Quiz: Are You Hypnotic? Susceptibility to hypnosis - Hypnotic manipulation. Manipulation of the subconscious Are people subject to hypnosis with a strong character

What is hypnosis?

Both fear and reverence for hypnosis are based on the fact that enough fog has now been cast around this generally ordinary technique and covered it with a thick cloud of mystery. But the author of these lines at one time taught hypnology at the department of psychotherapy at the Institute for the Improvement of Physicians. Therefore, I can tell you with all certainty: there is really no secret of hypnosis.

Let's start with the fact that hypnosis is not a phenomenon, but a state. To be quite precise - "the state of a person, caused artificially with the help of suggestion." It is known that people succumb to this suggestion to varying degrees. And here it is customary to talk about such a characteristic of a person as hypnotizability, that is, the ability of an individual to be subjected to hypnotic influence. Everyone who is not deprived of reason has hypnotizability to one degree or another.

Man learns mostly from his mistakes. Someone else's experience will only replenish the baggage of knowledge when it is experienced as one's own. The evolutionary need for such empathy is what has made humans hypnotizable. After all, hypnosis, as a state of a person, is characterized by an increase in susceptibility to the effects of a hypnotizing factor and a decrease in sensitivity to all other influences. It was because of natural hypnotizability that a person perceived more and more new knowledge. Generally speaking, "homo" became "sapiens" only thanks to the ability to experience someone else's experience and perceive it as one's own.

Who is the easiest to hypnotize?

Based on personal clinical experience and the experience of colleagues, I can say that the most hypnotizable are those people who are most ready to perceive a large amount of information. These are children, especially high school students; students (especially if the science being studied requires imaginative thinking) and graduate students. A person's love for reading speaks quite accurately about a person's good suggestibility. If he likes to read, he, firstly, has a developed ability for imaginative thinking, and secondly, there is a desire to perceive information.

But when a person begins to teach others himself, that is, he no longer receives, but only transfers personal experience, his hypnotizability drops even if no other changes have occurred to him. But this is, nevertheless, an exception to the rule. Because in fact, the greater the intellectual potential, the higher the hypnotizability. Therefore, it is wrong to say that "only fools succumb to hypnosis, but I would never ..."

The depth of immersion in hypnosis depends on the ability of the brain to perceive information. And the one who is not capable of perceiving anything at all due to a lack of intelligence, of course, will not be hypnotizable. But, of course, there is absolutely nothing to be proud of here ...

Anyone can become a hypnotist!

A person who speaks figuratively shares his life experience very emotionally and vividly. Especially if he talks about things that are close to him personally. The most famous example is creativity, say, the work of a writer or actor. When you read some exciting story, you see in front of you not letters or punctuation marks, but lively and vivid images, portraits of heroes, hear their words, watch their actions ... And soon you forget that all this is not happening with you.

In the same way, a gifted teacher, especially in love with his subject, always leads a lesson or gives a lecture in a very figurative, exciting way, using voice intonation, gestures, and correctly chosen words. And pupils or students, in the end, stop noticing the environment and see only the essence of the subject, moreover, just as figuratively and vividly. A lecture by a skillful teacher is nothing more than a session of mass hypnosis.

And, of course, an unsurpassed master of hypnosis is any talented actor. That is why we so often identify the performer of roles with his characters: he managed to present his work in such a way, to survive everything imagined so that the viewer believed that it was happening in reality ...

Thus, in principle, any person of a demonstrative temperament, emotional enough, with the ability to figuratively express his thoughts (or, at worst, able to express other people's texts with feeling) can conduct hypnosis sessions. That, in fact, is all the requirements for a potential hypnotist. No other "gift from above" is required.

Power over the crowd

But if you can teach hypnosis to almost anyone, then what will happen as a result? It happens that people solve their personal, not always socially acceptable tasks with the help of hypnosis techniques: self-affirmation, the desire to "rule the crowd" or the usual material enrichment.

Many "wonderworkers" prefer to demonstrate their abilities in huge halls, as if confirming their extraordinary abilities. In fact, conducting an individual hypnosis session is many times more difficult than working in a large audience. Each person in a large crowd becomes more hypnotizable. This is the so-called "mutual suggestion" phenomenon.

During mass sessions, the “healer” does not just say “now you will feel this and that”, but in a different way: “When you feel it, raise your hand, stand up, sit down, shake your head” ... In general, it was necessary to give some outwardly noticeable sign. And then the "guru" could generally retire from the stage; in a large crowd there will definitely be at least one particularly suggestible person who will “feel the effect” first and give this sign. And the rest will see this and think: “Wow, it worked on him, but not on me yet?” And the more external markers there are, the more the “chain reaction” will manifest itself.

Hypnosis in medicine

In medicine, hypnosis is used mainly as a means to induce the so-called "protective inhibition." A hypnosis session can, for example, normalize blood pressure, relieve increased tension of the nervous system, reduce pain ...

Doctors also use hypnosis as an antidepressant, as a way to set a person to actively fight the disease, but this is less common. Hypnosis is mainly used as a sedative. It is preferable to tablets precisely because it does not give side effects when used correctly. But just as pills cannot be eaten in kilograms for any reason, hypnosis is also not suitable for everyone.

In general, professional doctors are skeptical about hypnosis - an experienced specialist has diagnostics in the first place. A complete, detailed diagnosis that removes all questions is the main condition for effective therapy. And a misunderstanding of the nature of the disease forces us to look for a panacea - especially those physicians who so far simply do not have enough experience sin with this.

Hypnosis and bad habits

Very often lately, suggestive techniques, and, in particular, elements of hypnosis, are used in the treatment of alcohol addiction (the infamous "coding") or when working with excess weight (the so-called "coding from food": instilling a feeling of satiety or aversion to food). However, this is almost always pointless and useless. Of course, immediately after the session, the result can be. But then the person will again fall into the same environment, which, in fact, caused him to crave alcohol or immoderate food intake. And everything will start over...

In addition, we must not forget that a person, in principle, is subject to suggestion not only during hypnosis sessions, but also in any process of communication. This so-called "social influence" is sometimes stronger than the strongest hypnotic influence.

And if the “coded” alcoholic again falls into the circle of his friends, who begin to suggest to him that drinking is not at all harmful, and nothing will happen to him, he will certainly succumb to this suggestion. And start drinking again. Not a single qualified narcologist with his suggestive coding methods can resist the unprofessional, but more significant for the patient, suggestion of friends. Especially if alcoholism is just a way to assert oneself or get away from the disgusting reality into the world of illusions.

What is Ericksonian hypnosis?

Many try to avoid overt hypnotic influence. However, there is a technique - the so-called Ericksonian hypnosis, during which the words "sleep", "sleep", "hypnosis" and the like are not pronounced, directly indicating that you are being put into a hypnotic state. In unscrupulous hands, this technique becomes a very dangerous method of influencing people.

Even Napoleon was famous for his ability to manage a crowd of thousands. This was attributed to his oratory, but everything is much more interesting. There were no horns and other sound amplifying devices in the time of Napoleon, and the content of his speech was heard, as a maximum, by those from the huge crowd who stood in the forefront. And the rest sang songs, chanted slogans, saw their leader, swayed to the beat of his gestures ... And that's it - you can lead this crowd anywhere!

To this day, the same arsenal of Ericksonian hypnosis is present at rallies: chanting, rhythmic swaying, repetitive movements (for example, waving a flag). And, of course, no direct mention of the fact that people are "introduced into a trance" for a better perception of the ideas being promoted.

Evolution has fixed the high hypnotizability of an individual in a state of prolonged stress. This is often used in the same “coding”: it is known that before a session, a drug addict is ordered not to take drugs for a couple of days, a drinker or smoker (which, in general, is the same kind of drug addiction) - not to drink alcohol or nicotine, a fat woman - not to eat ... Yes, a person comes to a session in such a stressful state (more precisely, in a state of withdrawal) that his hypnotizability is simply outrageous. By the same method, a hungry crowd can be led to any obstacles.

And it is quite clearly used suggestive techniques, the so-called "clergy". Twilight, a bright spot of light in the center, rhythmically repeated chants... All of the above uses of hypnosis, as a rule, are aimed at attracting more "like-minded people" - sometimes against their will.

How to protect yourself from hypnotic influence?

But how, then, to protect yourself from the effects of hypnosis, if it is almost everywhere? Of course, everyone is free not to go to different sorcerers, shamans, charlatans, but if not only they use the technique of hypnosis? However, all the same, you should not lock yourself in four walls, instilling in yourself "fear of psychotronic weapons."

The result of any external influence causes purely individual behavioral reactions, depending on personal experience and the psychological constitution of a person. Therefore, in principle, "general zombie" is impossible. And the most effective defense against the unscrupulous use of hypnosis is healthy skepticism with a dose of humor.

Incidentally, hypnosis is not popular in the West precisely because it often looks like a "stupefaction technique." And we have many people who simply want to be deceived themselves - and therefore fall under the influence of unscrupulous hypnotists. For example, the same “fortune-telling gypsies” who are able to chat a woman on the street and take all her money and jewelry away from her achieve this not only due to their phenomenal abilities. Yes, the cunning interlocutor undoubtedly has the initial skills of "talking her teeth", but these skills are not at all as significant as it seems to the gullible victim. To a much greater extent, her image, created in our environment, works for a gypsy. And when such a gypsy speaks to you, many immediately freeze like a pillar and inspire themselves that she is simply obliged to confuse their heads! But in fact, no one will be able to deceive you if you yourself do not want to.

8. Susceptibility

Susceptibility to hypnosis is a fundamental problem. Physicians and non-physicians alike are invariably interested in the question: Does everyone succumb to hypnosis? And one more thing: are all people able to hypnotize? Let's start with the first question. Before proceeding to consider this problem in all its complexity, it must be said: on the one hand, there are subjects who can be hypnotized by everyone, these are excellent somnambulists (in Liebeault's time there were professional somnambulists; we met them before the Second World War in a psychiatric clinic Veins, where they were invited as "patients" to teach students who wanted to master hypnosis), and, on the other hand, subjects who never succumbed to hypnosis. These are absolutely immune subjects. Between these two categories are individuals who are more or less susceptible to hypnosis, amenable only to certain doctors.

This is the conventional wisdom, but Gill and Brenman believe that susceptibility to hypnosis is a relatively stable property of the subject. Having carried out a series of experiments with the aim of increasing hypnotic susceptibility in less susceptible subjects, varying methods and changing doctors, they did not notice any significant difference in the results, that is, they did not achieve an increase in hypnotic ability. At the same time, if we are talking about susceptibility to hypnosis, it is necessary to take into account the degree of hypnotization, that is, the so-called depth of trance in all the complexity of this concept.

Attempts have been made to determine the percentage of people who can be hypnotized. The results were different. The study of this issue is difficult for the simple reason that we do not have objective criteria to assess whether the subject is hypnotized and to what extent.

The English author Bramwell (1903) believed that all people are susceptible to hypnosis to some extent, and deep trance can be achieved in 10-20% of people. Let us also cite an interesting observation by Bernheim, who showed that 4/5 of hospitalized patients were able to fall into a deep trance, while among his urban clientele only 1/5-1/6 patients turned out to be hypnotizable.

What determines the susceptibility to hypnosis? This question has two aspects, since it concerns the hypnotized and the hypnotist at the same time.

The personality of the hypnotized person has been studied from all points of view, however, no undeniable criteria determining the degree of hypnotizability have been established. No correlation was found between susceptibility to hypnosis and physical or mental constitution, extroverted or introverted character, race, gender, social position, etc. Projective tests were used, which did not give convincing results. No connection was found between susceptibility to hypnosis and nosological forms of diseases.

However, we have stated that almost all adolescents and adults suffering from enuresis are susceptible to hypnosis. The same, although to a lesser extent, applies to asthmatics. In addition, the American psychoanalyst Kaufman (1961) noted that soldiers are usually more susceptible to hypnosis: during the Second World War, during the Pacific campaign, he treated about 2,500 fighters with hypnosis, the vast majority of whom turned out to be excellent patients. This observation is similar to reports made long before by Liebeault and Bernheim. The latter attribute this phenomenon to the passive obedience to which the military is accustomed. But Kubie, in interpreting Kaufman's results, believes that a doctor who removes a soldier from the front line becomes for him an all-powerful person to whom he entrusts the care of his well-being.

The existence of a close relationship between suggestibility and susceptibility to hypnosis has been established for a very long time. It is known that for Bernheim hypnosis was reduced to suggestibility. Janet was of a different opinion. In "Psychological Automatism" he writes: "The phenomena of suggestion do not depend on the hypnotic state; suggestibility can be complete outside of artificial somnambulism and may be completely absent in a state of complete somnambulism; in a word, it does not change simultaneously with the hypnotic state and in the same direction.

In modern times, Kubie (1961) argues that suggestibility is not the cause of the hypnotic state, but its effect. The author refers to experiments during which he brought the patient into a hypnotic state with the help of an apparatus, without any verbal suggestion. The patient, hypnotized in this way, then perceives the words of the hypnotist as an expression of himself. The boundary between the hypnotist and the hypnotized is blurred to some extent. Thus, susceptibility to hypnosis depends on the ease with which the individual is able, as it were, to include an external stimulus, to make it a part of himself.

Together with Muriel Cahen, we also studied the problem of the personality of the hypnotized on 40 patients, mostly with psychosomatic disorders, who respond well and poorly to hypnosis. The study included interviews with patients and testing. We did not solve statistical problems (selection, analysis of results), work was carried out only with patients, without control groups. (In other countries where experiments are carried out on healthy people, students of psychology are often used for this purpose.) We analyzed only some clinical data.

Among our hypnotizable patients, we have identified two groups: subjects who consciously refuse to be hypnotized, and subjects who are refractory to hypnosis. Most of them were patients who were treated for a long time and underwent surgical intervention, which turned out to be ineffective. All of them were socially inept. These were people with a disturbed personality structure, with a manifestation of the so-called somatopsychosis with a narcissistic attitude. We got the impression that somatic illness allowed them to maintain a relative mental balance. Their contact with reality was unstable, control was insufficient. All hypnotizable subjects turned out to be socially adapted, had a strong connection with reality. If they had to endure conflict situations, they showed sufficient ability to adapt. There were no subjects with obsessions among them. Since hysterical traits are also found in the norm, we can talk about the presence of hysterical components in these subjects. We have thus come to the problem of hysteria. In discussing this problem, many copies were broken. Hypnosis has long been viewed as the equivalent of hysteria. It was believed that only patients with hysteria were susceptible to hypnosis. However, it is now believed that neurotics, as a rule, are less susceptible to hypnosis than healthy people. As for hysterical neurosis, it can be argued that patients with pronounced hysteria are not amenable to hypnosis. The hysterical syndrome is associated with emotions in relation to persons from the past, as a result of which such patients refuse to establish new transference relations with the hypnotist, i.e., they seem to refuse to review their problems and the benefit that this could bring them. Patients with less pronounced hysteria may be hypnotizable. Susceptibility to hypnosis can even be used for predictive purposes: hypnotizable tantrums are usually more susceptible to psychotherapy.

Our clinical impressions are confirmed by the observations of Gill and Brenman. They proved experimentally that healthy people are more easily hypnotic than those with neuroses, and among the latter, those with hysteria are the most hypnotizable.

A few more words on whether or not to persist in achieving a hypnotic trance. Some authors limit themselves to three or four attempts, others go further; the German researcher Vogt (1894) was successful in the 300th session. In our opinion, the first session is very important. But this is not a general rule. Thus, we were able to achieve trance in one hospitalized patient on the second attempt, made 3 months after the first. Some subjects who are not amenable to individual hypnosis are well hypnotized in a group (the group plays a protective role against unconscious fears in these patients).

Now let's move on to the question of the hypnotist. There are two issues to consider here: the hypnotic technique and the personality of the hypnotist. Of course, long experience and technical dexterity are essential. Technique must first of all be flexible, adapted to the characteristics of the hypnotized. For hypnotizable subjects, any technique is good, but for difficult subjects, it must be carefully thought out (see the second part of the book). The first try is especially important. Perhaps that is why in the psychiatric clinic in Vienna "professional" somnambulists were invited to the first session, because for a student success in the first attempt is very important.

As for the personality of the hypnotist, we have no reliable criteria. This problem has been studied less than the problem of the personality of the hypnotized. We have only a few comments from various researchers. Already the authors of the era of animal magnetism usually believed that the magnetizer should be calm during the session, since the patient in a state of somnambulism feels any of his anxieties. In any case, it cannot be argued that the ability to hypnotize is determined by the specific structure of the hypnotist's personality. Since there are different types of hypnosis (paternal, maternal) and a person may be hypnotized for various reasons, the therapist's motivations may also vary. According to Schilder, the hypnotist must unconsciously desire magical power and sexual dominance over the patient.

Fear of sexual impulses increased resistance to hypnosis in some patients. There is a well-known story of Breuer, who interrupted the treatment of Mademoiselle Anna O. for countertransference reasons and because of Mrs. Breuer's jealousy. Mademoiselle Anna had a sham pregnancy, and the sham birth took place on the day Breuer announced the end of her treatment. Jones (1958) in the biography of Freud also reports that the future Mrs. Freud identified herself with Mrs. Breuer and was afraid one day to be in the same position. Her husband was forced to dissuade her of this. Be that as it may, Freud, despite his interest in the treatment of Mademoiselle Anna O., which he learned about in 1882, did not dare to widely use hypnosis until December 1887. He used hypnosis sporadically from the summer of 1885, but from the spring 1886, when he began to practice, he used mainly electrotherapy.

From December 1887 to May 1889 he used only hypnotic suggestion, then he also used the method of catharsis. Jones attributes the belated application of this method to Charcot's more than reserved attitude toward the Breuer method, which Freud told him about. Perhaps the problem of countertransference relations also played a role here. Subsequently, an incident with a patient who threw herself on Freud's neck became known; in his autobiography, he described the reaction to this event: “I had a clear enough mind not to attribute it to the irresistibility of my person, and I then felt the nature of the mystical element acting in hypnosis. In order to eliminate him, or at least isolate him, I had to give up hypnosis." A fruitful refusal, for it led Freud to the discovery of psychoanalysis! .

We believe it would be useful, in view of the importance of this problem, to dwell a little on the relationship between the doctor and the patient in hypnosis, on the question of engagement. The therapist's resistance to this engagement still has an inhibitory effect on the development of psychotherapy, but it has also had a certain benefit: on the one hand, it contributed to the development of chemotherapy, on the other, it unexpectedly led (as we will see below) to fundamental discoveries in psychotherapy, such as transfer concept.

If the history of scientific psychotherapy begins with the Mesmerian period, it is obviously because at that time for the first time these relations began to be studied experimentally, and above all by academicians in their famous works on animal magnetism. The purpose of the study was to prove the existence of a physical cause of magnetism - fluid. Not finding it, they condemned animal magnetism. In their reports, the academicians described the phenomena that arise during magnetism, without, however, delving into their study. However, a secret report published at the same time as Bailly's official report highlights the erotic aspect of these phenomena, which explains the reticence of the academics. Indeed, we read in this report: “It is always men who magnetize women: the relationship established in this case certainly corresponds to that between the patient and his doctor, but this doctor is a man. Whatever the disease, it does not deprive us of sex and does not completely rid us of the power of the other sex.

A session of magnetism is described as follows: “Often a man ... puts his right hand behind the back of a woman, they simultaneously lean towards each other to facilitate this touch. Proximity becomes extremely possible, their faces are almost touching, their breath is mixed, all physical impressions are instantly separated by them, and the mutual attraction of the sexes must act in full force. It is not surprising that feelings are kindled; at the same time, the imagination works, introducing a certain disorder into all this, it defeats common sense, suppresses attention, women cannot be aware of what they are experiencing, they do not understand their condition.

Mesmer was also aware of the bonds that bound him to the sick. He even described their affective side: “Animal magnetism must first of all be transmitted by feelings. Only feeling can make a theory intelligible. For example, one of my patients, who usually tests the action that I have on him in order to understand me well, shows me a greater disposition than other men.

However, Mesmer did not resort to any psychological explanation, always adhering to the theory of fluids. The latter allowed, so to speak, the depersonalization of the therapist. She referred to the intervention of some "third force", which, while in the therapist, still existed outside of him. The therapist was only a vector of this universal force.

Mesmer withdrew from verbal contact with the patient in the somnambulistic phase, which was undoubtedly an unconscious manifestation of a defensive tendency. It is known that the merit of the first use of verbal suggestion as a therapeutic method belongs to Puysegur. But it is possible that this discovery had an unconscious motivation, and for Puysegur speech created a distance between the doctor and the patient, thus being another form of protection. Recall that in our time, representatives of the psychoanalytic direction emphasize that the word can increase the distance between the patient and the doctor. This idea is close to what was later written by Nacht: “We all recognize that the intervention of psychoanalysts is the more beneficial, the more he manages to enter into communication with the “unconscious” patient, to the point of literally putting himself in his place, remaining in the same time on his own".

"Charles de Villers was an artillery officer, as was Puysegur (and also Laclos, the famous author of Dangerous Liaisons). It is known that at that time the officers were addicted to magnetism and found remarkable subjects in their midst. As Figuier wrote about this (I860) in A History of the Supernatural, "magnetization, with all its charm, seemed to have become the chief occupation of the military: it was the golden age of the army." the first works that shed light on the problem of the so-called relationship with the object.

Villers, speaking about the influence on the patient, says that it will depend "on the degree of our internal disposition" and especially "on the cordiality that I put into my will." Nacht also believes that "the behavior of the analyst, if it is dictated by benevolence, then and only then becomes the support and strength that the patient needs to overcome the fear that blocks the path to recovery" .

Finally, Villers' fiction is replete with statements about the fundamental role of love; for example: “I contain, therefore, that which is capable of bringing relief to my neighbor; everything that is most exalted in my being has such a purpose, and it is this feeling of the most sincere participation that gives my friend the confidence that he will find in him a cure for his ailments.

Let us not fail here to compare these words with the following statement by Nacht: “No one can cure another unless he has a sincere desire to help him. And no one can have a desire to help if he does not love in the truest sense of the word. This inclination is partly innate, but Nacht believes that "the right attitude is possible only if the analyst succeeds in reducing the eternal ambivalence of man to an inevitable minimum" , which can only be achieved through complete introspection.

To this it must be added that at the present time, when the nature of transference and countertransference is known to the psychoanalyst, the psychotherapeutic situation has become quite different.

Thus we see that some of Mesmer's students, Villers in particular, were aware of the importance of the doctor-patient relationship. Villers was well aware that in some cases such relationships could take on an erotic character, and he warned of the possible dangerous consequences of this. But unlike the academicians, he by no means refused to study the interpersonal relations that take place in magnetism. He recognized interdependence in these relationships, but only in part. Although Villers vaguely conceived of this relationship as a "domestic dependency" between two individuals, and other writers after him spoke of a sense of trust and even attachment that the patient may process belongs to the doctor. It is the desire to cure that is the main, decisive factor in the treatment. So thought | Villers and other magnetizers of the time; they believed either exclusively in the action of the physician's will, or in the combined influence of the will and the fluids. Thus, together with Raymond de i Saussure, it can be said that everything was understood as if the transference is manifested not on the part of the patient, but on the part of the doctor who wants to cure.

This one-sided understanding of the relationship between patient and doctor can be interpreted as the unconscious resistance of magnetizers to acknowledging the complexity of the relationship. The therapist thus protects himself from the affective manifestations of the patient, he maintains a certain distance. (Interestingly, even on the physical plane, technical changes have taken place: direct contact with the patient's body with the help of passes has been replaced by passes at some distance.)

Despite partial recognition by some magnetizers at the beginning of the 19th century. values ​​of interpersonal relationships, resistance in general continued to manifest itself. At the end of the XIX century. well-known hypnotic physicians still refused to acknowledge the significance of the patient's relation to the physician. To avoid the notion of suggestion (the notion of the psychological), they invented metallotherapy, which introduced a physical agent (another relic of fluidism). But even physicians who embarked on the path of psychotherapy showed some unconscious resistance, which (and this is paradoxical) sometimes contributed to the progress of psychotherapy. This may explain Freud's discovery of the concept of transference. We have already mentioned the famous episode with the patient, who showed love for Freud, and the latter's fright. He refused to attribute the incident to his "personal irresistibility." Of course, he preferred to depersonalize himself, giving himself the role of another person, a person whom the patient really loved. This way of looking at things was the starting point for the development of the theory of transference (although Freud's patient may have been physically attracted to him).

Breuer, as we have already seen, had a similar experience with one of his patients, the notorious Anna O., as a result of which he abandoned the study of hysteria. Jones writes that Freud, in order to get Breuer to take up the problem again, told him "how his patient threw herself on his neck in an affective delirium, and explained why these unfortunate incidents should be considered as the result of the phenomenon of transference ...".

Szasz (1963), who studied the defensive aspect of transference, notes that with the introduction of the concept of transference, "Freud effectively reduced the threat of the patient's eroticism." According to Szasz, it was the case of Breuer that prompted Freud to develop this concept: without being personally involved in the case, Freud could remain a cool observer and, therefore, be more likely to find an explanation. However, it seems to us more likely that Freud's own experience (i.e., the episode mentioned above) served as an affective motivation for developing the concept of transference. Indeed, if this was to, in the words of Szasz, "eliminate the threat of the patient's eroticism," then it is more plausible that Freud realized it in the case when he himself felt under the gun.

Whatever the protective nature of transference, Freud still abandoned hypnosis. He had to find transference again in his new method. Fenichel (1953) in The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neuroses notes that Freud's first reaction when confronted with such a phenomenon was surprise. However, it is not clear from the author's text when this happened - when using hypnosis or a new (psychoanalytic) method. The bibliographic reference given by Fenichel refers to the article "The Dynamics of Transference" (1912), which is in no way related to this notorious surprise.

It is true that Freud, in his History of the Psychoanalytic Movement, says this: “We can also say that psychoanalytic theory is an attempt to explain two original and unexpected observations made when we were looking for connections between painful symptoms in neurotics and their sources, i.e., psychoanalytic theory. e. events experienced by patients in the past: we want to talk about transference and about resistance.

Has Fenichel thought about this text? Indeed, Freud is speaking here of a surprising phenomenon, although the above quotation does not allow us to establish under what circumstances this surprise was first expressed.

But be that as it may, by developing the concept of transference, Freud marked the beginning of a new era in psychotherapy.

According to Ferenczi (1952), there is a huge individual difference in the achievements of various hypnotists; some are able to hypnotize only 10% of the subjects, others - 80-90 and even 96%. The author believes that the personable appearance of the hypnotist, his social prestige, self-confidence and even some physical features, such as a black beard (which at one time corresponded to the conventional image of a hypnotist; today's music hall hypnotists are more often beardless and have a sporty appearance) matter here. Finally, Ferenczi remarks that when he started hypnosis, his ignorance gave him self-confidence, which contributed to his success in achieving hypnosis and was subsequently lost.

One of the American psychoanalysts, who has worked prolifically in the field of hypnosis, told us that he began to experience difficulties in hypnotic therapy after he himself underwent psychoanalysis. He wondered if this former desire to hypnotize was not a manifestation of a neurosis. We told him that such an explanation was untenable, since his unwillingness to continue using the method that he considered important in research could be considered as a neurotic symptom. He willingly agreed with us.

Nevertheless, one might think that after psychoanalysis the desire to hypnotize might actually change: apparently, what served as a reward becomes a means of sublimation. It is also possible that, having become more familiar with psychoanalysis, this physician fell under the influence of a very common opinion among psychoanalysts, according to which psychoanalysis, which owes its origin to hypnosis, no longer needs it. Thus, his difficulties were due not only to turning to psychoanalysis to solve his deep problems, but also to the influence of socio-cultural factors, the importance of which was emphasized by Orpe. Psychoanalysts who first became interested in hypnosis had to overcome a certain conformity. The number of such psychoanalysts is increasing (though still limited) because hypnosis is becoming a favored research tool in all areas of experimental psychology and psychotherapy.

Thus, psychoanalysis, derived from hypnosis and allowing a better understanding of it, can in turn be illuminated by it. Unfortunately, relatively few psychoanalysts are still interested in hypnosis. Abandoning hypnosis might have been useful to Freud in his time, but his modern followers do not have the same justification for remaining in a similar position.

A new attempt to elucidate the problem of the personality of the hypnotist was undertaken by Gill and Brenman. They used self-analysis of many hypnotists, observations of psychoanalysts who were treated by hypnotists or who performed hypnosis, and interviewed various researchers. The authors admitted that they could not find characteristic motivations in the personality of the hypnotist. Their results allow, however, to draw certain conclusions. They noted in the hypnotist the desire to play the role of an all-powerful parent; however, such a desire underlies the recognition of a doctor and especially a psychiatrist. Another feature often found in the hypnotist is a penchant for acting, a desire to play a role in a hypnosis session, considered as a game. Many hypnotists seem to feel the need to talk a lot. Finally, such a motive as "the paradoxical need for closeness and distance" plays a significant role. The desire to establish a similar relationship with another human being is experienced by all psychotherapists, but especially by hypnotists.

In conclusion, we can say that no characteristic features in the personality of the hypnotist (or in the personality of the hypnotized person) that explain the susceptibility to hypnosis have been found. In studying this question, it must be taken into account in the most serious way that in hypnosis the personality of the hypnotist and the personality of the hypnotized person are complementary roles. Thus, susceptibility to hypnosis depends on numerous inter and intrapersonal relationships.