I'm a professional hypnotist (15 years of practice) and this is hands-down the best mainstream article on hypnotism I've read in years. Fitting phenomenology into science has often struck me as trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, but I'm glad to see scientific validation for knowledge that hypnotists have had for a long time. For example, my practice also assesses 10-15% of our clients as very low or very high in suggestibility (although I've never heard the term 'lows' or 'highs' before). In this situation, science is studying what practitioners are already doing or already know.

Most of the public discourse around hypnosis has to do with whether it's a distinct state of mind and whether it has any real effect. In my opinion, this is already settled (yes and yes). The unanswered questions, and problems to solve, have to do with what you communicate to somebody who is hypnotized so that you are giving them helpful thinking that will improve their quality of life, rather than fantasies that vanish once they open their eyes. This is the work of philosophy, and it's where the most interesting work lies ahead, even if many people (even practitioners) are not recognizing it yet.

If people stop smoking once they adopt the worldview of a nonsmoker, feel socially comfortable once they believe they're fundamentally an equal to the other people in the room or sleep better once they're satisfied that they're perfectly safe and secure, perhaps these problems are not as medical as we frame them.