler’s power or of most other great
public figures either of our own day or as described for us
in history.
Emotional contagion we find in hypnotism as we do in the
mob although it is not quite so evident from one viewpoint.
From another, however, it is even more so. We can deliberately
suggest to a subject any emotion whatsoever and, in many
cases we will have it faithfully reflected. The writer saw one in
stance where this had very sad results for one of the spectators.
An hypnotist in the army was giving a very good demonstration
before a group of officers. His subject, a sergeant, was a power
fully built chap with a perpetual grouch. This sergeant was
particularly allergic to a certain Major X. So the hypnotist,
to add a touch of comedy, selected one of the group, a lowly
lieutenant, and whispered in the subject’s ear that it was the
hated Major X.
The result was dramatic if not comic. The sergeant stepped
up to the lieutenant and let loose a barrage of profanity which
caused even the hard-boiled Canadian officers to gasp. More
over, the aggrieved sergeant showed every intention of follow
ing the verbal attack with assault and battery before the hypno
tist again had the situation under control.
It is a well-known fact that in hypnotism we can influence
the heart beat. This is most easily done by suggesting to the
subject some strong emotion, such as fear or anger. We always
T H IS MAN H ITLER 215
suspect the individual in trance of bluffing, of putting on a show
to satisfy the operator. But it is difficult to see how this play
acting could effect heart beat, rate of breathing, or perspiration
as shown on the psycho-galvanic reflex. It would seem much
more reasonable to assume that the emotions suggested are
genuine, a very excellent example of emotional contagion.
In fact, the writer doubts very much if even a Hitler can
produce the savage anger he has seen obtained in some
hypnotic subjects as a result of suggestion. It can be done very
convincingly with the posthypnotic suggestion. We take a sub
ject, a violent anti-Nazi, and suggest to him that Jones of the
group belongs to the Bund. However, we also point out that we
are having tea with Jones and he must behave like a gentleman.
This he does, within very broad limits. H e îs coldy dis
courteous, takes every possible opportunity to slur the Nazi
and is obviously spoiling for a fight. But he does keep himself
within bounds until the party breaks up. Then he is quite
determined that he is going Jones’ way, whichever way that
may be. A t this point, we remove the delusion and have Jones
leave. For all that, the subject still has a “hang-over” and leaves
the house breathing fury against everything that is not one
hundred per cent American.
We also see in hypnotism as in the mob that feeling of omnipo
tence which comes from the social sanction, the approval of the
crowd. Its origin to be sure is a little different when seen in
hypnotism. Here the crowd is the hypnotist, for he is the only
communication which the subject has with his surroundings.
He is the only stimulating factor, at least the only one to which
the subject gives any obvious attention.
And the hypnotist can, within certain broad limits, twist
the subject around his finger as successfully as can any mob.
These limits may be broad with some subjects, narrow with
others, but within them the subject obviously feels that he has
adequate social sanction. We see this reflected as a sort of
mellowing of viewpoint when we talk to certain subjects.
216 HYPNOTISM
For example, Young is a very rabid prohibitionist. In the

waking state there are only two sides to this argument, his and
the one that is wrong. In hypnotism, however, he became quite
open-minded, although still holding his own view. We swing
him by giving him the feeling of the group sanction.
“Oh, come now," we say, “You are a highly intelligent chap
and this is the twentieth century. All your friends are very open-
minded on this proposition. In fact, everybody feels that the
prohibition law was a great mistake. You shouldn’t be so dog
matic on these questions. Now, take Ayers, for example. He
certainly is a very able man but he would never be dogmatic on
any question."
Finally, he reaches the point where he is willing to argue
the matter with much more light and much less heat, largely, we
venture to say, because of emotional contagion and because of
the feeling that his group sanctions a broader attitude. Just how
much farther we could go in this particular case we do not
know. The writer feels it is always unwise to press an issue
beyond a certain point unless there is a definite end in view.
Lastly, in hypnotism, we can arrive at the dead end, the mob
end, so to speak, where we get that removal of inhibitions which
gives such a sinister aspect to mob action. To be sure, we do not
dare go as far in the laboratory as the individual will go in the
mob. This would involve the actual commission of crime which
is impossible for reasons stated in the previous two chapters,
but all the elements are present. The writer recalls his first
acquaintance with hypnotism. H e attended a stage exhibition
and arrived late. He was horrified to see a respected acquaint
ance stripped to his underwear with a broom handle for a flute
gamboling around the stage under the delusion that he was a
Greek faun. Highly gratified also to see the faun knock the
hypnotist flat the moment the trance was removed. This per
formance left a deep conviction in his mind that hypnotism was
a very serious matter and had much deeper significance in many
walks of life than most people realize.
THIS MAN H ITLER 2 \7
The writer once hypnotized a soldier and had a very fine

example of this removal of inhibition. This chap was a steady,
reliable man who did his duty and gave no cause for complaint.
He was in deep trance and the writer said, “ Now, Mac, you’re
in good hands and no one cares what happens. Is there any
thing you would like to do ?”
“There certainly is,” said Mac, and he started swearing. He
damned everything in the army from the general to the lowest
private. Then he started on the Germans and gave them his
undivided profane attention for fifteen minutes. Next he devoted
his attention to the “slackers” at home, inventing several names
for them which were new even to an army man. Suddenly he
stopped.
“Thanks. I feel better.”
“ How about waking up ?”
“ Good idea. Snap me out of i t ”
Once awake he was obviously relieved by this terrific out
burst. “You know,” he said, “I never felt so well since this war
started. Let's try it again some time.”
This curious release of energy is quite familiar to the psy
choanalyst. He calls it abreaction. We do not often obtain it in
hypnotism unless we provoke the same. Then it seems to do the
subject much good, a result we would expect from the psycho
analytic literature. If the reader should be interested in the
relation between hypnotism and psychoanalysis we would ad
vise Schilder’s book, Psychotherapy, or the work by Schilder
and Kauders, Hypnosis.
Let us now examine the technique of a Hitler or a Mussolini.
We will note first that the attack is primarily aimed at the
emotions. No leader of the “ rabble rouser” type can hope to
make any progress at all with a purely intellectual approach.
To be sure, we do not often find the purely emotional attack
emphasized to quite the extent we do in these modern dictators
but it is always basic.
First, we have fear. It would be a brave man indeed in Ger-
218 HYPNOTISM
many or Ita!y at the present day who dared raise his voice
against the leader. Ten years ago foreigners travelling in Italy
always referred to Mussolini as Mr. Brown. So thorough were
the secret police, so omnipresent that even the mention of the
Italian fascist's name might very easily lead to an Interview
with the police. This was not so serious in the case of the
tourist but was a very bad thing indeed for any native Italian.
It was a well known fact that many people who dared voice
open criticism of Mussolini simply vanished.
The Nazi has improved on this technique. If he wishes to
instil genuine fear a concentration camp is much more effec
tive. Death is a sudden thing and tends to be forgotten but the
living death of a political prisoner is a constant reminder to all
that discretion is preferable to courage. The stories we hear in
such books as Out oj the N ight (Jan Valtin) seem to be sub
stantially correct. It is difficult for the American to imagine
such happenings and at first we simply dismissed them with
that very useful word “propaganda.” However, we in this
country are gradually learning that we have to learn a lot.
Nothing is more difficult than the education of the educated,
and our high standard of education told us that the dark ages
ended some four hundred years ago. That seems to have been a
mistake.
But fear, while a powerful emotion, is largely negative in its
actions. It is a useful device with which to silence opposition,
but a far more useful foundation on which to build. For hatred
can have no better basis than fear, real or imagined, and hate
is dynamic. W ith hatred of the Jews, of the French, of all de
mocracies, we have an emotion which makes a people blindly
open to all sorts of suggestion, and with which we can “go
places.” Add to this a myth of Nordic superiority, a fervid
patriotism to the fatherland and we have that peculiar brand of
dynamite we call Nazi Germany.
Let us not underestimate its power. The fanatic has cut a
bloody path through the pages of history. The voice of reason,
T H IS MAN H IT L tH 219
of temperance can no more stop his progress than a flimsy dam

turn aside a raging torrent. We will quote a couple of very inter
esting illustrations. One of the best known German psychol
ogists recently published a work showing that Nordic hens
are superior to Mediterranean hens. This work is the purest
trash so far as science is concerned, but is terribly potent if fed
to an inflamed people.
Moreover, it is a startling example of what the sheer power
of fear can do to the scientific mind. The psychologist in ques
tion can have no delusions as to the weakness of his case—
and no delusions as to his own fate should he refuse to obey
orders. It was simply a case of “play ball—or else.” While we
may condemn this attitude from a safe seat in a democratic
country it is well to bear in mind that we are taking an academic
view of things, he was faced with a very grim reality.
Another interesting case refers to a certain man, a composer,
of non-Aryan stock. His works sold well and, for financial
reasons, it was very much in the interests of the Nazi to have
him in the country as a satisfied citizen. Any individual with
more than seventy-five per cent Aryan blood is officially an
Aryan. So they analyzed his blood and made the discovery that
he had seventy-six per cent of the desired blood in his veins.
There is no test known to science by which we can tell Aryan
blood from Mediterranean or Jewish, but that is quite beside
the point. Such results, published with the stamp of official
approval, are just as true, just as potent as a genuine scientific
statement in so far as they count in arousing public opinion.
Next, we find Hitler has used two more factors already men
tioned in hypnotism and in mob psychology with consummate
skill. There is the restriction of the fields of attention and
emotional contagion. Time has played into his hands here.
Never before in the history of the world did we have devices,
such as our modem press and radio, with which an entire people
can be reached. If, now, we establish control over press and
radio we have a tremendously potent weapon. We can restrict
220 HYPNOTISM
the field of attention on such topics as we choose. The citizen

in his home is allowed no distraction from the one dominant
theme, Nordic superiority. This we buttress in every possible
way with a direct appeal to the very strongest of his emotions,
fear, hatred, and anger.
No hypnotist could ask for a better approach. A highly
sensitized brain, one theme song pushed home day and night.
Emotional contagion is a foregone conclusion. Those few in
dividuals who have the courage to question the authorities are
segregated in concentration camps. Those who dare turn the
radio to short wave and pick up foreign stations do so at great
risk to themselves. Those few who have access to foreign papers
and dare read these are taking even greater chances. We doubt
if any hypnotist seeking group hypnotism could perfect a better
approach than that adopted by the German leader. It certainly
is incomparably superior to that possessed by a Caesar or a
Napoleon. To be sure, it is largely an accident of time and
mechanical invention, but that does not in any way detract from
its ghastly efficiency.
This control of radio and press gives the dictator another
distinct advantage when he wishes to whip up the emotions of
his people and play on these. In a democracy such as ours it is
necessary to educate public opinion before the government can
take drastic steps. We see this clearly in the very slow awaken
ing of the United States and Great Britain to their danger. It
is all very well to condemn our leaders for the state of unpre
paredness in which we found ourselves. We have to blame some
one and we always condemn the government on general prin
ciples. But we know perfectly well that a Chamberlain or a
Roosevelt who had foreseen this emergency and had dared to
advocate a proper rearmament program would have been
branded as a war-monger and might very easily have been
expelled from office.
The dictator has an incomparable advantage. He controls
press and radio, so he can determine what line of action he is to
follow, what suggestions are to be given his hypnotized sub-
jects. The results are exactly what we see in the hypnotic
trance. He can “reverse his field” at a minute’s notice. W ith
hypnotism we can have the subject weeping at one moment,
laughing a minute later and very angry in five minutes more.
So Hitler can whip up in his people an almost fanatical hatred
for the Russians over five years, then suddenly change his
tactics completely. Over night he shifts his ground. The Rus
sians are splendid people. It is really the Poles who are the
great menace—and his people accept this as the hypnotized
subject does any hypnotic suggestion, which is exactly what it is.
Then, overnight, it is again the Russians.
We can readily imagine the chaos in this country if tomorrow
the President should suddenly announce that our real friends
were the Japs, that we agreed to let them have Australia and the
East Indies, while it was our obvious duty, because of Ameri
can superiority, to take over Canada and Mexico at once, with a
“protectorate” over all the Latin American countries—until
we could really absorb them.
Yet this is exactly what the dictator can and could do. Six
years ago Mussolini stopped Hitler in Austria. For six years
Hitler has been blasting away at the Russians. The League
blocks Mussolini in Ethiopia. Overnight he and the Italian peo
ple become ardent admirers of Hitler, and the Germans suddenly
discover that the Russians are at least near-Aryan, if not quite
pure. Now, again, they are a slave race.
We wish to emphasize the fact that this astounding control
is just as much hypnotic as that ever exercised in any labora
tory. It depends on direct prestige suggestion registering on a
brain highly sensitized by emotion. That is about as good a
description of hypnotism as we can have. To be sure, the tech
niques are slightly different, but no different from the techniques
employed by various hypnotists. Watch the psychologist work
ing quietly in his laboratory, carefully avoiding all noise and
distraction. Now switch over to the stage hypnotist. “The
222 HYPNOTISM
brighter the lights, the bigger the crowd, the better the success.”
W e point out that Adolf Hitler haranguing his audience in
the glare of stage lighting has more in common with the “pro
fessional’' than this latter has with the laboratory psychologist
W e simply have not, up to now, realized how very similar were
the two techniques.
If the reader will recall the various pictures of Hitler in his
speeches, he will note that on more than one occasion the Ger
man leader has resorted to an excellent hypnotic device. He
stages the meeting at night in the o pe^ He himself is in the
glare of lights, is above his audience, forcing the listeners to
look up and at a bright object. Braid in the 1840’s discovered
that this simple concentration on an object was quite enough
to get hypnotism and was the first to popularize the technique.
It is very important that we realize the close resemblance
between the technique of giving suggestions—in other words,
hypnotism as used by a mob leader and that employed on the
stage. The writer recalls a boyhood experience. Very frequently,
when we recall such early events they shed light on more adult
problems and cause us to investigate farther. He was attending
one of those old fashioned revival meetings which were, if
nothing else, an emotional workout. One of his friends was quite
carried away by the oratory, the singing and the emotional
atmosphere. He was converted, went up to the “sinners’ seat”
and was numbered among the lowest. It afterward struck the
writer as curious that his memory for the whole thing seemed
very hazy. He had to be told what happened from then on.
Later when the writer became more interested in hypnotism
he did some further inquiries on the subject. In a considerable
proportion of these cases, such as those seen at the famous
“camp meetings” the convert does seem to be in more or less
of a trance during the whole procedure. His memory is hazy
and his conduct certainly irrational as in “treeing the devil”
wherein the penitents chase hts satanic majesty up a tree and sit
barking around the base. In fact there are few better examples
of mass hypnotism than these old revival services and it is very

important that we recognize them for what they are. We are
all too prone to adopt the “holier-than-thou” attitude. These
things very naturally occur in a country like Germany or Italy.
We are not so willing to admit that man is man the world over;
that some of our best examples of mob hysteria are to be found
right here in America.
A brother psychologist reports the following experience which
may add a further illustration to our line of argument. One
evening he was literally at the comer drugstore of a college
town. A truck drove up, the sides folded down in a platform
and under the intense light of powerful reflectors a high pressure
salesman proceeded to sell his wares. His plea, apparently was
that he was a good sport, the audience were good sports and
that he was going to prove it.
First came the old trick of selling fifty cent pieces for a
quarter. This proved him to be a good sport. Then he raised
the ante, and sold dollar bills for fifty cents. All the time under
the glare of those lights up on his truck he kept up a constant
barrage of suggestions on his audience. They were good sports,
he was a good sport, all Americans were good sports, down
with all dictators. The show went on for half an hour. H e was
selling his audience two dollar bills for one dollar.
Then an amazing thing happened. He produced the real
reason for his presence, namely fountain pens. Moreover, he
was quite honest. The pens cost him fifty cents each. He was
selling them for five dollars each, but he needed the money
badly and they were as good as any other pen. He had been a
good sport. Now how many would buy his pens for five dollars
each. They sold like wild fire! Moreover, many of the purchasers
were people who certainly could not afford such a luxury and
according to the narrator, were acting in a daze.
Finally came the proper climax. The salesman suddenly
ended his harangue. Three men, described by this colleague as
being the toughest looking chaps he had ever seen put in an
224 h y pn o t is m
appearance, the truck folded up and the whole outfit was gone in
five minutes. They were taking no chances on that mob suddenly
wak ing up and discovering what it was all about. As neat an
example of group hypnotism as one could wish. Bright lights,
high emotion, restriction of the field of consciousness. Even
Hitler could not have done better.
Finally let us note the last two phenomena characteristic of
mob psychology and of hypnotism. These are the feeling of
omnipotence largely due to the social sanction and the release
of inhibitions. The dictator can build up th;s illusion of the
social sanction in splendid form through his controlled radio
and press. The Nordics are the only superior race, they are
being hemmed in and persecuted by all other groups but it is
their God-given duty to rise superior to these circumstances
and rule the world.
Such a line of attack gives tire individual the necessary social
sanction for his actions, also supplies that feeling of omnipo
tence so necessary to group action. He is acting with the full
approval of Ids group, the only group which is worthy of any
consideration. Therefore, any action he undertakes at the be
quest of this group is-justified. This gives him sanction for the
release of all inhibitions. Nothing succeeds like excess, to quote
Cutten. The amazing thing through all this rise of Hitler and
his fellow dictators ia the lengths ta which people can go.
Great emotional storms, examples of group hypnotism have
swept this world many times in the course of its history. Mo
hammed was one of those great leaders who could arouse man
and send him forth to do or die and the Christian answer to
Mohammed wa3 the Crusades. These we can more or less
understand, but the famous Children's Crusade lacks even the
vestige of reason. The bitterness with which man will fight his
brother when once aroused is without parallel in the animal
kingdom for no where else do we have even an approach to
war among all nature's millions of species.
The Reformation is a classic and terrible example, not only
T H IS MAN H IT LE R 225
in the bitter strife between Protestant and Catholic, but the
equally deadly hatred among the various Protestant sects. It
would be childish to claim that all this strife was on reasonable
and logical ground. Invariably it can be traced to the dynamic
leadership of some one individual who doubtlessly was in most
rases quite convinced that his interpretation of God’s will was
correct. Unfortunately in most of these cases, as modern psych
ology could point out, the leader was definitely abnormal,
neurotic or even insane. But that cannot recall to life the thou
sands who died as the result of his teachings.
If, now we examine Hitler, we will see that his fatal genius
holds to the line of most great leaders who have led humanity
nowhere through a sea of blood. His basic appeal is absolutely
non-Iogical. The thesis of Nordic superiority is pure trash if we
consult science. Many fine boohs have been written on the races
of man by careful scholars. Some of these races, such as the
native Australian, the Ainu or the Andamanese are being rapidly
exterminated. Research shows us that it is the disease germ
which is largely responsible. It has been demonstrated more
than once that these people are just as “intelligent” as the white
man, but immunity to smallpox, diphtheria or cholera lias little
to do with intelligence.
Hatred of the Jew is another keystone of Hitler’s emotional
appeal. But the Jew was highly civilized when the illiterate
Germans, English and French were settling their endless feuds
with their stone clubs and spears. Moreover, for the last two
thousand years the Jew has been pretty much international. The
Romans were never particularly gentle when it Came to dealing
with dangerous minorities. They spent three centuries, off and
on, in a savage arid ruthless slaughter of the Christians. Strange
to say, they got on very nicely with the Jew, as have most other
nations up to this present century. To be sure, there has been
a certain amount of persecution. Sometimes, as in the case of
Spain, it does not make very pleasant reading. The Jew has
no army, does have money. When a government needs a scape-
226 HYPNOTISM
1
goat to cloak its own inefficiency it has always been safe— and
prolitable—to single out the Jew. But for all that, we doubt if
the Jew has led as miserable a life as has the average French
man. German or Italian. The wars of the ages have mostly
passed him by and his economic position has on the whole
been above the average.
The Treaty of Versailles,-—we might say that here Hitler
did have the basis of a just complaint. But he tore up that
treaty with the consent of both France and England. At the
time of his invasion of Czechoslovakia every point in the treaty
was either settled or on its way to solution. The Polish corridor
was no fighting matter and England under Chamberlain the
appeaser, would doubtlessly have given him satisfaction on
the matter of colonies. In fact, we may safely say that at the
time of the Czech invasion Hitler had unwritten the Treaty of
Versailles. He might easily have become Europe’s greatest
statesman, executing both a United States of Europe and a
new world order without shedding a drop of blood.
But, as one writer puts it "that sort of genius does not have
that sort of genius.” The mob leader rapidly learns that he must
appeal to emotion, not to reason. Moreover, it is much easier
to use hate and fear as the hypnotic, than love and understand
ing. For, if we appeal to love, as did Christ, reason is the
necessary correlate. If we appeal to hate or fear, then reason
becomes our worst enemy. The mob leader gets caught in a
hopeless and vicious circle. He achieves his end by playing on
man's lowest emotions. These “cruel, brutal and destructive”
instincts cannot be satisfied. Their very nature must become
more and more all consuming, the fires must bum ever more
fiercely. Hitler and his followers can no more restrain their
thirst for power and revenge than can a hungry tiger restrain
himself in the presence of a lamb.
All this we can best understand by a close study of the taws
of suggestion, in other words, hypnotism. The psychologist in
his laboratory, the "professional” on the stage, the demagogue
haranguing the mob all use essentially the same technique,
attack by direct or prestige suggestion on a mind sensitized by
emotion. W e must learn to recognize the fact that, from the
psychologist’s point of view, many successful orators are simply
high grade hypnotists.
Chapter X
CONCLUSIONS
Y PN O TISM is a particular form of direct or prestige
H suggestion, something to which we are all exposed

every day of our lives. The reader will, in general, be
familiar with two types o£ hypnotism, that used by the psychol
ogist in his laboratory, that used by the stage performer, the
“professional” The writer would call attention to a third type
of direct suggestion, not generally classed as hypnotism. The
orator, in general, be he on the radio or directly addressing an
audience uses all the psychological tricks of the hypnotist and
gets most of the results achieved by the latter. In fact, his
technique has more in common with the “professional” than has
the stage performer's with that of the laboratory psychologist
To be sure, the orator does not get the trance, but we know
that neither trance nor loss of consciousness is necessary in
regular hypnotism to obtain ail our phenomena. Certain other
conditions, as anaesthesia, hallucinations or paralyses are not
common with the orator, although we get all of them in certain
religious groups. On the other hand, other phenomena, such as
delusions are far more common in the mob or the crowd than
în ordinary hypnosis. For example we might say with scientific
accuracy that the two outstanding characteristics of the present
day dictator are delusions of gTandeur and delusions of persecu
tion. These he imparts to his followers with no more logical
backing than has the subject in hypnotic trance when we tell
hint he is Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. The writer
stresses this point because, to him, the gTeat orator is generally
a great hypnotist using direct or prestige suggestion with far
more skill than the psychologist employs when he works with
228
CONCLUSIONS 229
hypnotic suggestion. In general, his appeal will be on an emo

tional, non-logical basis since this sensitizes the brain and gives
his suggestions far greater strength than can be obtained with
any logical appeal.
For this reason an understanding of hypnotism is of im
mense importance to the average layman. Taken by itself it
presents a fascinating picture. The hallucinations, paralyses,
automatic movements, posthypnotic suggestions and autosug
gestions are naturally of great interest to any reader. But they
are just what they are, and of no more practical importance
than the description of a surgical operation for appendicitis.
In fact, they are of less importance.
But taken as a background from which to understand the
human being, his weird excesses in religion and in war, taken
as the basis of mob psycholog)', these phenomena of hypnotism
immediately assume an importance as great as any presented
by other fields of science. The engineer designs his aeroplane
with consummate skill. T o the people of the world a t this
present day the fact of the aeroplane lias little importance but the
use to which it will be put is something very different. The
average citizen of London will never travel in one of those sky
birds but he has no delusions as to what they can do when put
in the hands of a ruthless adversary. We can only understand
the working of Hitler’s mind and his power over others as we
understand the psychology of suggestion, to which hypnotism
is our best approach.
A brief survey of hypnotism as hypnotism impresses us more
with the rigidity of human thought than with the brilliance of
the human mind. A Mesmer, a Braid or a Bemheim has courage
enough to do a little independent thinking, A dull senseless
opposition of prejudice and inertia, both in the medical and the
lay world, holds grimly to the brakes of progress. But, after all,
hypnotism is not here in a class by itself. The whole history
of human thought warns that the original thinker had “better
be good" and tough otherwise his days will be none too happy.
230 HYPNOTISM
But the history of hypnotism also shows us that, given time,

the human mind will insist on the truth. Mesmer, back in the
1770’s advanced his crude fallacious theories, but he opened
a great field to investigation. Benjamin Franklin, certainly no
hidebound conservative, assisted in running him out of Paris.
One hundred years later we find Charcot and Binet still sup
porting his views, great original thinkers in their own fields but
utterly blind to progress in others. Liebeauit and Bernheîm
finally disposed of that very persistent ghost, animal mag
netism. Then from 1880 to almost 1930 hypnotism went
through another resting stage, crowded out in large part by the
work of one more original thinker, S, Freud, founder of the
psychoanalytical school.
Now we find hypnotism again in the field of active research.
Strange to say, many of its most active opponents come from
the ranks of our most liberal profession, medicine. Vet it was
these same doctors who, fifty years ago gave hypnotism a re
spectable standing in the realm of science. Truly we live in a
weird world. When now the psychologist proposes to carry
his research into the field of education, of crime, even of war
fare, we may expect the usual uproar from both layman and
even professional psychologist.
These truths should not be discussed in public. They are too
dangerous, too mysterious, in fact too anything in this broad
wide world if only we will let sleeping dogs lie. But science never
was and never can be concerned with the possible, even prob
ably, mat-usage of its discoveries. Science seeks truth. Then it
must, so to speak, dump it into the lap of the general public and
see what happens. The world would probably be much happier
today if the aeroplane had never been invented, if ships had
never been perfected that would sail under the sea or if all high
explosives could be returned to their original elements and kept
there “for the duration of the emergency.”
But the human mind never did and never will permit itself
to be so limited in its scope. If civilization chooses to use its
CONCLUSIONS 231
bombers, submarines and high explosives to blot out civilization,
the fault lies with our morals not with our brains. We must
blame our statesmen, our theologians, our cultural leaders if
they cannot keep the human within due bounds. Given national
hatred, nations will fight. The club, the spear or the arrow in
their own crude way can be very effective. So we maintain that
we are quite justified in writing all we know about hypnotism.
Many an able critic might be inclined to add “and a great
deal we don’t know /' Unfortunately there is enough truth in
that statement to make it hurt, so to speak. W e express rather
dogmatic views on many points of hypnotism, views which we
acknowledge cannot be substantiated by experimental evidence.
W e also point out, however, that proof is impossible in our
present day society. W e simply advance the problem and what
Seems to us a probable solution. To wait passively for scientific
proof might be to wait another hundred years. If we can pro
voke our brother psychologists and the general public into de
manding proof, even if we ourselves are in the long run proven
completely wrong, we may have answers to some very impor
tant world problems in the next five or ten years.
That is one way in which we achieve progress. The extremist
has his place in all science, psychology included. Be he a Freud,
a Watson or a Pavlov he “starts something/' The profession
lines itself up in battle array, the pros and con spilling ink as
generously as any military leader ever spilt human blood. When
the smoke of battle clears up, the culprit has either been chased
off the field or, most generally, both sides call an armistice, each
agrees that the other was one-tenth right and nine-tenths wrong.
Like most human wars no one appears to win much of anything.
But in this battle of ink there is genuine progress toward truth,
which is more than we can always say about other battles. And
the extremist has his use in that he tends to get people in a
fighting mood by the very dogmatism and novelty of his state
ments.
No matter what our bias we must admit that Watson and
232 HYPNOTISM
Freud made, or perhaps provoked great contribution to be made

to the science of psychology. We may thoroughly dislike the
extreme behaviorist or the psychoanalyst, but in our more
calm moments we can only regret the scarcity of this very
annoying type of genius. The writer is rather amused at these
last paragraphs. An extremist himself, he may appear to be
claiming the label of genius as well, but he really has no de
lusions whatsoever along those lines.
We in America have been fortunate and unfortunate in this
m atter of hypnotism. The “professionar has really been of
great service in one respect. He introduced the American public
to hypnotism; but be instilled in that public a hearty distrust of
the whole science. This was had in that it carried over to medi
cine and barred its use by the doctor. But it had its compensa
tions for it forced hypnotism to take refuge in the psychological
laboratory. The average psychologist is not very much inter
ested in the medical side of the subject. Consequently he began
a thorough scientific investigation of all phases of the subject.
As a result we in America have made more progress along
these lines than have any other people. The book published by
Hull in 1933 summarizes this progress, points out the woeful
gaps in our knowledge and, incidentally completely overlooks
one or two of the most important problems in the field.
Several problems seem now to have been answered to the
satisfaction of the majority of psychologists. Hypnotism, it
seems pretty well agreed is one form of exaggerated suggesti
bility and dissociation is probably a result of this. Moreover it is
a form of “direct” or “prestige” suggestion which seems quite
different from the indirect or non-prestige variety. This is a
very important step because it ties hypnotism to other forms of
suggestion, especially that of the mob leader.
Then it would seem that human hypnotism has no relation
to animal hypnotism, another important decision. Even Pavlov
fell into this trap, linking the human and the animal varieties,
and making some serious mistakes in his treatment of the whole
CONCLUSIONS 233
subject. Frankly we do not know very much about animal

hypnotism but whatever it is it seems quite distinct from the
human brand.
Then we seem to be fairly well agreed on another point.
Hypnotism has nothing to do with sleep. This is very impor
tant as even Bernheim was in error on this particular point. The
individual in the trance is, in all respects, just as much “awake”
as if he were “normal.” In fact, so dose is the resemblance that
it is quite impossible to tell the difference, especially if the
subject has been coached to act normal. W ith this fact at the
back of his mind the modern operator avoids many of the
errors into which his predecessors very naturally fell. The
"trance” we now know is not necessary in procurring any of
the phenomena of hypnotism, at least if we mean by the trance
somnambulism involving loss of consciousness. To be sure it
helps but the work on “ waking” hypnotism has established this
point, even if it be more or less of only academic interest to
the average reader.
As to these actual phenomena of hypnotism we seem to be in
fairly general agreement. W here disagreement does exist it
seems, to the writer at least, that it is largely a question of
“operator attitude” a factor which seems of the greatest im
portance but which has been given much less attention than it
deserves up to the present. The hypnotic subject co-operates
in wonderful fashion and tends to give us the answers we want.
This fact makes it impossible to apply the research methods of
the physical sciences to hypnotism, in fact to many fields of
psychology. The attitude of the experimenter means nothing to
the working of a chemical formula, to the refraction of light or
to a problem in higher mathematics. In hypnotism it is crucial
and the writer would stress it as being the cause of much dis
agreement between very able operators.
We are fairly well agreed that, using suggestion in hypnotism
as the touchstone, we can hallucinate any of the senses. Visions
are present and convincing. It is easy to cause hallucinations in
234 HYPNOTISM
the sense of hearing, of smell, of tastes, of touch, in fact of any

sense organ, including those of the internal organs. These are
most easily obtained in somnambulism with its accompanying
amnesia but, as before stated can be also provoked without loss
of consciousness.
W e would call the reader’s attention to another very im
portant fact which we gather from the science of statistics. The
individual in deep somnambulism is still an individual. The ease
with which we can get certain phenomena conforms to what we
term the curve of normal distribution. This fact, it seems to the
writer, has been overlooked in many investigations. The mere
fact that the subject is a somnambulist guarantees nothing
except that on the whole he is more suggestible than in the
normal state. But how much more suggestible, or to what extent
one can override his ethical background, is quite a different
thing.
As a matter of fact, we would expect from this curve of nor
mal distribution that a few subjects at one extreme would
produce almost any phenomena, and a few at the other, even
if somnambulists give us almost none. The great majority
would fall in the middle. This means that it proves nothing if
some one particular subject fails to give us the results we ex
pect. Actually we would expect it, and would expect to obtain
the more difficult and questionable results from only a com
paratively few people even in the deepest trance.
Paralysis of limbs and contraction of muscles are easily
obtained and on this issue there seems very little controversy.
Such is also the case when we consider the question of automatic
movements, provoked by suggestion. Rapport is also a well
known phenomenon but there is now pretty general agreement
that it îs not, genuine. The subject appears to listen only to the
voice of the hypnotist but actually he hears everything. This ts
a little bit of acting, a pastime at which most hypnotic subjects
are excellent.
There seems also to be little doubt but that we can obtain
CONCLUSIONS 235
both anaesthesia and analgesia, insensitivity to pain in the hyp

notic trance. Our historical evidence would seem quite conclusive
on this point, as well as present day research. There is just one
little point of disagreement. Is it genuine anaesthesia or is it
amnesia? In other words, there is a possibility that the subject
suffers genuine pain in hypnosis but forgets about it on awaken
ing. The writer can see very little evidence for this viewpoint
but it exists.
We hear much talk of great muscular strength in hypnotism
and here we find our authorities beginning to disagree. The
writer strongly suspects this disagreement is due to operator
attitude and is quite convinced that the subject in hypnotism
may exert a degree of strength which is quite impossible under
normal conditions. We draw this inference not only from the
experimental literature on the subject but also from our evidence
that the human can develop tremendous strength in other cir
cumstances. This is clearly seen in the action of the drug
metrazol where the patient may literally break his own bones
in the violent convulsions which follow its administration.
Great acuity of the senses has also been claimed for subjects
in hypnotism. Here the evidence is far from being conclusive.
In fact the bulk of our experiments would tend to show that
it does not exist. This also applies to those reports we have of
a subject being able to judge time intervals with uncanny
accuracy. We must bring in the verdict in both these cases of
unproven but possible perhaps with certain subjects. We must
have a great deal more evidence in this restricted field before
we dare come to any definite conclusion.
We know definitely, it seems to the writer, that we can in
fluence the activities of the autonomic nervous system, that part
of our neural structure which controls the internal organs. It
seems fairly well agreed that we can influence heart beat, espe
cially if we use some hallucination to excite fear or anger in
the subject. So also we can influence the actions of the digestive
tract and of the sex organs. Beyond this point the evidence is
236 HYPNOTISM
very conflicting. Can we, for example, obtain blisters and skin
bleeding by means of suggestion? Certainly not proven to the
satisfaction of science and yet the production of bleeding would
come under the action of the autonomic system. We see genuine
examples of this in cases of stigmata reported in church history.
This leads us to suspect that it would be possible, but would
probably occur with only the very best subjects.
W e should note also that there is no relation whatsoever
between hypnotism and spiritism, at least în so far as hypnotism
aids in producing such phenomena as talking with the dead,
clairvoyance or telepathy. There is, however, a very close rela
tionship between hypnotism and the tnediumistic trance when
this is genuine. Induced by autosuggestion, the trance is really
a very fine example of self-hypnotism and gives us our intro
duction to those weird cases of multiple personality which are
again produced by a form of autosuggestion, can be obtained
by genuine hypnotism and can in turn be cured by the same
means.
Psychologists would also agree that anything which we can
obtain in hypnotism we can also get by means of the curious
posthypnotic suggestion. This enables us to provoke the phe
nomenon at any future time, five minutes, five months, possibly
five years. Frankly we do not know just how far into the future
we can project these suggestions but we have some reason to
believe that the time can almost be indefinite.
W e also notice here some other very curious phenomena. By
the combined use of hypnotic and posthypnotic suggestion we
can get such control over the trance that it can be induced at
a moment’s notice and so subtly that even a good operator can
not note the change from the normal to the trance state. The
fact of whether the subject is “awake” or “asleep” can be deter
mined by certain tests, especially by his ability to resist pain.
But without such tests the determination is almost impossible.
Another very interesting point not realized by the general
public is that with this combination technique we can remove
CONCLUSIONS 237
completely from the subject all knowledge of his ever having

been hypnotized. W e can bring him to the point where he will
insist that he knows nothing about hypnotism whatsoever, that
no one has ever attempted to hypnotize him and that he dislikes
the whole subject. Yet the original operator or anyone desig
nated by this operator can throw him into the trance in a second.
This leads up to a further point. The subject can also be
rendered immune to hypnotism by any other operator except the
one who does the hypnotic work or any other to whom he may
care to transfer the rapport. This is very important when we
consider the possible use of hypnotism in crime or in warfare.
Owing to the peculiar situations existing în both these fields
such control of the subject would be absolutely essential.
Any phenomena seen in hypnotism or the posthypnotic sug
gestion can also be obtained by means of autosuggestion. To be
sure it is difficult but it can be done. The best way of initiating
autosuggestion is through hypnotism itself. W e use hypnotic
and posthypnotic suggestion to give the subject control over
himself. From then on he can provoke all the phenomena in
himself but the writer regards this as a highly dangerous tech
nique. The subject is liable to set up a condition of dissociation
over which he cannot exercise proper control.
Finally, all the phenomena we see in hypnotism can also be
found in everyday life, among people who verge every way from
the normal to the actual insane. This is one reason why the study
of hypnotism is so very important. W e are able to duplicate the
symptoms of neuroses and psychoses in our laboratory and to
study them at our leisure.
We find many curious traditions about hypnotism which are
either wholly or partly false. Literally anyone, even a victrola
record can hypnotize. There is no need of will power, the hyp
notic eye, or thought transference. It is all a matter of training
and technique. To be sure, some people will become more expert
at it than will others, but we see this in every walk of life, medi
cine, athletics, music or mechanical ability.
/
238 HYPNOTISM
Nor has will power anything to do with the subject. The

persistent myth that only the weak willed can be hypnotized is
wholly a myth. As a matter of fact it is impossible to hypnotize
the feeble-minded or certain groups of the insane because they
do not have the necessary “will power” to co-operate. There is
likewise no truth in another assumption, namely that women
are more easy to hypnotize than are men. Nor are alcoholics or
criminals. We do find that children between the ages of say eight
to twelve are decidedly more suggestible than are adults.
It would seem that most of these traditions about hypnotism
are false. Can an individual be hypnotized against his will?
Certainly, for all practical purposes. H e can at least be hypno
tized without his consent even when he has declared he will
never allow himself to be thrown into the trance. This we can
accomplish by using a disguised technique which the subject
does not recognize or, with a good subject, we can transform
normal sleep into the hypnotic trance.
The dangers of hypnotism? Greatly exaggerated but quite
definite. W e are not trying to be humorous when we say there
is, at present, far more danger to the operator than the subject
Almost any good doctor could become a good hypnotist and
would certainly do much more good than harm. Yet, with the
present status of public opinion his reputation and his income
might suffer very severely as a result.
Again the tradition is wrong. There is almost never any
trouble of awakening the subject from the trance, given a proper
technique. The competent operator is far more worried over
getting the subject hypnotized than getting him back to normal.
Hypnotism properly used never weakened the will of a subject
and it certainly never caused “fits,” feeble-mindedness or in
sanity. The real danger with hypnotism is that the unskilled
operator may leave his subject so suggestible that he is at the
mercy of every one who, for whim or experiment, may choose
to throw him into the trance. Also, that he may introduce con
flicts into the subject's mind by forgetting to remove suggestions
CONCLUSIONS 239
or posthypnotic suggestions which may run counter to the

subject's ethical background,
'Hiere is undoubtedly some slight danger that hypnotism may
be used for criminal ends. The danger is very small, however,
when we consider the total picture. If the hypnotist were dealing
with a subject who was already a criminal or who had definite
criminal tendencies he could probably use this subject for his
own purposes and probably conceal his part in the crime rather
effectively. But should he attempt to use a subject who had no
such character defect, he would have to be an operator of the
greatest skill and would probably have to trick his subject into
the crime.
This seems quite possible by removing from the subject all
knowledge of his ever having been hypnotized and by rendering
him immune to hypnotization by anyone else. The hypnotist
would count on the subject’s known willingness to co-operate
with an operator in any type of foolish farce. Whether or not
the subject would continue to protect the operator when faced
with an actual trial, disgrace and imprisonment is quite another
matter. The writer is inclined to think that, at least with certain
subjects, the real criminal would go free. But, as we point out
earlier in the book we cannot answer this question by any
experiment so far devised. W e would need the actual commis
sion of a crime and a genuine trial. That is a procedure which
is impossible in the psychological laboratory.
Similarly, we might very possibly be able to use hypnotism
in the detection of crime, to uncover information which, at the
present time, it is very difficult or impossible to get by ordinary
means. But again we cannot answer this question in the labora
tory. We must wait until such time as the police are willing to
use this device and the general public to permit its use. Actually,
once the public is educated to the real value of hypnotism we will
find that the police will be glad to avail themselves of its use.
There is very probably a place for hypnotism in warfare, not
only in its use by the intelligence department to obtain in various
240 HYPNOTISM
ways vital information for its own ends but also to protect itself
against possible use of this device by others. It may be that this
war will answer many questions concerning the use of hypnotic
subjects for criminal ends because its use in warfare would be
very close to its use m crime, both in the commission and the
detection of crime. Needless to say, this phase of the subject is
receiving intensive attention at the present moment and no one
îs in a position to say just what has happened or what is pos
sible. That may make fascinating reading once the present
international situation clears up.
There is undoubtedly great use for hypnotism in the field of
medicine, but popular prejudice against it is so strong that the
great majority of doctors simply dare not make use of hypno
tism in their practice. This is a great loss because it was the
medical man who first gave the subject respectability, who used
it with great effect and who stilt does so in European countries
where the stage "professional” has not turned the general pub
lic against it.
It would seem that hypnotism might have its greatest use in
those mental troubles which the general public is inclined to
regard as bad habits, in fact in that whole field of medicine we
term mental hygiene. Also in the treatment of such other habits
as alcoholism, excessive smoking, but not in the direct treat
ment of the narcotic drugs. Hypnotism has undoubted use in
the cure of hysteria and hysterical symptoms. Also as a sedative,
superior to any drug, but more difficult to administer and of use
only with subjects in which we can induce at least a moderate
degree of hypnotism, say one-tbird of all adults, practically all
children over the age of eight years.
Our first step in making hypnotism available to the doctor
is one of general education of the entire botly politic. First we
should prohibit the public exhibition of hypnotic subjects for
purposes of entertainment, which we now see in our various
theaters. This would remove the chief center of infection which
has lead to the violent prejudice we have to the subject in the
CONCLUSIONS 241
layman. N ext we should educate him to realize that hypnotism

is simply another branch of science which, like every other
scientific discovery, may be put to bad use by the unscrupulous.
The danger here, by the way, is far less than the danger we
have from most other scientific inventions.
But the real problem in the use of hypnotism is not the con
trol of its use by the psychologist or the stage performer, but
rather a careful supervision of orator, press and radio. The
psychological devices used by the great orator are practically
identical with those used by the hypnotist. In fact we must learn
to regard the orator and the mob leader as hypnotists, far more
successful and infinitely more dangerous than any hypothetical
scheming psychologist in his laboratory.
Hypnotism is simply exaggerated suggestibility. Whether
this comes as a result of the hypnotic trance or by the emotions,
the second great sensitizer of the brain, makes very little dif
ference, Results are practically identical. The mob leader
always has and always will make his appeal direct to the emo
tions of the mob in question. The more violent and less logical
the appeal, the cruder the emotions in question, the greater will
be his success. H e knows the truth of that catch phrase, nothing
succeeds like excess.
Science cannot lead, it cannot lie. It can do very little to make
a basic emotional appeal, A chemical formula, a mathematical
proposition, the hypothesis of an astronomer regarding the
speed of light or the distance of stars, even the discovery of
a new cure for pneumonia contain very little of the emotional
element. They are or they are not facts and we leave it to the
expert to decide. We can hardly imagine the Germans and the
British in a great war because J. B. S. Haldane insisted that
man was merely a machine while some great German claimed
he had a soul.
Here we encounter a very ugly truth about this animal, homo
sapiens, the one reasoning, thinking animal in all nature. We
might term it the reality of unreality, A lie, once circulated, is
242 H YPN OTISM
with him potentially the truth. H is high intelligence he uses

only to satisfy himself in his insane pursuit of the pleasure
principle and he turns out to be not a rational but a rationalizing
animal. To the average German the scientific myth of Nordic
superiority is grim reality, to his opponents even grimmer
reality. The nonsense he circulates about the fiendish Jew is
scientific nonsense if we wish, but terrible truth in so far as these
unfortunate people are concerned wherever he crosses their path.
In fact, so far as human relations are concerned we may well
ask the question of doubting Pilate, “W hat is truth?’’ Hitler
may be a genius or a madman, as we wish. Fascism may be a
plague or a model form of government, again we can take our
choice. To the citizens of Warsaw, Amsterdam, Belgrade or
London the question is purely academic. They have their an
swer, an answer which history has given us times without
number but which we refuse to accept, namely that any ruth
less leader appealing to the emotions of the mob can plunge this
world into a welter of blood.
It would be well for us to center our attention on this form
of hypnotism, for it is nothing else. Never before was it more
dangerous. Radio and the controlled press are literally made to
order for this type of leadership and when we talk of “making
the world safe for democracy” we must realize that, psychologi
cally speaking, the world was never more unsafe for democracy.
Group hypnotism, mob leadership, call it what you will, was
never more easy than in this day of syndicated press and
national hookup. And democracy may find this new world an
even more unhealthy place in which to survive than it has been
for the last one hundred years.
W e in America are cursed with the “holier-than-thou” at
titude. It can’t happen here. W e must realize that it both can
and will happen here unless we are eternally on guard. Some
how we must learn to recognize and discredit those leaders
whose appeal is purely emotional, who are our real “profes
sionals” in stage and hypnotic parlance. This will be an ex-
CONCLUSIONS 243
tremely difficult task, for all of us, no matter of what profession
or trade, react largely on an emotional basis when dealing with
our fellow human beings. The fact that we will indignantly
protest the contrary merely makes matters worse, proving us
not rational but rationalizing animals.
The problem facing us in this country is one of education.
A realization that none of us has too much of the milk of human
kindness in our veins, all of us are prejudiced, irrational, and
that this has an emotional basis. If we can realize this for our
selves, and it is a very difficult viewpoint at which to arrive, it
must make us more tolerant of the other chap when he airs his
prejudices. And no dictator ever rose to power on a program
of tolerance. The foundation of democracy, it will engulf the
despot like quicksand.
The writer firmly believes that a certain mental attitude he
is trying to impart will help greatly to preserve our present
institutions. There is danger of a very real sort in hypnotism,
but not where the reader has been taught to expect it. The
highly emotional orator and mob leader is, from the psy
chologists’ viewpoint, a much more effective hypnotist than any
laboratory product. It is he who leads humanity by the nose into
its bloody wars. W e must learn to discount him, to refuse to be
stampeded by his appeals to hatred and prejudice. W e must
listen always to that still small voice of reason and be tolerant
in our own prejudices, for that is all most of our “convictions”
amount to. If we as a people grasp this truth, America is safe
for democracy.
3
8fel
\
T
INDEX
A Crusades, 224
Abbe Faria, 124 Crystal gating, 94
Ability to resist hypnotism, 187 Cutten, G. B.. 48, 97, 153
Ability to resist suggestions, 42, 47,
72, 167, 187 D
Alcoholism, 48, 153 Dangers of hypnotism, 160
Amnesia, 55 Delusions, 63
See Somnambulism, Post-hypnotic See also crime, warfare
suggestion Diethelm, O., 153
Anaesthesia, 54 Disguised technique, 29, 30, 187
Animal hypnotism, 34, 223 Dissociation, 91, 94, 129, 233
Animal magnetism, 121, 125 Distribution, statistical, 171, 234
See Mesmerism, Charcot Drug addiction, 154, 159
Automatic Movements, 19, 92 Drugs and hypnotism, 33, 134
Automatic writing, 90
Autonomic nervous system, 50, 153, E
235 Emotion and hypnotism, 104, 131,
Autosuggestion, Chapter 3 211, 224
Awakening from hypnotism, 22, 150, Emotional contagion, 209, 214, 219
238 Erickson, M. H., 76, 166. 169, 178,
B 193
Esdaile, J., 54
Bemheim, 83, 125, 145, 162-164 Eye closure, 16
Binet, A., 127
Blisters, 44, 53 F
Braid, 124 Fear reaction and hypnotism, 23, 72
Brain sensitivity, 131, 141, 211 Ferenczi, S., 134
Brown, William, 109, 128, 144 Franklin, Benjamin, 24, 120
Freud, S., 137, 151
C See also psychoanalysis
Charcot, J, M., 126 Functional and structural ailments,
Chenoweth, Mrs., 107 58. 140, 148
Clairvoyance, 67
G
Clarke, T. W , 133
Complex, 73, 115, 137 Glossolalia, 97
Compulsions and hypnotism, 73, 88, Group hypnotism, 37, 39
146, 148
Consent of subjects, 29, 238 H
Coue, E., 82, 85 Hallucinations, 20, 45, 47
Crime and hypnotism, Chapter 7, 31, Healy, William, 115, 146
64, 239 History of hypnotism, Chapter 5
247
248 INDEX
Hitler, Cliapter 9, 33, 330, 139 O

Home, t>. D„ 111
Hull, Oark L , SO, 120, 125 Obsession, 146, 148
Hyperesthesia, 59-61, 168, 235 Obtaining information by hypnotism
Hypermnesia, 91, 181 190
See also hypno-analysis Operator attitude, 51, 62, 76, 106,
Hypno-ana lysis, 149 145, 170, 192, 233
Hypnotism by other than the opera Ouija board, 93
tor, 79, 189, 237
Hysteria, 87, 123, 12$, 143, 148 P
I Passes, hypnotic, 122

Patience Worth, 98
Illusions, 63 Pavlov, I. P„ 128
Induction of Hypnotism, Chapter 1, Perversion, 151
80 Phobia, 138, 146, 148
Inhibition, 2ÎI, 216 Phrenology, 124
Insanity, 147 Pleasure principle, 133, 141, 151
See medicine Podimore, F,, 114
Instinct, 133 Posthypnotic suggestion, Chapter 3,
Intelligence, 134 138, 149, 236
Prejudice against hypnotism, 157, 171
J Prince Morton, 101
Jam», William, 100 Prince, W, F., 98
Jiu-Jitsu and hypnotism, 34 "Professional" methods, 25-28
Psychic research, 107, 236
L Psychoanalysis, 145, 149
Liebeault, A. A., 49, 125 Psycho-galvanic reflex, 66
Lie-detection, 183 Psychoneurosis, 146
Psychosis, 147
Puysequr, Marquis de, 123
M
McDougall, William, 73
Medicine and hypnotism, Chapter 6 R
Medium, spiritistic, 111 Radio and hypnotism, 33
Mesmer, F, A., 24, 120 See warfare, Hitler
Mesmerism, 45, 122 Rapport, 43
Mob psychology, Chapter 9 Rationalization and hypnotism, 76
Multiple personality, 100, 198 Regression, 65
Munsterberg, H., 114 Repression, 95, 149
Muscle control, 17 See complex, psychoanalysts
Muscle reading, 113 Removal of knowledge of having
Muscle strength, 52, 186, 235 been hypnotized, 78, 188, 237
Myers, F, W, H„ 67 Restriction of consciousness, 209,
213, 219
N Rhine, J. B., 109
Nicholson, N. G, 51 Rowland, L. W , 77, 167, 193
I N D E X
249
S Suggestion, 14, 42, 129, 135, 206, 232,
Sabotage, 199 241
Schilder. P„ 217 negative, 142, 207
Scientific proof, 62, 76, 233 Synapses, 57
Shell hearing, 96
Shell shcck, 95 T
Sidis, B., 75 Tests of susceptibility, 36
Sleep and hypnotism, 80, S3, 99, 128,
166, 185, 233 V
Sleeping method of induction, 24
Sleep talking, 13 Victrola record, 31, 32, 45, 159
Sleep temples, 119
Smell in hypnotism, 62 W
Smoking, 48, 154 Walking hypnotism, 41
Social sanction, 210, 216 Warfare and hypnotism, Chapter 8
Somnambulism, 20, 21, 70, 124 Wells, W. R„ 40. 77, 166, 168, 193
“Artificial’’ and "natural", 36 Will power, 24, 381, 121, 238
Speaking with tongues
See gîossoîalia
Stage technique, 25-28, 166 Y
Stammering, 158 Young, P. C, Si, 62

Hypnotism - Estabrooks, George

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hypnotism - Estabrooks, George

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hypnotism - Estabrooks, George

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7

E. P. DUTTON & CO., INC

First Printing....................... June, 1943

feinted in th e united states of amxsica

IN CE the days of Count Mesmer, discoverer of “mesmer­

II MORE COMMON P H E N O M E N A ............................................... 41

in THE POSTII YPNOTIC SUGGESTION AND AUTO­

IV SOME CURIOUS STATES IN EVERYDAY LIFE WHICH

V T H E BASIC NATURE OF H Y P N O T IS M ................................117

VIII HYPNOTISM IN W A R F A R E .......................................................... 185

IX THIS MAN HITLER ........................................................................2 0 6

THE INDUCTION OP HYPNOTISM

E R H A PS the best approach to an understanding of

such a statement implies “free will," a very controversial point

Let us follow the procedure of the operator as he induces

Once again we may see that weird condition in which the

eyes, bend his arm or stand up, he makes no effort whatsoever.

actions. The subject may be able to resist the suggestion, stop

my questions.” It is always well to repeat instructions several

This is a very important point in technique. Let us suppose

curious things which can be very disconcerting to an operator,

use the necessary care in mastering a technique and persistence

The following is fairly typical of the technique employed by

But the operator gives him no time to relax. Immediately

their absence. Nor is he in any way worried about having the

and this will occur in four-fifths of the cases or the subject

blood pressure. We explain to the subject that we wish to test

assertions that no one could lie hypnotized against his will.

very easily be arranged and would be a great convenience to

to the trance. Some people are very susceptible to hypnosis but,

the technique of animal hypnotism on man. He simply does

discover beforehand who these very susceptible people are. The

absence of any equipment, is simply to use the test of clasping

It is very easy to get co-operation from a group with one of

more than a mere passing interest in the subject if he is to settle

KOBE COMMON PHENOMENA

E D EV O TED our first chapter to the induction of

investigators thought hypnotism merely a special variety of

n o rm al sleep and he will awaken in ordinary fashion, or he

orders but he ignores them completely and is at a total loss to

the subject very closely in many experiments. The mere fact

this would be more in the nature of an illusion but they are so

on another. Then to have someone sit on their chest while

difficult to obtain, and in hypnotism this is notoriously so.

very liable to become much too enthusiastic over the possible

as our own. In order to see, hear, feel pain, or experience any

deal to the psychiatrist, the “nerve specialist,” who treats the

this in days past, about the ability of the subject to develop

science can do is reserve judgment and hope that some operator

ing” consisting of some very slight variation in the pattern on

This should be just as large, same sex, and as near as possible

greatest importance, especially when we consider the possiblt

all! T ry it on yourself. When you are lying quiet and relaxed,

For example, there is not a reputable psychologist in the United

Also we have avoided mentioning one of the most useful erf

TH E POSTHYPNOTIC SUGGESTION AND AUTOSUGGESTION

H E R E is a rule in hypnotism that everything we get int;

T the trance can also be obtained by means of the post­

crazy idea of entering every saloon he passed and having a

“I want to give you the ace of spades.”

IN CE the days of Count Mesmer, discoverer of “mesmer

in THE POSTII YPNOTIC SUGGESTION AND AUTO

T the trance can also be obtained by means of the post

wide experience to show that the subject will resist a sugges

However, all autosuggestion need not be initiated by hypno

psychology. I t provides us with a key whereby we can under

of autosuggestion and if the individual is a good hypnotic sub

writer reached down and shook hands with no intention what

stumbled across genuine hypnotic somnambulism. H e “mag

Now, strange to say, this type of person is very easily hyp