This is from a letter I penned resulting from some frustration at the state of clinical hypnosis. I destributed it Honolulu in 1989. Later, I included it in various writings. In general, it was (and still is) either ignored or brings an angry response. It has since become widely known as "The Mary Experience."

"Mary Young (a fictitious name) ...wanted to quit smoking, and decided to get some help from a therapist who offered hypnosis. At Mary's session, the hypnotist talked to her about smoking for awhile and then asked her to sit comfortably in a chair. It was then suggested that she relax her muscles one by one, and Mary felt herself unwinding into a very relaxed state.

"This is pleasant!" she thought.

But then Mary was told that she was hypnotized, and that she would accept suggestions about her non-smoking status.

"Is hypnosis just being relaxed?" Mary wondered.

As the process continued, Mary started to worry that she was not deep enough for the suggestions to be "hypnotic." She worried throughout the session that maybe she wasn't hypnotized at all, or at least not deep enough for the suggestions to work. She felt completely conscious and thought, "If I wanted to, I could open my eyes...I've heard every word he said...I think I could stand up and just walk away...I must be hard to hypnotize."

And all through the process, as Mary was having these thoughts, the hypnotist droned on, completing the session by telling her that she would wake up at the count of five. Mary opened her eyes and the first thing on her mind was to express her concerns that she was not hypnotized.

The hypnotist assured her that she had done just fine and, in fact, was quite a good subject.

He went on to explain that her eyelids were fluttering, and pointed out that what seemed like 10 minutes was actually more like 20 minutes. Mary was informed that these are sure signs that she was hypnotized.

Nevertheless, Mary left her appointment feeling disappointed and with a different concept of hypnosis than when she walked in.

"Maybe hypnosis" she thought "is nothing more than being relaxed...or maybe I wasn't really hypnotized...the hypnotist insisted I did okay, but maybe he just didn't want me to know the truth about my poor ability to be hypnotized."

So Mary talked about trying hypnosis to quit smoking, and about how she didn't think it worked. "The hypnotist said I was hypnotized," she told her friends "but I don't think I went very deep."

In this all-to-common scenario, I hope you can see that Mary was not hypnotized. If she actually quit smoking, she did so in spite of the hypnosis procedure, rather than because of it. The lasting impressions of the hypnosis experience for Mary were the negative doubts about her ability to be hypnotized.

I believe, as most hypnotists do, that there is always some level of suggestion that takes root in the right-brain hemisphere. Unfortunately, in cases like Mary's, a pessimistic attitude will erode positive post-hypnotic suggestions.

It is just plain wishful thinking when a hypnotist declares that hypnosis plants a suggestion so deep into the subconscious that it cannot be over-ruled by conscious and contradictory thoughts. For the most part, the only way pessimistic and contradictory thoughts will not affect a hypnotic outcome is when these thoughts do not exist. It's part of a hypnotist's skill to see that these thoughts do not intrude during the procedure.

Hypnotic suggestion can be classed as "post hypnotic" only after some level of amnesia is achieved--certainly more profound amnesia than the simple time-distortion that Mary had experienced. Beyond that, "subconscious" is too vague a term to have real descriptive value. It is certainly not a valid term in the lexicon of neurology. In truth, when someone is truly hypnotized, they could never be having constant thoughts that they were not experiencing hypnosis.

I should point out that even the deepest subjects have questioning thoughts after awaking. But this is because they have lost most of the recall of the hypnotic process in exactly the same way patients coming out of anesthesia are often surprised that the surgery is over.

When hypnosis is used for anesthesia, and the patient is thinking "I don't think I'm hypnotized yet" ...but the surgeon started the incision anyway, everybody would know in a hurry whose assumption was correct!

Hypnosis is a phenomenon that is certainly more profound that just sitting relaxed in a chair. Hypnotism was developed over a century ago by surgeons who used it as an analgesic and anesthetic. It would be pointless to try to talk a patient into the fact that they were hypnotized during an amputation or difficult delivery. The surgeon-hypnotists of those times were undoubtedly more skilled than we are today. I'm sure they made few assumptions--they must have been fantastic at evaluating the levels of hypnosis.

Even stage hypnotists must learn to quickly anticipate the levels of the hypnosis they achieve. I suspect many clinical therapists couldn't duplicate the feats of the stage hypnotist, and would certainly be insecure in an operating room.

But, here's the problem: When a patient leaves the hypnotist's office with a "Mary experience," it has a diluting effect throughout the entire field.

During my early years, half the population believed hypnosis was little more than mythology. Now, most of the population view hypnosis as a useful therapeutic method, but I suspect, more as a kind of chicken soup therapy. Personally, I much prefer the old skepticism.

At a time when we have developed many fascinating and powerful methods, such as the Ericksonian systems and imagery techniques, it seems a shame that therapists have lost many of the original testing and evaluating methods developed by 19-century physicians such as Braid, Esdale, Elliotson, Liebault, and Bernheim.

Of course, not every patient can reach a level of hypnosis that can be identified by them on a subjective level. Nonetheless, I feel many therapists no longer possess the skills of centuries past, thus depriving many of a more profound experience--even with the benefit of our 21st-century technological savvy.

Perhaps it's this very technology that has driven a wedge between technique and the art of observation.
CW - Circa 1989
Early measurements of levels (depth) of hypnosis: Perhaps before and during the time of Mesmer and up to the time of James Braid, Mesmerism/magnetism/ hypnotism was viewed as a condition without levels. Estimating depth of hypnosis became prevalent when surgeons began to use it as an anesthetic. I'll hit some of the high points of depth measurement.

Refer back to Chapter One and historical figures such as Braid, Charcot, liebeault and Bernheim--all physicians. Keep in mind that the professional training during these times covered the same basic material as in today's medical schools, i.e., anatomy, biochemistry, microbiology, and pathology. The function of hypnosis was investigated primarily by physicians, so the scientific method prevails as part of the process--especially in the measurement of levels of response (depth). This is as it should be.

It's no accident that allopathic medicine, with all of its flaws, has overshadowed all other forms of health care. Dating back hundreds of years, the medical field has maintained a foundation based on biology, chemistry, and physics. While far from perfect, it has earned the prominence that has been retained over the centuries.

Charcot, a neurologist practicing during later years of the 19th century, viewed the various states of hypnosis as taking three forms: lethargy, catalepsy and somnambulism. His characterization is logical as is somnambulism. The idea of catalepsy is a little more difficult to reconcile. I would advise any serious student of hypnosis to review the at the work of Charcot. One source is The Discovery Of The Unconscious.

M. Liebeault, a primary care physician, defines the levels of hypnosis this way: The First Degree is a state of sleepiness that starts to diminish should the hypnotist stop the procedure. At this level, however, the eyes are cataleptic (locked shut) when suggest so by the hypnotist.

In the Second Degree, is as the first degree but the condition of hypnosis is more or less locked in even if the hypnotist stops his or her part of the procedure. Like Charcot, Liebeault felt that a condition of catalepsy existed and tested by placing the subject's arms and legs in various positions. If in the Second Degree the limb would remain frozen in any position it was placed in by the hypnotist. It is referred to as suggestive catalepsy. At this level there will be little subjective awareness of a state out of the ordinary, and little amnesia.

In Liebeault's Third Degree the drowsiness is more pronounced. At this level the subject is responsive to somewhat bizarre kinesthetic tests such as suggested arm floating, lock, and compulsive arm rotation. At this level the subject remains somewhat aware of their surroundings.

At the Forth Degree the subject loses contact with the outside world and is responsive to the suggestions to the hypnotist (unless otherwise suggested). All kinesthetic suggestions are followed short of hallucinations and anesthesia. At this level the subject is unable to will himself from the trance without the aid of the hypnotist.

At the Fifth Degree the subject has a marked degree of amnesia upon waking--light somnambulism, and at the Sixth Degree, the somnambulism is complete as in sleep walking. Complete anesthesia is possible at this level and major surgical operations can be performed without pain or trauma.

H. Bernheim elaborated on Libeault's Six Degrees, and adds three more levels. For that I recommend reviewing his textbook, Suggestive Therapeutics, listed in the Bibliography.

Keep in mind the experience of these three doctors likely has not been duplicated, at least as to patient numbers. Liebeault was said to hypnotize and treat up to forty patients a day, and he continued this practice for many years.

The 20th Century Scales: The first of today's commonly used depth measurement scales was developed in a psychological laboratory at Stanford University by Weitzenhoffer and Hilgard in 1959.

These were the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales. This popular scale rated response based on a dozen tests, including postural sway, eye closure, and a number of arm and hand ideomotor tests. It went on to access verbal inhibition, hallucinations, posthypnotic suggestion, and amnesia. Other scales followed along these same lines with some alterations. Any good psychology text will contain references for these scales.

In the 1970s, the father and son team of Herbert and David Spiegel, both psychiatrists, really added the modern scientific spin on trance measurements. These are techniques better suited to the university laboratory than the usual clinical setting, but certainly deserve serious study. I think the Spiegels added a scientific dimension to a field that perhaps has been forced to survive within an esoteric realm. I think these doctors are recognized for their characterizations of various types of subjects as Apollonians, Odysseans, and Dionsians --certainly poetic. They also developed an impressive response score sheet with the acronym HIP, Hypnotic Induction Profile. The textbook that deals with all of this is found in my bibliography--Trance & Treatment.

All of this, from Charcot to the Spiegels, is a wonderful area of study--one with great potential for great scientific investigation.

Hypnotism is to psychology as surgery is to medicine.  CW

What follows is my format for depth measurement: This works easily into a clinical setting. It only requires a check and a scribbled note or two. You will find the original copy in the workbook. I actually didn't use this form in my later practiced had it memorized, so it was unnecessary.