THE THREE FACES OF EVE August 20, 1998

Pre-Movie Introduction:
Dr. Bruce Fuchs:
My name is Bruce Fuchs and I'm the director of the Office of Science Education here at the National Institutes of Health. The Office of Science Education has sponsored this Science in the Cinema film festival for the past five years.

Welcome to the fifth week of our summer 1998 program. We have an interesting film for you this evening and a very interesting speaker. How many of you noticed this article in last Monday's Washington Post: "Psychologist labels Sybil fiction?" How many of you saw this? Okay, I'm estimating about–we'll show the folks at home–I'm estimating about 20 percent. Now what that tells me about you is that the other 80 percent of you got stuck on this: "Clinton prepares for historic test." Okay, all right.

Tonight, we have a wonderful guest speaker. His name is Dr. Paul McHugh. He's the chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins. And we will hear from him right after tonight's film which is The Three Faces of Eve. It won an Academy Award and a Golden Globe for the leading actress, Joanne Woodward. So let's go ahead and watch tonight's film.

Post-Movie Discussion:
Dr. Bruce Fuchs:
Good evening. We've just watched The Three Faces of Eve, a 1957 film about a woman who was believed to have multiple personality disorder. This film won the Best Actress award for Joanne Woodward who portrayed the three personalities of Eve. And to talk to us tonight about multiple personality disorder, we're very fortunate to have with us Dr. Paul McHugh of the Johns Hopkins University. Dr. McHugh received his medical doctor's degree from Harvard University. He did an internship at Brigham and Women's Hospital. He was a resident at the Massachusetts General Hospital, where he worked in neurology and neuropathology. He studied psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry at the University of London and also at the Division of Neuropsychiatry at the Walter Reed Army Research Institute. He is presently chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University. So please help me welcome tonight's guest, Dr. Paul McHugh. [applause].

Dr. Paul McHugh:
Thank you very much, Bruce. And that's quite somebody to follow. I'm following after Joanne Woodward. Tough. You can see why her husband loves her and certainly she gave a very persuasive presentation of this issue that we are going to talk about a bit tonight. The most important thing to say before I start is that multiple personality disorder is a condition that needs treatment, and as you'll probably hear in the questions, there are a number of aspects about the treatment that I disagree with in some of its forms and I certainly disagree with the implications of this film.

Before I start talking, I do want to say that if there are people who are presently in treatment for multiple personality disorder, I really think you ought to think about whether you want to listen to what I'm going to say, as it might–I don't have a therapeutic relationship with you and what I'm here to talk about is the issues as I see them in the contemporary era, and I don't want to hurt anybody. And so that's a bit of a warning really about what you're going to hear me say. Because what I am going to say is quite counter to the concept really shown in this film, so beautifully, so persuasively, and so powerfully.

And the issue in this film is the claim that multiple personality is something that somebody has and that they have it in relationship to some psychological response to a life experience.

And I'm going to try briefly and then, we'll open it for discussion, to talk about what I believe is the way to look at this condition. And if I can show the first slide...

Multiple personality disorder had until really the late 70's been a relatively rare disease, rare disorder, and this was the standard teaching about it that I learned when I was a resident and it is the opinion that I hold today, namely that multiple personalities are always artificial productions, the product of the medical attention that they arouse.

The film certainly showed you how interesting it would be to any doctor, let alone anyone else, to see such a performance and this was Mayer-Gross, Slater and Roth's opinion in 1969 and it is my opinion today. That opinion though is not just shared by us; many others have shared this really from the beginning of recognizing multiple personality in the 19th century.

I very much recommend this book by Michael Kenny, published by the Smithsonian Press in 1988, discussing some of the classical multiple personality patients of the 19th century, particularly Ansel Bourne, in which he demonstrated very clearly from the record that the multiple personality issues that Ansel Bourne presented when he left home and wandered in Massachusetts and Rhode Island were really artifacts and done for reasons of his own and that served purposes in the social network that he was within.

In fact, it's in these several books that you'll see the term "hysteria" applied to multiple personality. And I want to make sure you understand what psychiatrists mean by hysteria. They do not mean excessive emotions. They mean a behavior in which a person imitates a medical, surgical, or psychological condition. And this is really–takes the next step then in this case. Hysteria is not something a patient has; it's something the patient does. Hysteria is a behavior and multiple personality is just such a behavior and you saw it vividly depicted.

Let me pass that–expand on that definition. Hysteria is a behavior engaged in more or less unwittingly by the patient. It's not a malignant fraud or anything of that sort, but it is a behavior that imitates a medical, surgical, or psychiatric disorder through such actions as complaining of symptoms–symptoms of aches and pains–or producing signs like paralyses, multiple personalities and the like, where certain privileges, considerations, and attitudes from others can be expected.

Hysteria appears in many guises: pains, weaknesses, nausea, amnesia, mutism, paralysis of the arms or legs, blindness, deafness, faints, seizures, choreiform movements–that is, twisting movements, or several personalities. All of these things have been seen in patients with hysteria.

I'd like you just to see these four points. They're fundamental to what I'm going to say. Hysteria rests on the patient's belief that he or she is sick. Patients believe that they have multiple personalities. They really do believe and show that. As I say, they are not attempting to defraud you, but the patients in fact are troubled by a variety of other mental illnesses–co-morbid mental or physical illnesses, adjustment disorders to their life at the moment, personality troubles–but there is no specific pathology, no particular specific psychological or somatic condition or even any particular life experience that necessarily produces hysterical behavior. The patients really are responding to the socio-cultural prompts that specify both the forms and the explanations for hysterical presentations. They are prompted by the interest of doctors and by the things which are happening and the prevelance of hysteria waxes and wanes with cultural attitudes and belief systems.

In fact, there have been four major epidemics of hysteria all of which resemble, and of which this is an example, the recent explosion of multiple personality disorder in the United States. All of these meet the criteria that I mentioned to you. The bewitchment hysteria of the Salem witch trials and of the witch trials throughout the world where people believed that they were being injured, tortured, hurt by witches; the animal magnetism hysteria of Mesmer in the 1780's in France that was eventually exposed by Benjamin Franklin; the hystero-epilepsy of Charcot in the 1880's in the Salpetriere in Paris; and the MPD clinics and dissociative clinics that have had their heyday really right up until the early 90's, from about mid-1975 to mid-1995.

Now, I'm going to show you why I think that. Let me just remind you what happened in the Salem witch trials. Here's a little painting of the Salem witch trials in which you see a patient accusing George Borroughs here of causing her pain, causing her to have difficulty sleeping, and you see everyone's pointing to them as they are claiming in this picture that they already feel him pinching them even though he is sitting there doing nothing. They believe that he has the power to cause them to faint as on the left-hand side and to exert his powers across distance–a so-called spectral power–and the judges are there about to sentence him to death, because they believe that right here, they have seen the spectral evidence of his behavior.

Here is the Mesmer situation where, on the left hand side, you see the swooning woman who believes that the animal magnetism that is for Mesmer to control has been blocked in some way and she needs his extra help to regain consciousness.

I want to spend a little bit more time describing the Charcot experience in the Salpetriere. This is the picture of Jean Martin Charcot, the great neuropsychiatrist of the 1880's in Paris. He was running a hospital where they had combined in one ward people who were emotionally unstable–the people they called hysterical then–and people with epilepsy. Charcot was an expert neuro-examiner and went from bed to bed examining the epileptic patients for their neurological symptoms. And gradually in the process, the emotionally unstable people began to imitate the behavior of the epileptics.

Charcot believed that he had discovered a new condition, and he referred to it as hystero-epilepsy, a condition that he believed was physiologically generated and crossed the brain-mind barrier. And he depicted a number of features that he thought were signs of them. Here is a picture of such a patient in a so-called epileptic seizure, really a hystero-epileptic seizure. The flexing of the wrists was a sign that Charcot believed in.

Here is Charcot demonstrating such patients to the world–the patient here held up. You can see her hand is flexed in the typical hystero-epileptic fashion. All these men on the other side–doctors and other people from Paris–could come in and Charcot would demonstrate these.

Now, there are two people there of real importance. Notice that the only person really caring much about the patient is the nurse, the only other woman in the room. The man who is holding her up is Joseph Babinski, a person who became very famous in neurology. And he's the only person whoever doubted Charcot and he began to hold the opinion that in point of fact, Charcot had created this epilepsy in these patients, that it wasn't a natural phenomenon, but rather an artifact due to the attention Charcot was showering on these patients as he tried to examine them. Charcot hated this idea. In Paris in those days speaking rudely to the professor got you into trouble. It doesn't do that any more, I'm sorry to say. You can say anything it seems and we professors have to get used to it. But it's good. It's good. I'm not complaining.

At any rate, Charcot wouldn't accept this idea and Babinski kept saying, "Listen, these people are getting worse under our eyes." And in fact, one day, a whole group of them began to take on even new behaviors; more and more of this behavior happened. And here's a picture of a group of them that every time the bells rang in the institution, they would freeze into a particular posture and stay there until the bells rang again. The bells rang a lot I gather in the Salpetriere in those days. With this, Charcot decided, look, maybe we are inducing it in what we're asking and saying to the patients. And they decided that they would treat them in two special ways. That is, first of all, they would separate them from the epileptic patients and they would stop examining them in quite that way, but simply talk to them about the here and now. And with that, and with the replacement of Charcot by another professor, all of this disappeared and we recognize that this was an artifact.

This is the way to look at artifacts of the hysterical kind, whatever they are. Epileptic, the belief in witches, the belief in animal magnetism and the behavior, that sort of hysterical symptoms. They relate in a social way to the pull from the physician beliefs that are often generated by socio-medical concepts and pushed by the patient's belief that they match those to produce more and more hysterical symptoms.

In the case of The Three Faces of Eve, when it published and the film went out, there was a mini-epidemic of multiple personality generated by the patients' beliefs–patients were troubled in other ways–and physicians' interest in it produced a mini-epidemic that lasted only for a few years and then it disappeared only to reappear with the publication of Sybil in the paperback industry.

Bruce talked to you a little bit about Sybil; two people have now come forward to say this was truly an artifact. Herbert Spiegel who saw Sybil and her doctor and the author of this book and now, this new report out of the APA from Robert Rieber.

What Sybil did–the book Sybil couldn't get into the scientific literature. It was published in a paperback, but it became a tremendous best seller because it claimed something more. Not only was there trauma, such as was thought in The Three Faces of Eve, but it was thought to be specifically sexual trauma from a parent in infancy that was repressed and forgotten. The problem was there was very little effort made to try to confirm the traumas of Sybil, and in particular, the idea that memories could be repressed, and if they were repressed you wouldn't have to check them, led to the development of the whole idea of robust repression behind multiple personality disorder.

Robust repression says that in contrast to what we've always thought before, that you could block out whole periods of time when trauma occurred, usually sexual trauma with a trusted individual. This idea is a very slippery slope and very soon in many places, people did slip. In the late 1970's, after Sybil, Michelle Remembers appeared when the claim that the forgotten memories were that of satanic ritual abuse. Michelle has said under hypnosis to remember being repeatedly raped and vilely abused by her parents who were members of a satanic cult and were worshipers of Satan.

There was never any evidence found of that but from this book was generated a whole exercise of santanic ritual abuse beliefs that led the F.B.I. to look carefully for them. There was no more evidence for the santanic ritual abuse and satanic ritual celebrations in our country than there was for the witchcraft proposals of the sixteenth, seventeenth century. No bags of bones were found, no robes, no nothing. Repressed memories and hypnotic inductions made it possible for that idea to be resurrected.

Finally, to show you just how slippery the slope could be, in the early 1980's came Communion, and as you know, the belief among some--- by the way, I'm talking mostly about people who are working in academic centers and in this case, we're talking about the Harvard Medical School where Dr. Mack believes that with Communion, that in fact the traumas people are forgetting are being carried off by aliens in spacecraft and somehow abused at the asteroid belt. When I put that out--- by the way, if anyone thinks that anyone is being carried off by aliens, there's nothing that I'm going to say to them that's going to make any difference. I put that out there to show you just how far–and what a loose cannon repression is as a concept. Of course there's child abuse. I'm not sure that Sybil was child abuse. There is child abuse. But once you let the concept of repressed memories get in there and believe that because you have multiple personality you don't have to check it, you can get to Communion.

Just finally, briefly, just to show you why I think much of this is identical to Charcot's induction of hystero-epilepsy, I want to show you just an example of a published way one doctor tells you how to elicit multiple personalities, or alter personalities. You saw it a little bit in the film, but if you will bear with me, here is what's published. The sine qua non of MPD is a second personality who at some time comes out and takes executive control of the patient's behavior. It may happen that an alter personality will reveal itself to you during this process, but more likely it will not. So you may have to elicit it–an alter. That's what we want.

To begin the process of eliciting an alter, you can begin by indirect questioning. That's my "sic" because I want you to see just how "indirect" these questions are, such as, "Have you ever felt like another part of you does things that you can't control?" Not very indirect. But if she (and that's his pronominal gender) gives positive or ambiguous responses, ask for specific examples. You are trying to develop a picture of what the alter personality is like. At this point, you may ask the host personality, "Does this set of feelings have a name?" Occasionally you will get a name. Often, the host personality will not know.

You can then focus on a particular event or set of behaviors and follow up on those. For instance, you can ask, "Can I talk to the part of you who is taking those long drives to the country?" Now if the patient says anything other than "Damn it, it was just me taking those drives to the country," he has endorsed and will have to stay consistent to that belief. And if you then put him on a ward with 20 other people, you can see how being consistent to that answer will produce trouble, and produce in fact, the belief.

Now, pulled by the opinion of the doctor and pushed by the fact that the patient is a patient. Remember that–these are patients in need of treatment, but not in need of treatment for these names, but for the kinds of problems that made them vulnerable to this kind of suggestion.

The treatment of hysteria and of multiple personality is standard treatment. You diagnosis it by recognizing pseudo-symptoms and then separate the patient from all pathogenic instruction. That's really what Charcot did when he moved them out of the wards. Then offer counter-suggestion usually by removing attention from the thing, from the case. But sometimes a mild with a smile confrontation if that's not useful. We have many patients come to Johns Hopkins, eating disorder for example, who come from other places and come in saying I've got multiple personality disorder but I've also got anorexia nervosa. Our counter suggestion is just to say, the multiple personality is too tough for us, let's get on with the eating disorder. We treat them for their eating disorder and three or four weeks later, the multiple personality isn't even mentioned any more. There's usually a little storm at the beginning but then it goes away. And when they're through, they say, "Oh gee, I don't know, what was that all about?"

And treatment and rehabilitation should be directed at the features of the patient's vulnerability. Co-morbid conditions like depression and physical illnesses may make them vulnerable to suggestion. They may be demoralized because of trouble at home, trouble at school, and the like. And they may have temperment variables such as being in some various ways unstable, for which they need treatment.

I believe that we have seen in the multiple personality craze that appeared in the late 1970's, fundamentally prompted by Sybil, a phenomenon of crowd behavior that Lionel Penrose, the father of Roger Penrose, described really back in the 1950's when he was looking at other forms of crazes and said that they go through really five phases. A latent phase where the idea is in a few minds but not spreading, as before Sybil, and at about the time of The Three Faces of Eve, it was in a few minds but not spreading very far. Then the phase two is an explosive phase where the idea gains and spreads exponentially within a community of interested people, generated really by the interest in sexual trauma for multiple personality. A saturation phase where the market of susceptible minds in the community has become saturated and the number of new converts to this belief slackens, particularly the belief amongst doctors. Then an immunity phase where resistance to the idea develops within the community and enthusiasm weakens for it even amongst the initially involved. And then, finally, a stagnant phase where the idea fades away, except perhaps in the minds of a few enthusiasts.

Now, I believe that we are now in the immunity phase. We're in the immunity phase primarily because people who are making the diagnosis of multiple personality disorder and robust repression are very vulnerable to being sued for malpractice. That has reduced it and coming out and talking and offering other suggestions and other explanations is also helping to develop the immunity.

Whereas when I first got involved in this in the early 90's, partly described in the paper that's with you, the major problem was to protect people from going to jail because they were being accused by the therapist and their children being treated by therapists who claimed they had multiple personality and remembered these horrendous satanic rituals and the like. Now, in 1998, nobody is going to jail on that. But doctors, as you know in Chicago, a doctor was sued successfully in an academic place for $10.6 million and there is a criminal suit for fraud in Texas. So that's all playing a role in the immunity phase.

I'd like to end, then, briefly by saying that you've seen a very nice example of a behavior that's beautifully depicted by our actress and I hope she's just running one person with Paul Newman. But the fact is that that film–which was so very persuasive–persuaded lots of people, and Sybil persuaded more, and now it's coming apart.

"The truth is that medicine, professedly founded on observation, is as sensitive to outside influences–political, religious, philosophical, imaginative–as is the barometer to the changes of atmospheric density," said Oliver Wendell Holmes, the doctor of course, not the jurist. Thank you very much.

Question: You are as persuasive as the movie, Dr. McHugh. And I believe you about 97 or 98 percent....

Dr. McHugh: That's better than people used to in ‘92.

Questioner: But for someone talking about mental problems, it's rather unusual for someone of our age to say "always" or "never ever." And in your work in Baltimore, have you discovered that all of the patients with this problem have responded in exactly the way you expected them to?

Answer: Let me say that I am claiming that all of them are artifacts just as I'm claiming that all witches are artifacts. And the treatment that I am proposing for you is not infallible because some patients don't get immediately better. But let me assure you that it's an awful lot better than the treatments that are being proposed that are keeping patients in treatment for years and years, including the treatment offered to this patient. So psychotherapy is, as you know, a business of winning people around. It's a rhetorical business, not a medical business, and I would admit that sometimes even my powerful rhetoric is not adequate for everyone, perhaps not even everyone here in this room.

Question: Do you believe that there is any--- that there are any situations where people repress very traumatic memories at all?

Answer: I think there are plenty of cases where people forget things. Let me be sure you understand that. People forget things that happen to them for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes because they've been bumped on the head and don't remember. Sometimes because they are too young to appreciate what's happening to them. Sometimes because they don't think anything bad is happening to them until later on. But not only don't I believe that the concept of repression is useful in this situation; I have real questions as to whether the concept of repression is useful in any situation.

Question: I think you're not accounting for the original behavior. It's possible that it's probably true that there is a lot of mimicking, but I still say that the original behavior must have some cause that has not been accounted for.

Answer: Let me tell you how I think it is being accounted for. I think that the patients are all troubled people. I think that the patients are searching for answers to their troubles. I think that a whole variety of socio-cultural issues promote in them ways of thinking about their minds and their bodies that these are adequate. Even just reading a book like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is possible to act as a suggestion. That once they are provoked into this, either by such suggestions as their reading or by their doctors, they are then entrapped within it. I hold that the search for something inward to explain any form of hysteria has been perhaps the greatest delusion of medicine. It began with the idea that somehow the uterus was the cause for it, wandering in the body. It then spread to the idea that there was the devil in the body, all of these these things. And now, we believe there must be some psychological, inner, special and unique cause. I'm saying that the causes are external–they are socio-cultural suggestions on vulnerable people. And as I say, that may not persuade everybody. But it persuades me.

Question: Could I ask you two related questions? Can you tell us anything about the nature of the psychological distress–the underlying problem, which in our society in this set of years has taken the form of multiple personality disorder? And then the further question of how much wider is this phenomenon that culture shapes patterns of symptomatology. I'm thinking that I've heard that anorexia, which you mentioned for instance, only appeared about a century ago and is pretty well confined to economically better off people, which would suggest that it is a socially shaped manifestation.

Answer: The psychological problems that patients with multiple personality have are diverse forms of psychological disorders. Many of them are depressed, many of them are demoralized and discouraged, many of them are youthful and responsive to suggestion, but not all of them. I believe that you will find if you collect a whole group of people showing multiple personality behavior, that they will mostly resemble people who used to show up on the wards with various kinds of paralyses. And those patients were themselves of a similar kind having multiple psychological conditions, not a multiple, a variety of psychological conditions. Anorexia nervosa is a very interesting issue. It may rest upon two things. Although anorexia nervosa is as well an epidemic that we are facing right now, anorexia may well have played a role in other cultures where thinning and aestheticism had a great salience. A book was written, for example, entitled Holy Anorexia to talk about certain people in more devout eras that thinned themselves to death almost with that behavior.

Question: Dr. McHugh, isn't it possible that perhaps the argument going on between people who might be in your camp and people who are talking about MPD as maybe a more real thing for lack of a better word, are engaging in a somewhat semantic argument, in the sense that one could argue that all of us, no matter where we sit on the spectrum of mental health to mental disease, have aspects to ourselves that maybe are more or less depending on the person, integrated into a cohesive hole. For example, you when playing with a child might be in one state of mind versus when you're speaking at an academic symposium are sort of a different person and maybe these people are just an extreme case of not being integrated within themselves with these multiple parts and that it's not that it's not there or there, that it's just more or less extreme cases of lack of integration?

Answer: Well, let me answer to you this way. I don't agree with that, obviously, because I believe that the thing that is analogous here is the physical hysterias that we used to see. You could say, after all, following analogously with you that some of us are more coordinated than others of us and might we not see somebody who says they can't raise their finger to their nose when their muscles and conditions are perfectly fine is just an extreme form of my general clumsiness with instruments. The crucial thing to recognize about the condition, multiple personality disorder or any of the hysterical things, is that the patient is behaving in a way that draws attention to himself or herself as an individual worthy of protection and interest to others, okay, and for whatever is our fundamental makeup mentally, this is a behavior that has a goal, namely the goal of being construed as sick and receiving special privileges.

Question: I'd like to know what the difference is between Munchhausen's disease and what we're talking about, multiple personalities that want to receive attention, if any? And the next thing I'd like to know, combined with that question, is there any way of making artificial–inducing memory repression artificially?

Answer: Well, as far as Munchhausen's condition is concerned, that is a term usually restricted to people who are wandering vagrants and turn up at various hospitals looking for three squares and a roof, I guess, and imitating very skillfully and just for a short while, a particular symptom. And they are admitted. They stay until they are nourished and then they disappear to turn up another place. They are conscious frauds, whereas I don't hold that these people, any more than other hysterical patients, are conscious frauds. They have just developed a belief that gives them the role of being sick and that role they can believe in themselves and act out. As far as being able to induce memory losses, you can do that all the time with hypnosis. You can hypnotize a person and have them act as if they don't remember but once again, hypnosis is itself a way of producing intense suggestions in people. That's really what hypnosis is. It is a capacity to enhance the suggestibility of the patient and you can suggest lots of things in them, including multiple personalities and forgotten memories.

Question: When you see different kinds of alter personalities, are they often like the alter personalities we saw in the movie like Eve's personalities? Are they like good and evil or are they different kinds?

Question: Dr. McHugh, there is something you haven't mentioned, the books of Hal Lindsey and Johanna Michaelson have brought in a religious aspect to this. God wants you to have strange experiences, experience surgery with no anesthesia and that sort of thing. Comment please on the--- I wonder if you've read any of those books or what your comment is on the surgery that's cheaper than Johns Hopkins?

Answer: I'll speak to the surgeons at Johns Hopkins about this. Actually, I have not read those books. I have only heard about them. And, you know, the scandalous thing about such ideas is that we're dealing again with people who are mentally ill in a variety of forms, sometimes seriously, sometimes mildly. They are very vulnerable to being offered suggestions that could lead them into all kinds of troubles and to tell such people what God wants is a blasphemous business, don't you agree? And they oughta, you know, let God alone.

Question: Dr. McHugh, I have another kind of religious question. Your definition of hysteria seems to indicate a non-spiritual explanation for phenomena that happens at religious get-togethers where people swoon and faint and then a preacher comes and lays hands on them and they come back again. Would you care to comment?

Answer: Well, I believe that all kinds of socio-cultural issues can generate behaviors that call attention to one another. And I would hold that with much of the behavior that one sees of the kind that you've described, it probably would satisfy the criteria of being hysterical. It could also though satisfy the criteria of overventilating and fainting in a period of intense, emotional arousal. It would be transient though and not repetitive and regular the way the hysterical attacks are. The hysterical attacks, if they are multiple personalities, if they are epileptic forms, they come back in a very stereotyped way, whereas fainting from over-breathing, as you might in an emotionally intense situation, would only happen then.

Dr. Fuchs: Dr. McHugh, I've got one last question for the evening that I'm going to ask from the audience, and then, I'd ask you to stick around–I know we're having fun but we have gone a long time.

Dr. McHugh: I've got to get back to Baltimore.

Dr. Fuchs: I appreciate your time. What do you think about hypnosis? What is actually going on during hypnosis?

Answer: I believe that the hypnotic experience is an experience of intensely increasing the suggestibility of a person in the relationship between the subject and the hypnotist. It is not a unique state, it is just a state of being willing to follow the direction of the hypnotist.

Dr. Fuchs:
Now, before we thank Dr. McHugh for his efforts this evening, I would like you to all come back next week. Hi–got to remember the people out on the Web–I'd like to invite you all back next week. We've got our final film for the series. It's called Gattaca. It's a fairly recent film on, let's say, the horrors of genetic technology. And our speaker that evening is going to be the director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins. So we're going to have as much fun that night as we had tonight. Now, would you please help me thank Dr. McHugh. [applause]