Discussion of T. X. barber'S “Hypnosis as a causal variable in present day psychology: A critical analysis”

Abstract

Barber's statement that we abandon the term hypnosis presupposes that it must be rigidly defined and that a proper definition must denote “necessary and sufficient” conditions. Neither proposition is valid since hypnosis is essentially a human response. Barber's variables are endowed with a flexibility denied to hypnosis, which is relegated to being a ghost-in-the-machine. The science of variables is opposed to the ambiguous term hypnosis because it denotes too many variations in technique and response. Nevertheless, the objective science of variables may only appear objective because it omits “areas of life” to which its methods do not apply.