hypnosis

Stereo­types about hyp­no­sis abound in the media: for exam­ple, how, under hyp­no­sis, you can be made to do what­ev­er the hyp­no­tist directs; how the hyp­no­tized sub­ject has no free will or abil­i­ty to resist the hyp­no­tist; how peo­ple can be hyp­no­tized with­out their knowl­edge and against their will. The stereo­typ­i­cal men­tal images, too, abound, both about the hyp­no­tist and the sub­ject: the irre­sistible hyp­no­tist, whose eyes peo­ple avoid because they don’t want to look into them and be instant­ly hyp­no­tized¹; the sin­is­ter crim­i­nal (usu­al­ly male) hyp­no­tist who manip­u­lates their sub­jects for crim­i­nal pur­pos­es²; the sen­su­al hyp­no­tist (usu­al­ly female) who manip­u­lates their sub­jects for sex­u­al pur­pos­es³; the incom­pe­tent hyp­no­tist who gives the wrong sug­ges­tions at the wrong time⁴; the unsus­pect­ing sub­ject⁵; the weak-willed sub­ject who can’t resist the hyp­no­tist⁶; the ditzy sub­ject who can’t fol­low any sug­ges­tions cor­rect­ly⁷; the mis­tak­en­ly-hyp­no­tized sub­ject who com­plies with a post-hyp­not­ic sug­ges­tion at the most inap­pro­pri­ate time⁸. Even the stereo­typ­i­cal visu­al images abound: swirling spi­rals, espe­cial­ly in the eyes of the entranced sub­ject; swing­ing watch­es or sparkling crys­tals; blank, star­ing eyes (espe­cial­ly in ani­me where the eyes become com­plete­ly flat disks) and even blanker voic­es; peo­ple sleep­walk­ing with their arms outstretched.

Any prac­tic­ing hyp­no­tist or even some­one just acquaint­ed with the sub­ject will say that these are exact­ly what they’re described to be: stereo­types, no more real than any oth­er stereo­type. So then, why do they keep appear­ing, over and over in the media? Has­n’t the hyp­no­sis com­mu­ni­ty been try­ing to change these stereo­types for at least six­ty years, if not longer? What is caus­ing these stereo­types to remain among the pub­lic consciousness?