From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:56:43 -0400 Archived: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:13:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study >From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:21:43 +0000 >Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study >>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:34:03 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study >>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:07:26 +0000 >>>Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study ><snip> >Apologies for the large snip, it isn't because it isn't relevant, >or interesting (it is both), but I don't think it needs to be >repeated in the context of this reply. >I can sort of understand where you are coming from based on your >analogy, but I still think you, Jerry and Ray have jumped the >gun and made assumptions about the study which are unfounded. >As I understand it (and I have completed the questionnaire which >was painless and even fun), the study is about attitudes to the >paranormal (which like it or not, most people see ufology as >being a part of). >I can think of all sorts of potentially useful output from such >a study. How widespread is the interest? Is it gender and/or age >sensitive? How much is the interest driven by >media/religion/superstition/technological advances et c.? Why >are a large proportion of society totally disinterested in it? >If the study is repeated periodically, it may help to identify >things like why interest levels fluctuate - is that due to >bad/good press, differences in education standards, new >discoveries, space technology activity, rise or decline of >religious participation, un/availability of official records, >political dis/trust, military tension, economic climate and so >on. >What I struggle to see is what damage this can do to Ufology, >which is why I don't understand the apparent revulsion and/or >suspicion expressed by the three of you. Revulsion? More to do with a waste of time. Your problem might be that you buy into the psychology based ideology-as if they really bring anything to the table in any field let alone the UFO phenomenon. Your second mistake is associating the wild-eyed fringe with those of us who have been around this field for so many years then blithely inform me there is a lot of evidence to support the study of fairies and trolls-or whatever. But the movies tend to support wild-eyed (ghosts, demonic possession, vampires) TV series with trolls, etc. so you are on safe ground where the movie (TV) going numbers support you. I really don't care about interest levels. Much of what I see regarding interest is those who buy into every nocturnal light that flies by. Am I jaded? Yes. But as to your question re the questionnaire; why should I waste time on some study by a researcher who is still wet behind the ears and is coming at the phenomenon with the same tired old "all in their minds" premise? It is not science based if it's coming from the field of psychology; simple as that. Take from that what you will and 'believe' what you chose to 'believe', Joe. Don Ledger Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp