Evidenced by this and other posts in this thread, Gardamorg, you appear to be suffering from several confusions and misperceptions.
First,
“Psycho” is a work of fiction, not a documentary about real psychology or based on real people or events. It’s famous and critically acclaimed, but one shouldn’t take its Norman Bates character as an even vaguely accurate description of a
psychotic person.
Second, in the real world, psychotics are, almost without exception, not happy. Psychosis is not a convenient “eraser” of unhappy experiences. Psychotics don’t “conceive of a world of their liking by will alone”, but rather are typically terrified by imagined fears, and unable to control obsessive thought about upsetting experiences. In the real world, they can rarely function well enough to maintain a normal appearance, and would almost certainly be unable to manage a hotel on their own, as Norman is depicted doing in “Psycho”. Norman’s state at the end of the movie, when he is confined in a catatonic stupor, is sadly a more accurate depiction of a psychotic than the rest of the movie’s.
Third, there’s no such thing as “psycho hypnosis”. One can’t be made psychotic through hypnotherapy or self-induced
hypnosis. There are many common misunderstanding about what hypnosis is, and its effects, in large part due to spectacularly inaccurate fictional depictions of it. These misconceptions are too numerous to discuss in this post, so I encourage you to learn about hypnosis from reputable, non-fictional sources, such as the linked wikipedia article and its many linked references.
Almost everyone has memories he wishes he did not. However, though a combination of thinking about and working through them, alone and with the help of others, and gradually forgetting their more disturbing details, almost everyone is able to cope with them, and have happy, productive lives.
A final couple of notes: Gladamorg, you mention First, psychotics are rarely good at deceiving trained investigators, such as police detectives. It’s very unlikely that a psychotic would be subjected to typical
lie detection procedures, such as
polygraphs, because preliminary questioning would reveal his condition to investigators, who would then conclude that nearly everything the psychotic says should be considered unreliable.
Second, many common lie detection procedures, in particular polygraphs, have been scientifically demonstrated
not to work. In controlled experiments, trained testers tend to conclude that people they are told are lying about test questions are, while concluding that those they are told are not, are not. In real world situations, people such as respected nuclear weapon scientists spying for foreign governments have passed polygraph tests, while less respected but innocent people fail them.
The reliability of polygraphs is not only scientifically discredited, but legally. In
US v. Scheffer (1998), a majority of the US Supreme Court wrote: "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable".
Despite their demonstrated inability to actually work, polygraphs remains valuable to private and police investigators, because many people are unaware they don’t work, and are inadmissible as evidence in US courts, so may confess to wrongdoings when threatened with testing.
