==very bad article== 
 I just made some changes that I'm sure will bother some people.  I cleaned up and removed some biases from a few sections and even removed a couple paragraphs.  I didn't want to, but the article is so incredibly biased.  It sounds like it came from 1960s academia rather than modern hypnosis or even 1960 hypnotherapy.   Claims like "anyone could be hypnotised except perhaps the very young."   What is that about?  Modern hypnotherapy knows that young children are amongst the easiest to hypnotise.  Also the suggestibility studies need to be better referenced and discussed.  They some real harm to the field of hypnosis.  The main criticisim is that they had a single induction tried on many people and then drew all sorts of conclusions about hypnotizability that are just plain wrong.  There is no single induction in hypnosis.  It's a dynamic experience with constant two web feedback going on.   I hope someone will rewrite this whole article.  I thnk it needs to be written in a way that covers all the major views without bias, have proper formatting structure, and definitely stops taking the 1960s academic views for granted.