I received an email from a reader asking a few questions about my approach to hypnosis. I responded to his email and thought you might find my answers helpful.

(The reader's questions are in bold. My answers and comments are in regular text.)

What is your foundation or basis for asserting that hypnosis is a change in an emotional state?

I have been a hypnotist for 30 years. Over those 30 years, I have hypnotized countless humans (both overtly and covertly), conducted studies on the subject, and tested various theories that I postulated. As a result, I discovered what works and what doesn't — at least, for me.

There are unlimited methods to hypnotize humans, and I have concluded that changing emotional state is a necessary element independent of the method used. And with that said, I always welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong. That's how I grow and become more effective and efficient. If I discover a better working theory, I will begin using and teaching it.

A number of years back, a man named Fuentes wrote a couple of books for the pickup community. In those books, he suggested using language to evoke emotional states in females. While he did not seem to mention hypnosis, he was definitely suggesting a method to "entrance" or influence females. Did you get a chance to read any of his material? Did you test any of it out? Did you use similar technology when you helped men with relationship or dating problems?

Every time you communicate with another human, you change their emotional state. During the process of changing emotional states, your conversation partner becomes suggestible. This means that you are able to influence them to adopt new ideas, take action, go on a date with you, get that birthday present you always wanted, and much more.

I am not familiar with Fuentes, but I would imagine he inflated the suggestibility factor when instructing his students. Most of the pickup community touted their ability to persuade women in their marketing material and books but could not successfully demonstrate it in real life. There are no hypnotic words that will miraculously get a woman to go home with you.

The key to appearing attractive to other humans is being confident and making others feel good. Focus on the human you are speaking with as if they are the most interesting individual on Earth and genuinely care about what they are communicating to you.

Are there other more widely recognized hypnotists which seem to hold the same idea of linking changing emotions to change in emotional state, being equivalent to what is commonly called a hypnotic or trance state?

I would start with Milton Erickson.

Erickson was a psychiatrist who specialized in hypnosis. He was the founding president of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis.

Erickson states in "Two-Level Communication and the Microdynamics of Trance and Suggestion." The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, Volume 18, 1976 - Issue 3...

Whenever attention is fixated with a question or an experience of the amazing, the unusual, or anything that holds a person's interest. At such moments people experience the common everyday trance; and get that faraway or blank look. Their eyes may actually close, their bodies tend to become immobile (a form of catalepsy), certain reflexes (e.g., swallowing, respiration, etc.) may be suppressed, and they seem momentarily oblivious to their surroundings until they have completed their inner search on the unconscious level for the new idea, response, or frames of reference that will re-stabilize their general reality orientation. We hypothesize that in everyday life consciousness is in a continual state of flux between the general reality orientation and the momentary micro-dynamics of trance.

I recommend that you research Richard Bandler and John Grinder as well. Bandler and Grinder studied Erickson and codified his methods.

How would you respond to those who say that hypnosis or trance is not at all a state?

I would agree. Hypnosis is not a noun; it is a verb.

The three conditions of hypnosis (trance), all of which are processes — are fixation of attention, the distraction of the conscious mind, and focus directed inward.

To better illustrate this, remember a time when you found yourself fully immersed in an activity. This could have been reading a good book, watching a great film, or listening to fantastic music.

• During that time, your attention was focused on one thing — the book, the film, or the music.

• Your conscious mind was distracted. In other words, you were so into what you were doing (reading, watching, or listening) that you were unaware of what was going on around you. For example, I have stood next to one of my children and said their name multiple times while they played a video game, and they were not aware that I was speaking to them.

• You were in your head. You were creating the story from the book within your mind, virtually living what was happening in the movie, or not just hearing the music but feeling it move through your body — some humans see music. You may have even been transported to a specific moment in your life that the song is associated with.

You can recognize someone experiencing trance. They tend to gaze off and have that "far away" or "blank" look, or they may even close their eyes. Their body tends to become relatively immobile. For example, things like swallowing, blinking, and breathing become slower. Humans in trance also seem momentarily unaware of their surroundings.

Everyday life is in constant flux between external reality and momentary trance states. When humans are in trance, they set aside their critical minds and become more suggestible. In other words, they are easily influenced and are primed to accept new ideas and possibilities.

Note that everything I explained is a process.

I am not at all thinking that you are incorrect in asserting that by changing someone else's emotional state, you have induced hypnosis. I adore the concept, really. But I want to be able first to explain it more fully to myself before I take it on board. I am also attempting to integrate the theory with other theories which say that hypnosis (or the result of hypnosis as a process) is not a state at all. It is not lost on me that the word itself is a nominalization when it is not used to refer to a process, so there are likely as many definitions of hypnosis as a state, none of which have reality.

That is correct. Many different paths lead to the same destination. My philosophy is to adopt the easiest and quickest approach for my subjects and me.