He also concluded that hypnosis (including self-hypnosis) was the core factor in opening up the inner levels of the mind in the great variety of mind-power and mind-training systems available and was the most effective way to boost the student’s meditation and other consciousness-expanding practices. Another key stimulus for HTI to develop and teach courses in hypnotism and hypnotherapy was the dissatisfaction felt with many of the training courses in the past which did not go nearly far enough in teaching the hypnotic skills and the essential knowledge principles the student needed to grasp before s/he could develop the necessary abilities as a hypnotist. Courses were often, and still are 40 years later, offering simple relaxation exercises and very basic, “script-based” suggestion therapy as a complete training in hypnotherapy rather than the minor factors that they actually are.
He was also dissatisfied with most of the “academic-style” trainings in hypnosis. These were usually very short programs, very basic in the skills they taught, sometimes very theory-dominated in approach and took the view that hypnosis, if it had any value at all in therapy, was only to be considered as a tool that was to be used for the “delivery” of the particular form of psychotherapy they practiced. These courses also viewed hypnotherapy through the paradigm of the therapy model they practiced. For example, the psychodynamic practitioner tried to “explain” hypnosis and hypnotic phenomena entirely through this approach while the cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) practitioner sought to explain it through this model of the mind and a similar “reductionist” approach to hypnotherapy was taken with the many other schools of psychological thought. This led to very partial and conflicting approaches to hypnotherapy training and a great neglect of many aspects of hypnosis that could not be squeezed into the preferred therapeutic model.

It was also the case that many of the more narrow-minded elements of the academic community ridiculed hypnosis as being simply the work of charlatans. This biased view held that hypnosis had no real therapeutic value and was both unworthy of scientific study and even a disreputable activity. These prejudiced and unscientific views, unfortunately, prevailed in much of academia for the first half of the 20th century. It was only due to a very small number of brave and dedicated doctors and scientists that hypnosis survived at all on the fringes of medicine and scientific research.