This work re-examines dissociation according to a new interpretation that recognizes historical roots without requiring commitment to the classical theory. It includes coverage of possession state, multiple personalities, amnesia and dreams.
Ernest Ropiequet "Jack" Hilgard was an American psychologist and professor at Stanford University. He became famous in the 1950s for his research on hypnosis, especially with regard to pain control. Along with André Muller Weitzenhoffer, Hilgard developed the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Hilgard as the 29th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.
2.2? Es uno de los clásicos que tenía pendientes. Hilgard ayudó en la transición de los estudios de hipnosis hacia el conocimiento de la disociación en la época moderna, pero en este trabajo se enfoca mucho más en el aspecto experimental que en el clínico. Pero sí me aclaró las concepciones clásicas como "observador oculto", escritura automática, diferencia entre disociación y represión y el concepto de "involucración imaginativa". Hilgard es un puente interesante pero definitivamente no actual. Aunque creo que su concepto de neodisociación aquí es más como una pre-neo-disociación jaja. Pero regresaré a este texto, es interesante que cita a muchos autores modernos trabajando juntos. Justamente en los 70 se empezó a juntar toda la info y la gente interesada en el tema y esto parece ser previo a todo el desmadre de las guerras de memorias. Pero no soy tan fan de los experimentos con hipnosis, por eso no le doy más estrellas. Además, presiento que la hipnosis (la heterohipnosis, específicamente) es más una dinámica de una relación de poder que de un rasgo personal, aunque puede existir como habilidad personal (como Hilgard menciona de otra forma en experiencias personales previas con autohipnosis).
It's the foundation (even thought when I started writing, I was not aware of Hilgard's works) of my work, the italian book "Fantasma Magico".
Hilgard brings together a lot of valuable research and explain it in a relatively (the topic is extremly delicate and complex) simple way the main thesis, adding depth and explaining how things evolved in the time.
Not everyone spend these days the time to contextualize research with valuable historical info. At least for me, historical info was very valuable for gaining new insights.
In example: some of the biggest things psychology may have missed, was due to the pressure of being accepted by the scientific comunity. A big case of gatekeeping.
It's one of the few authors from which you can get much more value than expected. For me his work is as much valuable as the work of Bowlby, Jung or Hillman..
Especially in the light of my thesis. The consciousness of the subconscious itself.
It's a pity that even after spending years in topic I'm still noone and I can only dream to bring the attention of someone already involved in the topic to my work, at least for refutation.