In summary then, it would appear at present that we must distin-
guish carefully between induced states of suggestibility and suggested
states of sleep ^*
when speaking of hypnosis. The first is a state of
hypersuggestibility of primary type ^†
which appears to be physiologi-
cally the same as waking. Within this state the second one may be
produced. The latter cannot be distinguished from natural sleep (at
least light sleep) with respect to the psychogalvanic skin reflex and
electroencephalograms when ordinary methods of investigation are
employed. With special and more sensitive techniques there is some
indication that it may be possible to make distinctions in terms of
electroencephalographic and of electrometric measurements. For the
time being, however, we may call the state of hypnotic suggestibility
hypnosis proper and the other state hypnotic sleep.

There are also indications that the borderline state existing between
sleep and wakefulness, and between the latter and (or in) light nar-
cosis, is characterized by similar psychodynamic manifestations which
are also to be found in the induction phase of hypnosis. This may be
a common factor among all these states.

Finally the reality of rapport appears to depend largely on how we
define and use this term. It now appears that the persistence of a
hypnotic state is not dependent on the acceptance by the subject of
all suggestions given to him, or even on his being responsive to the
hypnotist once hypnosis has been induced. As such then, rapport has
no reality. On the other hand, it is quite real as a state of variable
and restricted awareness associated with a state of hypersuggesti-
bility. ^‡
As such, it is a function of both present and past events as
they enter into the defining of the hypnotic situation for the subject.

-100-