One reason that science appears to eschew hypnosis is because the phenomenon is not 100% reproducible on demand. There is no such thing as a hypnotic induction technique that will work with every subject, every time. Erickson found that even with well-experienced subjects, he would sometimes have to alter his induction approach because they had developed what he called a ‘mind-set’ or intimate awareness of it, such that it was no longer effective. This was especially a problem with highly intelligent subjects. Ordinary science appears to have no patience for any of this. It appears to be more “art” than “science.” What is Creator’s perspective?

What is illustrated by this description is that the mind is vast and can have many competing agendas. What wins out will be a function of the stronger inner impulse. Someone coming along and wanting to hypnotize another person must be allowed to do so, either because a person is vulnerable and compliant, because they have no inner reserve or barriers to manipulation and will surrender without a fight to almost anything, or the deeper part of the mind perceives something to be gained and will comply with the requests of the hypnotist to see what might happen. So the various phenomena Erickson ran into reflect there are limits on patience for many people submitting to experimentation. They may be willing to do so initially but then grow tired of the exercise, and even when wanting to cooperate consciously, a part of their mind might fight it and throw up a roadblock to prevent a successful outcome.