UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Nov > Nov 9

Re: Psychological Trauma - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:17:42 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 14:26:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma - Randle


 >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

 >>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. I thought I had mentioned that CDB Bryan's
 >>interview with Mack (page 270-71 hardback) in which Mack said,
 >>"And there's another interesting dimension to this... which Budd
 >>Hopkins and Dave Jacobs and I argue about all the time, which is
 >>that I'm struck by the fact there seems to be a kind of matching
 >>of the investigator with the experiencer. So what may be the
 >>archetypal structure of an abduction to Dave Jacobs may not be
 >>the uniform experience of, say, Joe Nyman or John Mack or
 >>someone else. And the experiencers seem to pick out the
 >>investigator who will fit their experience."

 >Is Mack talking about the alleged facts reported by the
 >abductees, or about the overall interpretation of the abduction?

In this context, it's the same thing. What we need to do, as
researchers, is survey the field to see if there is a
distinction. And, what we need to do is check the original
report made by the abductee with that at the conclusion of the
research, to learn if it has been changed, for whatever reason,
between the time it was first reported and the time that the
researcher has determined that he or she has completed the
investigation. Such a survey would certainly provide clues about
researcher influence in the overall abductee picture.

 >What does he mean by "archetypal structure of an abduction"?

I believe this is just a fancy way of saying "the abduction
experience."

 >As I've already pointed out, Budd and John Mack - along with
 >abductees they've both worked with - agree that the details of
 >the reported experiences tend to be similar in both camps. What
 >differs is the interpretation. (More precisely, similar
 >experiences are reported in both camps.

 >I don't have Bryan's book with me as I write this, so I can't
 >check the reference. But this quote - at least as Kevin
 >reproduces it here - shows one problem that can arise when you
 >write about abductions without spending a lot of time talking to
 >the people you're studying. You might, no matter how careful you
 >try to be, put your own spin on something you read. You might
 >come to wrong conclusions, which could easily be corrected by
 >the people you're writing about.

All true, but remember, contrary to what has been reported in
other quarters, we did interview Hopkins and Mack on video tape.
Not to mention listening to their lectures, listening to their
radio appearances, watching them on documentaries and reading
their books.  And while it is true that we all look at the
material through our own filters and put our own spin on the
material, it is also true that Mack and Jacobs, in their
writings and lectures, have seen this "matching" of experiencer
to researcher.

And, when Mack was asked, specifically about this, he denied
that he had made the statements... though he conceded that he
had thought about them. Yet, Bryan quoted the statements and we
have him on video tape making the statements, so when the
questions were asked, they were not adequately answered.

 >Here's an additional problem. How do we know what experiences
 >Budd's and John Mack's abductees report? Both Budd and John have
 >written books, so that's one source of this information. But
 >it's not an adequate source for serious study. John, for
 >instance, may accept reports from abductees who say that they
 >have secret lives as aliens. So he puts things like that in his
 >books. Budd doesn't accept those reports, so he doesn't put them
 >in. But that doesn't mean he doesn't get them. I've long
 >thought, and have often said, that this is a failing in both
 >Budd's and Dave Jacobs's books. They don't show enough of the
 >raw material they work with.

So, what you're suggesting is that we are getting the spin of
the researchers and not necessarily what the abductees say
during their sessions. That we need access to all the raw data
so that we can learn what all has been said.

However, it has been my experience that abduction researchers
are not as open with their records as we would like. When, for
example, we attempted a survey to find out how many abductees
reported a precipitating event that mirrored sleep paralysis, we
didn't even receive the courtesy of a response to the question
from the various researchers that we queried.

Yes, I know that some of these records must be protected, and
that some of the data are gathered in confidence, but to
understand the whole, we need to see the pieces. In the end,
we're left drawing the information from their books, their
lectures, their TV and radio appearances, and the video taped
sessions that they provided for us.

But this is a question that could be answered fairly easily, as
long as we could see the raw data in the order collected. That
way we could determine if there is a researcher bias at work, if
the researcher does influence the report, the extent to which
that influence is implanted on the witness, or if the material
is reported in a manner consistent throughout the research.

 >That, though, is another issue. I'll repeat my main point -
 >that we can't learn what abductees actually report simply by
 >reading books by John Mack, Dave Jacobs, and Budd Hopkins. John
 >gets many reports of unpleasant medical procedures that he
 >doesn't print. Budd and Dave get many reports of new-age stuff
 >that they don't print. They don't try to hide this, at least in
 >my experience. They acknowledge it very freely. So some of the
 >differences you find in their writing are differences of
 >interpretation - what they believe in abductee reports, or what
 >they think is important. They're not necessarily differences in
 >what the abductees report.

Which is all well and good, but doesn't answer the point that
Mack and Jacobs have made... that there is a matching of
experiencer with with investigator. Instead, we are presented
with a flawed argument for the reality of abduction rather than
provided with all the data to make an informed decision.

And by flawed arguments, I mean that if the researcher is
eliminating the information that doesn't conform to his or her
beliefs, then any conclusion we draw from the published body of
evidence, from the lectures and interviews will be flawed. Not
that the abduction experience itself is flawed, only the
conclusion drawn about the work of a specific research is
flawed.

 >>And there are two points to be made here. One, this implies, to
 >>some extent, leading the witness, and two, it implies that the
 >>views of the researcher are given to the subject.

 >>On page 25 of 'The Threat' (hardback), Jacobs discusses his
 >>sessions with Pam, which, I think, makes the point once again.
 >>Jacobs wrote, "I had over thirty sessions with Pam, and during
 >>that time she has come to have a less romantic idea about what
 >>has been happening to her. She was initially disappointed that
 >>what she remembered under hypnosis were not the pleasant
 >>experiences she had imagined, but she now accepts the reality of
 >>what has been happening to her. She realized that neither
 >>guardian angles nor the Pleiades have anything to do with her
 >>experiences, and that she cannot manipulate time and reality."

 >>In other words, Pam arrived at Jacobs' door believing that her
 >>experiences were pleasant and might reflect her interaction with
 >>what she saw as a guardian angel. After undergoing hypnosis with
 >>Jacobs, she now realizes the threat and that the experiences
 >>were not pleasant. She wasn't visited by New Age philosophers of
 >>John Mack or cold, calculating scientists of Budd Hopkins, but
 >>the alien invaders of David Jacobs... she came with one set of
 >>beliefs and left with a different set which, matches, more
 >>closely, the beliefs of David Jacobs.

 >But this doesn't prove that Dave was leading her. What happens
 >in this account is very common in other situations, where nobody
 >questions it. For instance, suppose a woman whose husband abuses
 >her goes into therapy. It's very common for abused women to
 >defend their abusers. "He really loves me." "He means well; he
 >just gets angry sometimes." "It's my own fault. I don't treat
 >him well enough."

 >Then, in the course of therapy or counselling, these women may
 >dramatically change their views. "That bastard abused me. I did
 >nothing to deserve that. Nobody deserves to be treated that
 >way." You could say that they're adopting their therapists'
 >views here, but because the therapists' view seems sensible -
 >and, above all, grounded in the facts - nobody objects.

Actually, when we move into some of the therapeutic arenas, we
do see that the therapists belief structures begin to take over
and that allegations of abuse, for example, might be more
consistent with the therapist's view of the world than the
client's. That is not to say that all therapists implant their
views on their clients, but to say that some do. The
psychological literature is full of examples and both "He Who
Shall Remain Nameless" and Edith Fiore lost their licenses
because they did implant their belief structures on their
clients.

And, yes, if the therapists conclusions are grounded in fact and
supported by other evidence, then the view is accepted.
Unfortunately, too often, when there are no facts to support the
allegations, when there is denial from others involved, the
therapists views are still accepted as fact. Paul Ingram is in
jail because of statements made by his daughters, in therapy,
accusing him of all sorts of crimes, though there is not a shred
of outside or corroborative evidence to justify the allegations
made.

The point here, I guess, is that this is not a black and white
issue. We have the statements made by the abduction researchers
that suggest, and I stress this, suggest, that there is a
matching of abductee to researcher, and that leads to one set of
conclusions. If true, it means that we need to reassess that
which we think we know. If not true, it means that we need to
improve our investigative techniques and the reporting of the
raw data so that proper and valid conclusions can be drawn.

Yes, I know that I have them coming and going here, but all that
I'm really saying is that we need to take abduction research to
the next level so that we can either validate the process, or
find the answers to our questions. And yes, I understand that
those who have experienced abduction aren't interested in our
finding answers to our abstract questions. They already have the
answers that satisfy them.

 >Why is it different when Dave talks to an abductee about
 >abductions? The truth is that we don't know whether it's
 >different or not. Some of us just assume it is. Maybe the
 >abductee ("Pam" in this case) had obvious conflicts sticking out
 >all over her story - maybe she gave obvious indications that she
 >felt hurt, used, and angry, with these feelings coexisting next
 >to her belief that it was all for her own good. Maybe Dave just
 >brought the conflict to her attention, and let her draw her own
 >conclusions. That would be standard therapeutic practice in other
 >situations (not, of course, that Dave pretends to be a
 >therapist). I've seen Budd do exactly this with abductees he
 >works with.

I won't bore you with the conundrum that a good therapist can't
be a good researcher and a good researcher can't be a good
therapist because the two goals often become mutually exclusive.
I will simply point out that, according to Jacobs, Pam arrived
believing one thing and left believing another, which was that
her experiences were not pleasant as she had thought. Her new
set of beliefs more closely resembled those of Jacobs... which,
of course, doesn't mean that he was wrong. It means to fully
understand the situation, we need more evidence and more
research, something, I fear won't happen in today's climate of
mistrust, territorialism, and paranoia.

 >I'm not saying we can prove Dave doesn't lead his abductees. I'm
 >only saying that the passage Kevin quotes doesn't prove that he
 >does lead them.

And I'm only saying that this passage suggests that Jacobs leads
his subjects, not that it proves he does. Other, additional
information is needed, but that passage does suggest that there
might be an implantation of ideas from "therapist" (and I put it
in quotes because Jacobs is acting in some respects as a
therapist and in others as a researcher) to the subject. She had
one set of beliefs when she arrived and left with another.

If I read Greg correctly here, then we are in the same pew and
possibly on the same page. We have information supplied by the
abduction researchers and more data supplied by the abductees,
and even more that comes from lectures, interviews and TV
documentaries, but we don't have enough to answer some of the
basic questions such as researcher bias, and the efficacy of
hypnotic regression, not to mention the hundreds of different
facts that seem to fit into no pattern. What we must watch for
is researcher bias, but also our own bias, which can color our
way of interpreting the data.

KRandle




[ 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