{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03372093023255814, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023255813953488372, 'mean_word_length': 5.1063829787234045, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Hypnosis: Statehood at Last

, 2005). At the time of the 1993 and 2003 def- initions (Green, Barabasz, Barrett, & Montgomery, 2005; Kirsch, 1994), the phrase was peculiarly controversial among professionals in our field. My understanding of why members on both previous committees vetoed the terms “state” and “state of conscious- ness” was a sense that it might somehow diminish the importance of research on social demand or personality traits influencing response to hypnosis. I think this was always a false dichotomy. When any hypnosis researcher really stopped and thought about it, we all endorsed that interpersonal situations, subjective experience, and brain function were all aspects of hypnosis, just as they are aspects of any human experience. I hope the current definition represents a genuine change from that dichotomous thinking and conflict.