UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Nov > Nov 8

Re: Psychological Trauma - Strickland

From: Sue Strickland <strick@h2net.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:53:20 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 16:35:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma - Strickland


 >From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
 >Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:35:22 -0500

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:07:04 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

Kevin wrote (snipped):

 >>Actually, it is the same side of the coin. If they are leading
 >>their abductees, clients, subjects, experiencers, then we have
 >>the first step into the allignment of them with those conducting
 >>the research.

Maybe. Maybe not.

There arises an a priori bias, if the person wishing help has
already pre-conceived opinions about what may or may not have
happened to him/her when arriving for whatever sort of
counseling therapy that researcher is licensed to practice, be
it psychotherapy, hypnosis or EMDR. The form of therapy is not
in question at this point. It's the fact that the client may
walk into a therapist's office with pre-conceived opinions about
what has happened. Right? See if you agree or disagree, after
reading the following.

Say I am the patient. I walk in _knowing_ I've been abducted
(1st possible bias), and I want help integrating those
experiences into my daily life. The therapist, on the other
hand, isn't sure at all that I'm sane, much less that what I
just told him about a consciously-recalled abduction experience
is "real." He needs to be able to measure, compare and weigh
what I have just told him against other defining factors seen in
schizophrenia, which are _not_ evident or present in the
abduction scenario, in order to eliminate any possible
psychosis. Psychological testing is usually a standard required
procedure to help with this analysis.

Unfortunately, several of the questions on the MMPR test may
show bias, depending on whether the abductee is an informed,
well-read person on the UFO phenomena, or whether the person is
a child or an adult completely unfamiliar with the pheonomena.
This leads to another probable bias, unbeknownst to the
therapist or researcher, and can determine whether the
individual may be considered, "Normal," "Neurotic," or
"Psychotic," depending on the number of times and ways the
client responds to the following question.

The question asked on the MMPR is presented in several forms
throughout the test. In essence, the question reads, "Do you see
things [not defined] (or experience things) that other's (around
you) do not see?" This question can be answered on the Lickert
5-point scale, "Never," "Not Often," "Sometimes," "Very Often,"
or "Always." If you believe you are an abductee, have had UFO
sightings or ET experiences, how you answer this question will
depend on whether or not there were others present to
corroborate what you saw (or experienced). Most often, abductees
are alone when they see or experience such "high strangeness."
If you are a child, completely unfamiliar with the UFO/ET
experience, you may answer "Sometimes," or "Very Often,"
depending on how frequently the ETs are "visiting" you, and
whether family or friends were present. However, if you are
well-read and are well-informed about the fact that thousands of
others world-wide have seen, photographed and experienced the
UFO phenomena, you will probably answer "Never." One answer
places you in the category of a "good neurotic," the latter
places you in the "normal" range. How's that for a priori bias?

Part of statistics research is to identify and count behaviors:
to see if there is any correlation or pattern that emerges in
those counted behaviors. In order to do that, variable behaviors
may be defined by specific terminology identified by the
researcher (2nd possible bias) through pre-interviews with the
abductees.

It becomes nearly impossible to avoid such bias on the
therapist's part, if the therapist is also the researcher.
Therefore, an unbiased, computer programmer would be needed to
write the programs required to count those behaviors, if the
therapist is going to focus on the client's psychological
trauma. If a pre-study were done with all of the interviewees
just to identify and count specific terminology used by them to
describe what they feel happened during 1 abduction scenario
(much less a life-time of experiences). Then you are looking at
massive computer programming time and expense. I dare say,
_none_ of the researchers have separated themselves from the
data to that extent. I would bet a month's salary on that fact.

For example: out of a total sampling of 300 people, 150 male,
150 female, how many times were the terms "mind-reading" or
"scanning" used by the interviewee when describing behaviors of
the ETs during 1 abduction scenario? If you are the researcher
_and_ the therapist, the _only_ unbiased way that you can sort
through the entire dialogue is to record and later allow a
super-computer to count said used terminology to define specific
behaviors. The problem with that is that if the researcher and
therapist are one-in-the-same, the computer program needs to be
written to "find" such-and-such terminology (e.g.,
"mind-reading" or "scanning") in the first place (3rd possible
bias). And, to top it all off, this would only be 1 variable
measured.

Dr. Mack mentions several, as do Hopkins and Jacobs as common
occurence behaviors during abductions. The fact that these
researchers and therapists have all "chosen" to "leave out"
specific behaviors or descriptions of behaviors made by the
interviewees is noteworthy. It provides for a possible 4th bias,
as inclusion of such data might skew any correlation found in
the other variables, as to make the ones being measured less
than significant, when in fact, they may be very significant.

So, despite what may be a true desire on the therapist's part to
"help" the client integrate abduction experiences into his/her
life and move on, it seems almost at odds with the researcher's
goals, to count variable behaviors exhibited by the ETs during
the abduction scenario.

Am I all wet here? How _can_ one person do both without bias? I,
too, would like to see the raw data from Jacobs, Mack and
Hopkins studies.


Sincerely asking,

Sue Strickland
ex-abductee






[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com