Nash Michael R
Psychology Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 37996-0900, USA.
Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2005 Jul;53(3):265-80. doi: 10.1080/00207140590961934.
The APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis is laudable in some respects. For instance, the committee rightly defines the "induction" as nothing more or less than the first suggestion after the introduction. However, the definition stumbles over its nonposition on whether the word hypnosis must be uttered during the procedure. This equivocation invites research designs that preemptively define a hypnotic group and a control group in terms of whether or not the word hypnosis is used in the protocol. These designs represent a backslide into naive operationism; they reveal little new about human nature or hypnosis. The field deserves an optimally heuristic definition that preserves pluralism and is relatively resistant to the teflon shield of preemptive definition. Researchers and practioners require a definition that recognizes the incompleteness of our concepts, generates a level epistemological playing field, and enables hypnosis theories to "reach."
美国心理学会第30分会对催眠的定义在某些方面值得称赞。例如，该委员会正确地将“诱导”定义为在开场后给出的第一个建议，不多也不少。然而，该定义在催眠过程中是否必须说出“催眠”这个词这一问题上含糊不清。这种模棱两可引发了一些研究设计，这些设计根据方案中是否使用“催眠”一词来预先定义一个催眠组和一个对照组。这些设计是倒退到天真的操作主义；它们几乎没有揭示关于人性或催眠的新内容。该领域需要一个最优的启发性定义，既能保持多元性，又相对不易受到预先定义这一“不粘锅护盾”的影响。研究人员和从业者需要一个能认识到我们概念不完整性、创造一个公平的认识论竞争环境并使催眠理论能够“有所发展”的定义。
