Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Abduction Digest Number 30
Abduction Digest, Number 30
Monday, October 21st 1991
Today's Topics:
An Old Editorial
Re: abductions
Re: abductions
Re: Abductions
abductions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: An Old Editorial
Date: 17 Oct 91 22:17:00 GMT
Thought y'all might get a kick out of this article I wrote way back in '88,
when I first heard of the Fantasy-Prone Hypothesis. Its not as well-written as
I would have liked, but I was bit PO'd at the time, so forgive me....
--------------
PARANET EDITORIAL: THE SNOBS AMONG US
by Jim Speiser
As I have stated before on many occasions, the idea that abduction
experiences represent objectively real encounters with extraterrestrials
represents an hypothesis, one that must be evaluated and weighed against
other hypotheses or alternative "explanations." In terms of true scientif-
ic objectivity, no one hypothesis has any more weight than any other un-
less it can be shown to be more consistent with our knowledge and with all
the pertinent facts. A psychological explanation is no more valid than any
other simply by virtue of having been proposed by a more mainstream psych-
ologist; it must prove itself on the weight of the evidence. Occam's ra-
zor, however, dictates that more mundane, less extravagant explanations
must be evaluated and discarded before we can fully accept the more outre'
scenarios into the hallowed halls of "knowledge." You have to start some-
where.
Abduction specialists such as Budd Hopkins have long paid much lip-
service to their efforts to investigate the more subjective explanations
such as delusion or fantasy, and so I am curious as to how he and they
will react to the article in the Winter 1987/88 edition of the Skeptical
Inquirer, entitled "The Aliens Among Us: Hypnotic Regression Revisited,"
by University of Kentucky psychologist Robert A. Baker. While the article
is flawed in many respects, it compensates by offering the hypothesis
outlined in the following extract:
<<
If these abductees were given...intensive diagnostic testing it
is highly likely that many similarities would emerge--particularly
an unusual personality pattern that Wilson and Barber (1983) have
categorized as "fantasy-prone." In an important but much neglected
article, they report in some detail their discovery of a group of
excellent hypnotic subjects with unusual fantasy abilities. In their
words:
Although this study provided a broader understanding of the kind
of life experiences that may underlie the ability to be an ex-
cellent hypnotic subject, it has also led to a serendipitous
finding that has wide implications for all of psychology -- it
has shown that there exists a small group of individuals (pos-
sibly 4% of the population) who fantasize a large part of the
time, who typically "see," "hear," "smell," and "touch" and
fully experience what they fantasize; and who can be labeled
fantasy-prone personalities.
<< Wilson and Barber also stress that such individuals experience a
reduction in orientation to time, place, and person that is charac-
teristic of hypnosis or trance during their daily lives whenever
they are deeply involved in a fantasy. They also have experiences
during their daily ongoing lives that resemble the classical hypno-
tic phenomena. In other words, the behavior we would normally call
"hypnotic" is exhibited by these fantasy-prone types (FPs) all the
time. In Wilson and Barber's words: "When we give them 'hypnotic
suggestions,' such as for visual and auditory hallucinations, nega-
tive hallucinations, age regression, limb rigidity, anesthesia, and
sensory hallucinations, we are asking them to do for us the kind of
thing they can do independently of us in their daily lives."
<< The reason we do not run into these types more often is that
they have learned long ago to be highly secretive and private about
their fantasy lives. Whenever the FPs do encounter a hypnosis situa-
tion it provides them with a social situation in which they are en-
couraged to do, and are rewarded for doing, what they usually do on-
ly in secrecy and in private. Wilson and Barber also emphasize that
regression and the reliving of previous experiences is something
that virtually all the FPs do naturally in their daily lives. When
they recall the past, they relive it to a surprisingly vivid extent,
and they all have vivid memories of their experiences extending back
to their early years.
>>
While there are many aspects of the abduction syndrome left unex-
plained by this scenario, it appears to be a description of a personality
type that is consistent with some of the more famous "abductees," such as
Whitley Streiber. While researching his two books, Budd Hopkins retained
the expertise of psychologist Aphrodite Clamar, who administered psycho-
logical evaluation tests to nine abduction percipients, all of whom proved
to be normal, sane individuals. The point Baker makes, however, is that
these FPs ARE ALSO SANE, and would no doubt pass such a test. He further
claims that there are more stringent tests designed to weed out such FPs,
and I maintain that, in the interest of true scientific objectivity, it is
incumbent upon researchers such as Hopkins to arrange to have such a test
administered to another group of abduction claimants. We have been provid-
ed with an earthly alternative; we owe it to the public, to the skeptics,
to other researchers, and to the claimants themselves (who Hopkins claims
are actually quite fearful of the ETH) to investigate fully this new pos-
sibility.
There is another, admittedly more selfish and spiteful reason to
objectively evaluate the "FPH." Baker, typical of many CSICOP "hit-men,"
has succumbed to snobbery and unabashedly claims the intellectual high
ground in his article. He was doing just fine until his "Consequences and
Summary" section. Some quotes typify his attitude: "Need we be concerned
about an invasion of little gray kidnappers? Amused, yes. Concerned, no."
"Should we take Streiber, Hopkins, Kinder, et al. seriously? Not really."
"Tolerance IS the mark of a civilized mind." Well, BLESS you, Prof. Baker.
You seem to forget, however, that YOUR hypothesis has not been tested,
either, and consequently you have as yet no legitimate claim to being
"right." And as I stated before, your article is flawed. It doesn't take
into account the physical evidence, such as scarring, landing traces, and
"exoglyphic exemplars." It relies heavily on generalizations and quoting
of previous studies which only tangentially impact the abduction scenario.
And it weakly waves off the marked similarities between abduction ac-
counts.
If testing of the FPH should provide a clear indication that a psych-
ological explanation is warranted, I fully expect abduction researchers to
acknowledge that their hypothesizing of alien intervention stands on weak-
ened legs. If, however, the results of such testing show no such correla-
tion, I would appreciate it if Prof. Baker and other debunkers would
propose solutions in a more detached, even-handed, level-headed manner
more becoming of the TRULY civilized. Failing this, I would appreciate it
if they would kindly shutup.
<<>>
Copyright (c)1988 National Fringe Sciences Information Service. All rights
reserved.
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Sue Widemark)
Subject: Re: abductions
Date: 20 Oct 91 08:01:00 GMT
>Would you not agree, using this criteria, that the same might be
>said of the savior of the christian faith, his desiples, and last
>but not least, one certain Paul, whose dreams opened the faith for
>the Gentiles?
No, because Paul didn't really say he was chosen. He was merely
interested in sharing what he felt to be the message about Jesus. And
no, Jesus did not show any schizophrenia. He was rather normal, as a
matter of fact until He somehow managed to raise Himself from the dead
(or at least, really convince a bunch of people of such event, to the
point that they became very dedicated). Keep in mind, this story of
Jesus has not died out over 2000 years. You might find a book by
Bishop Sheen, entitled THE LIFE OF CHRIST rather interesting.
> > Descriptions of examinations are often confusing and described
> > as if these aliens, possessing a far greater technology
> > than ours, are rather primitive in the methods of examination.
>
>From this, I assume that the contents of a modern operating room
>would make sense to you if you suddenly woke up and found yourself
>there without remembering the trip?
Doesn't answer the above point..
>I'd be interested in seeing a statistical breakdown of the percentages
>of cases wherein investigators have given credence to drunken
sightings.
>As one trained in psychology, I find your last comment extremely
>interesting. How do you come to the conclusion that people who
>see the unexplainable are
>"lacking in stability?"
Not a conclusion *I* came to but one observed by several writers.
>It is my personal opinion that the above paragraph summizes your
>REAL agenda in making this post. Why do you feel that people who
>are "into Christianity" are more stable than those who are not?
>I can make a large number of arguments to show that there are many
>facets of that faith that DESTABILIZE the personality. I'm not here
>to bash Christians, but for someone to make an assertion that is
>false on the face as you have done cannot go unchallenged.
It has been observed by psychologists that people who have a religious
orientation tend to deal with disability and age better than those who
don't. Also, Bill W., the founder of AA makes a rather impressive case
that atheistic beliefs caused alot of his problems. People who join AA
and embrace the Deistic orientation tend to deal with their lives
better than they did before joining.
>I trust the above comments will get you started. I'm interested
>in seeing hard, statistical answers to back up your generalities.
>I'm also interested in anything in your background that would lend
>cedability to your opinions. It may seem that I am attacking you
>personally. I am not. The attack is on unsubstantiated generalities
>which you put forth as givens. I attack your methods, and your
>reasons for making the post, not you as a person. The above posts
>are made by me personally, and not in my role as echo coordinator.
I didn't feel your message was attacking at all. I have expressed the
fact that what I posted was my impression from the books I had read. I
am interested in reading the 'other side' and would be interested in
your presenting some evidence to refute what I have stated.
--
Sue Widemark - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Sue Widemark)
Subject: Re: abductions
Date: 20 Oct 91 08:07:00 GMT
>What, in your opinion, compromised their creditability? What constitutes a
>"creditable witness" in your mind? Perhaps a Christian priest? Plenty
>of those in the database....
Golly, Jim, I'm not that biased. No... it isn't what a witness does -
it's more HOW he observes what happened, how subjective and relational
he is (as opposed to logical), how emotionally involved etc etc.
>Again, please define "vague" and what you would term "specific".
>If I remember correctly, the book I recommended was "Uninvited Guests"
>by Hall? That contains an entire appendix of specific cases with
>specific data that can be researched.
Don't know how else I can put that. The book you suggested for me, was
more of the same stuff I had read before. Vague data i.e. not really
factual but more emotional observations. Highly emoutional imaginative
witnesses. etc.
Will upload biobliography soon (as soon I as type it in as it's on the
MAC and I don't have a modem on that machine at present...
--
Sue Widemark - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Sue Widemark)
Subject: Re: abductions
Date: 20 Oct 91 08:09:00 GMT
> And as to why a UFOnaut might be more meaningful then God - the
>answer seems obvious to me. God is all talk and no action and many
>people are ready for some action and are hoping the ETs will supply
>it.
Actually, people would tend to THINK something humanoid would be more
action than God just because we have an easier time conceiving of
something humanoid.
--
Sue Widemark - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clark.Matthews@p1.f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews)
Subject: abductions
Date: 21 Oct 91 10:30:00 GMT
In a message to Jim Delton <20 Oct 91 01:09> Sue Widemark wrote:
>> And as to why a UFOnaut might be more meaningful then God - the
>>answer seems obvious to me. God is all talk and no action and many
>>people are ready for some action and are hoping the ETs will supply
>>it.
Oh, I don't know. The God of Moses knew all about leyden jars ... er, the Ark
of the Covenant, I mean.
But then old Horus apparently knew a bit about storage batteries and
incandescent lighting. And airfoils. Too bad they never hooked up and formed
a grid.
SW> Actually, people would tend to THINK something humanoid would be
SW> more action than God just because we have an easier time
SW> conceiving of something humanoid.
Well, I think that what we're dealing with here could turn out to be the "God
of a Thousand Faces". From the Red Sea miracle to Fatima, there's every
indication that alien "gods" can play the role of ultimate imposters and
peerless imposers of their own "miracles".
What interests me is that some of these interpretations show a deeply spiritual
side (both good and evil), and others are patently, deliberately bogus --
almost designed to dash the expectations they raise.
Best,
Clark
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@p1.f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG
****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************
Submissions UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!abduct
Submissions DOMAIN abduct@scicom.alphacdc.com
Admin Address abduct-request@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu
Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters:
DOMAIN firstname.lastname@paranet.org
UUCP scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname
****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************
