Milton H. Erickson
Unpublished paper written in the 1960s.
A student majoring in experimental psychology became greatly interested in hypnosis, and in the fall of 1923 he asked the author to collaborate with him in a special study. This project was to be a comparison and contrasting of the somnambulistic behaviors of different subjects in exhibiting various types of hypnotic phenomena. In preparation he had been training a number of volunteer subjects to develop somnambulistic trances. He proposed that the author participate with him in taking one of the better subjects and inducing a profound somnambulistic trance. Then, working together, they could use that subject to formulate a systematic procedure by which hypnotic phenomena could be elicited in an orderly and related fashion. The author readily accepted this offer.
At the appointed time the author was introduced to the volunteer subject, a third-year student majoring in literature, obviously a highly intelligent and perceptive person. As the introductions were made, the psychology student, Mr. H, casually handed the author a sealed envelope indicating that it was to be read at some later time.
The subject was remarkably competent, and a long series of tasks was done by him. As a final task, he was asked, at the request of the psychology student, to write three brief sentences pertaining to his childhood. These were not to be read immediately.
Instead, the paper bearing them was to be folded and placed for safekeeping in a convenient book, the object being a test for hypnotic amnesia and to determine the processes of reassociation in recovering hypnotically repressed memories.
The subject was then awakened and there developed an extensive discussion of hypnotic phenomena in general and the
hypnotic subject’s behavior specifically, in which the subject tried to participate but could not do so successfully because of hypnotic amnesia. Finally the general question was raised by the psychology student concerning the possibility of successfully pretending to be in a trance, and what was there about the volunteer subject’s trance behavior that would render it difficult for another to duplicate it by pretending to be in a trance? Wholly unsuspecting, the author made many dogmatic assertions, finally being brought to a painful halt by the request that he examine the contents of the envelope handed him when he first entered the room. Perusal of the contents disclosed the message, signed by the volunteer subject, “Tonight I am going to give a fake performance of every hypnotic act you suggest to me, and I am going to pretend to write automatically three brief sentences about my early childhood which will read as follows . . .” —and three sentences were appended. Checking with the folded sheet of “automatic writing” confirmed the author’s unhappy predicament. A few questions put to the subject gave abundant proof that the author had been most thoroughly hoaxed.
There followed a complete account by the psychology student of his systematic instruction and coaching of the, subject, who was an experienced actor majoring in drama; by having him study the somnambulistic behavior of hypnotic subjects and then imitate it. The actor proved to be an apt pupil, and he was personally interested in the project since it presented to him an opportunity for special training in acting. When the actor judged that he could perform creditably, the psychologist proposed the experimental testing of the imitation by undertaking to deceive the author. This, if successful, would then be followed by an experimental study of actual and pretended hypnosis to be done by the psychologist and, it was hoped, by the author. The statement was made that the author was now so thoroughly sensitized that he would be a most able and critical judge of pretense and actuality.
The proposal was made that a joint study could now be developed and that the next step might logically be the converse of what had already been done. That is, now that it had been demonstrated that the operator could be deceived, could the “subject” be deceived?
Discussion of this led to the experimental plan of securing another experienced actor. Both the psychologist and the first actor would coach him with the purported intention of deceiving the author. However, the author, being fully aware of the situation, would then be in a position to maneuver the subject out of his deceptive role without betraying that fact to the subject. Just how this was to be done would be the author’s task; the training of the next actor would be their task.
The second actor, another drama major, was decidedly competent. He could sneeze repeatedly, cough, gag, retch, even vomit, shed tears, and chatter his teeth, among other things, at will. He was given to understand that the author was exceedingly well experienced in hypnosis and that the purpose to be served was not just a hoax but a serious enterprise in comparing and contrasting behavioral manifestations in waking and hypnotic states. He recognized the validity of this proposal and also recognized his own
opportunity to learn something more about acting.
The student and the two actors, together with a half-dozen good somnambulistic subjects who were unaware of the actors’
purposes, worked hard training the subject until the psychologist and the first actor were certain of the second actor’s competence.
When this task had been finally accomplished, the author was introduced to both actors by the graduate student, thereby adding further to the appearance of a hoax. The author pretended to make a choice of the two actors, Mr. A and Mr. B, as possible
volunteer subjects by tossing and catching a coin and announcing his reading of it as indicating that the second actor, Mr. B, had been selected by chance as the first subject to be hypnotized.
As a preliminary measure of further confirmation for Mr. B that a hoax was being perpetrated upon the author, Mr. A was instructed in great detail to be most attentive to the author’s trance induction of Mr. B and of Mr. B’s hypnotic responses so that
“perhaps you can learn mom rapidly and effectively how to go into a trance, perhaps even to go into a trance most unexpectedly.” This last (italicized) statement was said with impressive but soft emphasis, glancing from one to the other of the two actors. Both the student and Mr. A tended to disregard the meaning of the statement because of their awareness of the situation.
Mr. B was impressed by the emphasis but assumed it was meant to be meaningful only to Mr. A. Hence, he ignored it as personally intended. Thus both A and B heard a significant suggestion, but each assumed it to have no significance for himself, and was merely intended to carry a special message for the other person.
Then the author went through an eye-fixation and lid-closure technique of induction and elicited from his “subject” an excellent highly creditable imitation of somnambulistic phenomena. However, there was, to the author, no question that the hypnotic behavior was not genuine, but it was also apparent to him that to differentiate descriptively between the genuine and the false would be most difficult.
As apparently the last activity, the author suggested that automatic writing be done. A full, laboriously elaborate description of this was offered, and then, to the astonishment of Mr. A and the psychology student, Mr. A was asked to join Mr. B in this activity.
They were told to walk slowly across the laboratory floor and to seat themselves in an upright position in the two chairs already in place on opposite sides of a laboratory table. In front of them they would find pencils and a paper pad on which to write. As they sat down, they were to pick up a pencil, place their hands in a writing position, and stare rigidly and continuously only at the eyes of the other. They were to walk in unison to their separate sides of the table, to pick up their pencils in unison—everything was to be done slowly, deliberately, and in unison. Nothing at all was said about Mr. A developing hypnosis, and no explanatory look was given to him or to the psychology student. As the two slowly took their seats, picked up their pencils, and positioned their hands, the author placed in front of each a screen, explaining to them that the screen would allow them to see only each other’s eyes alone but neither their hands nor those of the other. Then, as they continued to look steadily at one another’s eyes, they were to write in unison at the rate of not more than one letter every three to five seconds until they had written a brief sentence, very brief, about some forgotten event of October 1917. When they had written as instructed, they were silently to move their hands from the pad still holding the pencil. And they were to continue staring steadily into each other’s eyes.
From a position of vantage the author kept both under full observation and silently, in a most expectant manner, waited. Fifteen minutes elapsed before the task was completed, being first accomplished in five minutes by Mr. A. Then Mr. B completed his writing, doing it at first in a most hesitant manner and then much more slowly than the other but seemingly in an improved state of comfort. They were both then instructed to rise slowly, still facing each other, then to turn and to walk in unison to the north end of the room, where they would note a chalked circle on the floor. They were to stand silently at attention facing each other from
opposite sides of the circle. Immediately as they assumed their position, the author instructed them, “Now, Mr. A and Mr. B, continue to look at each other, but as you do so, each of you is to assume the identity, the personality of the other. This is to be done even as I am giving these instructions and will be completed as I finish this sentence. [Pause.] Now maintain the status quo. I shall leave the room for five minutes, and while I am gone, you will continue to maintain the status quo and you will do so after I return until I instruct you otherwise and all instructions you will obey exactly .” The author left the room, quietly pocketing the automatic writing on his way.
As soon as the author had left the room, the psychology student, as he related subsequently, had remarked, “Wonder what he is up to now!” and looked expectantly at the two actors. To his astonishment, he found that both were in a deep trance and completely out of rapport with him. He spent the next few minutes desperately trying to establish rapport and to solve the problem the situation constituted.
As the author reentered the room (the departure had been to give the psychology student an opportunity to discover the
situation, and his facial expression betrayed that he had), he addressed the subjects, “My colleague is now going to ask one of you to arouse as you are . You will be aware of him until you note that he is addressing the other, and then that one only will be aware of him.” The fellow student was handed a written message reading, “Say to them, ‘I am now speaking to you and I want you just as you are to awaken now, Mr. B.’” The student was astonished when Mr. A aroused and looked questioningly and bewilderedly at his fellow actor, the psychology student, the author, and then appeared to note his position in a puzzled way and to glance
uncertainly at the chair over at the laboratory table. He was obviously at a loss to understand his situation. He was asked, “Would you like to speak or ask something?” “I certainly would! How did Jack get into my clothes [a startled facial expression and he looked down at himself], and how did I get into his? Not a bad fit, but I don’t want them!” He proceeded to divest himself of his
jacket, placing it upon a chair. He was asked to drop that matter and to explain how he felt. His answer was simply that he was too bewildered to think, and his eyes kept straying to his colleague, to the jacket on the chair and the trousers he was wearing. He seemed incapable of thinking spontaneously about anything else.
The second subject was then aroused by first touching his arm and then saying, “I am shortly going to ask you to awaken. Let me repeat, I alone, am going to ask you to awaken. Do so now!” Promptly the pseudo-Mr. A aroused and looked expectantly at the author. His colleague asked, “Why are you wearing my clothes, Jack?” but received no reply. It soon became apparent that the pseudo-Mr. A was in rapport with the author only and that he was simply passively awaiting instructions from the author. When it was judged that the situation was fully as clear as it could be to the others, the author flicked a glance at the jacket on the chair. The subject glanced at it, his face assumed a puzzled look, he glanced at the jacket he was wearing, glanced back at the jacket on the chair, then seemed to be struck with a new thought and glanced at his trousers. The author gave no encouragement to him that might lead to speaking. In troubled silence the subject looked around, noted the chairs at the table and the chalked circle but still continued not to see the others present.
There followed a great variety of manipulations, removing the amnesia from one, then restoring it, suggesting the return of the correct identity of one but not of the other, then reversing this until both actors and the psychology student were without doubt as to the genuineness of their hypnotic behavior and its marked difference from nonhypnotic behavior. But particularly bewildering to both A and B were their separately available memories of being in a trance, of being depersonalized, recalling their bewilderment when seemingly in the wrong clothes, and their inability to know when or how they developed a trance, and noting the ease with which the author could induce amnesias in the other upon request.
Finally, the author asked both separately (sending one out of the room while the other was questioned) about when they first developed a trance state. Both, after careful study of their recollections, offered the spontaneous statement that their last waking state memory dealt with “walking over together and sitting down in a chair and looking at [the other].” Beyond this neither could go.
Indirect inquiry soon disclosed that neither remembered about the automatic writing, and when mention was made of automatic writing, both expressed a willingness to try it. The author repositioned the chair, seated them, and asked them, as a form of practice in writing, to “Just snatch three words out of nowhere that you don’t remember and just write them down.” This statement was given with careful emphasis. Both obeyed, with puzzled looks, and one noted that he had written “Me swim cold” while the other had written “Police arrested me.” Extensive questioning by the author and the psychology student, who was following the author’s lead, failed to establish any meaningfulness for the written words. The one stated that he had never been arrested, the other said he had done a lot of swimming when it was cold but otherwise what he had written was without meaning. When their lack of
understanding had been obviously clearly defined, the author handed each his previously done automatic writing, saying with quiet emphasis, “Remember!”
Both did so amazedly. First they recalled the actual experiences, a fall out of a boat and swimming ashore, the other an arrest for a Halloween prank. Then they recovered the approximate date in October 1917, and then they noted that the automatic script was definitely of a rounded, childish character, quite unlike their own regular handwriting.
Among the many aspects of the evening’s events reviewed and speculated upon was how a trance had been induced in them. B was chagrined to find that the author had in some way outmaneuvered him and was intrigued to know that A had hoaxed the author.
A could only express his astonishment that he had been in some indirect way hypnotized, but he could not offer even an approximate guess of how it had happened. They were told that the author would describe the plan he had worked out in detail before coming to the laboratory, describing in detail the steps. If this seemed to be wrong, they were to say so. If the steps were correctly stated, or approximately so, they were to sense whatever was the degree of correctness the described step had .
The explanation was: “While Mr. B was faking so competently under the impression, that he was deceiving me, quite possibly Mr. B was wondering if I would use Mr. A. Unquestionably he expected me to do so because of the coin tossing, which was only a pretense of deciding which was to be the subject. But only the author knew this. At the same time Mr. A was also undoubtedly wondering the same thing. Also, Mr. B was intensely concerned about giving the best possible performance he could. Mr. A, of course, knew that I was aware of the situation and that I was probably planning some special work concerning the actual deception of Mr. B despite Mr. B’s belief that he was deceiving me. This special plan presumably might involve hypnosis. Mr. A could not know if the hypnosis involved him or Mr. B or both of them, but he could wonder. Yet I asked nothing of Mr. A except
participation in an automatic-writing situation. The request was made that they walk in unison, sit down in unison , pick up the pencils, and so on, all in unison. This was not a request for deceptive behavior but a request for a different kind of behavior than what had been presented by either A or B previously. In responding to the request, Mr. A had thought of possible hypnosis in mind for himself and possibly for Mr. B, and the peculiar character of the task took Mr. B completely out of his role of behaving deceptively. He had to act differently, but how? They were to see only each other’s eyes , and this was further emphasized by openly restricting their visual fields. They were being helplessly manipulated. The writing instructions they were given were worded purposely to create a totally new writing situation for them, one in which they wrote slowly, laboriously, as they had in their remote past. The very situation compelled them to cooperate, but they could not determine for themselves how to cooperate. The
instruction about the writing was intended to evoke a childhood pattern of script that would in turn elicit an actual age regression.
instruction about the writing was intended to evoke a childhood pattern of script that would in turn elicit an actual age regression.