Like much of Tart's other work "studying" the paranormal[1], this is pseudoscience. There is no good evidence for hypnosis.
> There is no good evidence for hypnosis.
That's just ridiculous.
Depends on your definition of 'hypnosis'. There are some pretty prosaic definitions that are clearly and repeatably demonstrable. There are also, at the other end of the spectrum, some pretty extraordinary claims for "what it is" and "what it can do". The former is riduculous, and for the latter, skepticism seems to be prudent, pending further articulation.
Well, yeah.
The best book on hypnosis I know of opens with one of the co-authors stating that "there's no such thing as hypnosis" and the other stating "everything is hypnosis".
> The former is ridiculous ...
The "clearly and repeatably demonstrable" definitions are ridiculous?
Yes, that's from "TRANCE-formations" by Bandler and Grinder.
And, yeah, for my money, Heller's "Monsters and Magical Sticks: There's No Such Thing as Hypnosis?" is the other best book on the subject. Well met.