textfiles/ufo/snobs.ufo

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.