Frischholz Edward J
a Rush North Shore Medical Center.
Am J Clin Hypn. 2015;57(2):137-46. doi: 10.1080/00029157.2015.967075.
I believe the paper by Kirsch, Mazzoni, and Montgomery (this issue) should surprise about 95% of ASCH members (maybe only 93% of SCEH members) because the three facts espoused in their paper speciously seem to be 100% true. To paraphrase from their abstract: 1) nothing that can be produced by hypnotic induction plus suggestion cannot also be produced by suggestion alone; 2) administration of a hypnotic induction does not produce a meaningful increase in response to suggestion relative to suggestion alone; and 3) responsivity to suggestions are highly correlated to responsivity on the same measure when preceded by a hypnotic induction ceremony. In order to persuade that these propositions are true, several objections to them must be addressed. However, just because one's facts are true does not mean that one's interpretation of the facts and their interrelationships are also true. The ramifications of the above facts and their interrelationships for the future of professional hypnosis (experimental, clinical and forensic) are identified and discussed.
我认为基尔希、马佐尼和蒙哥马利（本期）的论文应该会让大约95%的美国临床催眠学会成员（也许只有93%的社会临床与实验催眠学会成员）感到惊讶，因为他们论文中所支持的三个观点看似确凿无疑地100%正确。意译自他们的摘要：1）通过催眠诱导加暗示所能产生的任何效果，仅通过暗示也能产生；2）相对于仅进行暗示而言，进行催眠诱导并不会使对暗示的反应有显著增加；3）在进行催眠诱导仪式后，对暗示的反应性与在相同测量方式下的反应性高度相关。为了说服人们相信这些观点是正确的，必须回应针对它们的若干反对意见。然而，仅仅因为某人提出的事实是真实的，并不意味着此人对这些事实及其相互关系的解释也是正确的。上述事实及其相互关系对专业催眠（实验性、临床性和法医性）未来发展的影响将被识别并加以讨论。
