Unashamed Self-Advertisement

A shorter French version of the 1952 UFO case study, using von Lucadou’s MPI to analyze the data, has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Bulletin Métapsychique of the Associatation Métapsychique Internationale (AMI), France’s main parapsychological organization. The notice is:

Ouellet, Eric. (2011). « Le Modèle de l'information pragmatique et les OVNIs ». Bulletin Métapsychique 9 : 10-13.

It can be found here : AMI site

Also, some recent material from this blog has been transformed into an article and published in the peer-reviewed journal Australian Journal of Parapsychology, run by the Australian Institute of Parapsychological Research, the main parapsychological organization in Australia. The notice is:

Ouellet, Eric. (2011). “Social Psi and Parasociology”. Australian Journal of Parapsychology 11(1): 73-88.

It will be available soon on: Informit

P.S. These journals own the copyrights on these articles, as it is the norm with academic journals. So, even if you order a copy, I do not get any royalty.

Fringe•ology – Book review

This post is another review of a relatively new book, written by journalist Steve Volk on the paranormal and his experience of it. The full notice is:

Volk, Steve. ( 2011). Fringe·ology: How I tried to explain away the unexplainable – and couldn’t. New York: HarperOne, 321 p.  ISBN: 978-0-06-185771-3

The majority of people who became interested in the paranormal may have started out of curiosity, but in the end, most of them are consciously, or not, engaging in some sort of spiritual quest. They try to make sense of themselves, others, their lives, the world, and their place in the world. This book is very much a reflection of this common path, but contrary to many books on the same topic it is very informative and well-balanced. I certainly recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a sound and fair introduction to the paranormal.

A middle-of-the-road approach

Steve Volk’s book covers a number of topics related to the paranormal such as near-death experience, psi and remote viewing, consciousness and alternate perceptions of reality, UFOs, ghosts, prayer and meditation, and lucid dreaming. The main thread in the book is Volk’s quest for better understanding the paranormal, and particularly his own experience of living in a house “with a ghost”. The book is written for the larger public, where there are many personal descriptions of his encounters, discussions and interviews with key researchers in the broader field of the paranormal. Yet, along those descriptions, Volk introduces the reader to the main issues and challenges linked to a particular aspect of the paranormal, in a plain but informed language. Furthermore, the book has also at the end a list of sources for each chapter, with many of the key texts on the topic, showing that he did his homework.

The main message of the book is that when it comes to understanding the paranormal, a middle-of-the-road approach is the only one that is really helpful. In numerous occasions, Volk presents the views of the “extremists”, namely the reductionists and materialists’ view where there is nothing paranormal and the New Age view where anything is accepted uncritically as paranormal. Both ways lead to dead-ends. The reductionists miss important and well-documented evidence, and more importantly miss how relevant the paranormal might be in the life of many people. The New Agers, on the other hand, will construct views of life and the world that have little connections to reality, and where scammers of all shapes and colors can exploit people without any shame.

It is also interesting to read that the paranormal can be presented as something helpful and useful, not just a mere curiosity. People who experience near-death experience are oftentimes transformed for the rest of their life; people who practice meditation and prayer do find improvement in their life; lucid dreaming can indeed help people with serious psychological wounds such as PTSD, etc. Yet, Volk remains in the middle-of-the-road with these issues too. Maybe it is purely psychosomatic, maybe there is something else, but there is no way to know for sure. In such a situation where something does work but it is not understood, all we can do is to keep an open mind and try to understand. As Volk wrote, he wishes that the war between the “extremists” be over, so that we can study the paranormal free of the belief systems of both the debunkers and the New Agers, and yet in a way that is rigorous. I certainly share the same wish.

The UFO chapter

The chapter on UFOs is, unfortunately, weaker that the other ones. It is based essentially on Volk’s research and interviews with people involved in the Stephenville UFO incidents of 2008. Although the description of the events is informative and balanced, the main thrust is not really about UFOs, but about how a community came to interpret an unusual event as being either truly extraordinary or a misunderstanding. Volk shows well how the believers, the MUFON investigators and the debunking journalists, polarized the situation in a way where a middle-of-the-road approach could not really emerged. In the end, an informal truce was declared within Stephenville where people are “allowed” to accept either interpretation. This chapter certainly illustrates that paranormal events are also social constructions, and whether something is “declared” paranormal or prosaic is more dependent on social dynamics than on the actual evidence. The same analysis could have been done on a famous haunting story, which would be more in line with the other chapters of the book. So the UFO chapter, although not bad, is bit off topic.

Conclusion

The book concludes, in essence, that the paranormal is indeed a fringe aspect of reality, difficult to measure (most often not even measurable) but “real” enough to not go away. People can make the paranormal whatever they want because there are no ways to determine for sure what it is all about. In other words, it is a liminal phenomenon, stuck in between reality and fiction. If people can make the paranormal what they want, then why not making it into something useful, helpful and meaningful (without having to pay tons of money to a “guru” or a scammer to know how you should go about it). This is common sense, but when it comes to the paranormal, words of common sense need to be repeated often and loudly.

Overall, it is a well-written and well-research book on some aspects of the paranormal. It is written in a way that will please most readers, and keep them interested through the 321 pages. The author’s resolute stand for a middle-of-the-road approach is refreshing and much needed.  I would not be surprise if this book is transformed into a television documentary about a journalist’s quest to understand the paranormal.

Wonders in the Sky – Book Review

This post is a review of Jacques Vallée and Chris Aubeck’s Wonders in the Sky. The full citation is:

Vallée, Jacques and Chris Aubeck. (2010). Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained aerial objects from antiquity to modern times. New York: Penguin, 508 pages. ISBN 978-1-58542-820-5

The well-known ufologist Jacques Vallée, after a long absence from the ufological scene, published another major book with Chris Aubeck. This is an important event given the very steep decline in serious ufological research observed during the last decade. Although it is a well-researched and substantive book, with proper references (a rarity in ufological literature), it may actually be the last significant book of serious ufology; an approach that seemed to have run its course.

A useful reference book

Vallée and Aubeck, with the support of many volunteers from several countries, have gathered 500 cases of UFO-related observations that were put in writing and dating from 1460 B.C. to 1879 C.E. In each case, the exact source is provided, with at times a short discussion to explain how the original source was translated. As well, they have included about 80 cases that were considered as interesting but that were considered as hoaxes, obvious misperceptions, tall tales, or off topic because they were “religious visions”.

The introduction is essentially a discussion about the existence of the UFO phenomenon prior to the 19^th century, something that Vallée and Aubeck consider as a little known fact, and a crack at Stephen Hawking who considered that only “weirdoes and cranks” report UFO sightings. The end of the book provides a short analysis about the physical trends that could be extracted out of the material gathered. For those who read Passport to Magonia, the book structure will appear familiar. There are several reproductions of ancient drawings and paintings illustrating the cases under analysis.

As Vallée and Aubeck acknowledge, some of those cases have very little information, but they offer an overall picture that the UFO phenomenon has a long history. From the point of view of providing references for further research and study, it is certainly a useful book. As well, the authors and their network of volunteers have put a lot of work and energy in making this book. They should be congratulated for that. As a reference book, it should be added to the book collection of anyone interested in UFOs.

The fallacy of inductive thinking

In spite of being a valuable reference book, Wonders in the Sky suffers from all the usual problems linked to ufology as a research endeavour. To start with the introduction, the issue of whether the UFO phenomenon predates the 19^th century, and that only weirdoes see UFOs, is a rear guard battle. As Vallée and Aubeck noted, Van Daniken made the idea of ancient UFOs quite popular in the UFO buff circles since the 1970s. As well, many popular books on UFOs make at least passing references about pre-1947 UFO sightings. So, who are they trying to convince?

The issue of weirdoes has been beaten to death in ufology, and Jimmy Carter’s sighting report is a well-known argument in this story. The real discussion should not be about who report sightings, as much as who is talking about UFOs. Unfortunately, many vocal UFO buffs are indeed weirdoes and cranks, and they have deeply discredited ufology since its early days. This is an old and well-known issue. To bring Hawking in this fray does not help in any shape or fashion. Ufology books tend to be nostalgic of the days where ufologists saw themselves as pioneers of a new science, facing adversity from all fronts. This one shares this feature as well, although only moderately. The sad reality of the early 21^st century is that UFO-related issues are increasingly facing indifference rather than hostility.

A more substantive problem, however, is that this book (like most UFO books) proclaims to be “fact based” (or inductive), yet it fails to realize that any fact is actually an artefact. A fact is a tiny slice of perceived reality that is transcribed in some form. Reality being way too vast for the human mind to absorb, it has to be cut down into tiny pieces about what is relevant. And this where the problem is: how to determine which piece of reality is relevant. In the end, what is a fact comes down to conceptual and methodological choices about what is relevant. Different choices will bring different “facts”. Hence a fact is indeed an artefact of human decision-making. In other words, a fact-based or inductive approach will never be purely objective because it is contingent on decisions made about what is relevant.

Wonders in the Sky, contrary to many UFO books, at least provides some discussions about how the authors came to select or reject the cases they have. The criteria, however, are for the most part the typical ones found in ufology: objective physical phenomenon, reliability of the witness/source, lack of motive to make up a story, etc.

The real criteria are actually not discussed directly. The introduction, like Vallée did in most of his previous books, does not state directly his conceptual framework informing his methodological choices. It is left ambiguous. Yet, if one reads carefully between the lines (and has read read his previous books), his framework is that the truly anomalous UFOs are effects produced by some sort of psycho-social-physical technology emanating from some sort of intelligence. Once this conceptual decision is taken, then a number of fact selection criteria are put in place. First, only cases that seem to have an anomalous physical dimension are included, which in turns excludes for instance synchronistic subjective events that might be UFO-related. Second, the necessity of having a “technology” of some sort involved implies that somehow flying objects are a discrete category to be separated from other anomalous events such as sea monsters, or hauntings. Lastly, the decision of involving a foreign form of intelligence then precludes the possibility of including “self-referential” anomalous events such as “religious visions”.

Jacques Vallée has long complained that he was the only one not knowing what UFOs are. That may be so, but he, like any other UFO researchers (using the extra-terrestrial hypothesis or not), needs some sort of deductive hypothesis or framework to determine which slice of reality is deemed relevant. Good and sound scientific research is expected to present and justify these deductive assumptions in a clear and explicit manner. After all those years, I still do not understand why Vallée feels the need to hide behind the fallaciousness of inductive thinking.

Did ufology’s yardstick was moved ahead?

The authors declare that their research as led them to four major conclusions: (1) anomalous aerial phenomena had a major impact on witnesses; (2) each epoch has projected its own worldviews into the interpretation of these phenomena; (3) they have impacted human civilization in important ways; and (4) older cases can inform contemporary research. Unfortunately, the analysis in the Conclusion chapter does not demonstrate those findings, except for the no. 4. The reader is called upon to figure out him/herself how Vallée and Aubeck came to such conclusions.

The majority of the cases presented in the book are essentially unexplainable oddities reported by various people throughout time. In some case, it may have had a major impact on the witness (like religious conversion), but in most cases it was just an odd thing. Hence, conclusion no. 1 is not warranted with the material presented. I suspect that this finding is simply an import from the authors’ research on contemporary UFO experiencers (which again can be open to discussion as how widespread this finding is). With very few exceptions, the conclusion no. 3 is absolutely not demonstrated in the book, and certainly no serious sociological analysis is provided to substantiate it. This one is clear import from Vallée’s non-avowed conceptual framework, and from that point of view it is no different from “inductive” ETH ufologists who see extra-terrestrials everywhere. Finally, conclusion no. 2 is certainly sound, but the book implies rather than demonstrating it (as well, this is no big news).

In the end, it is possible to say that this book is interesting but failed to provide ufology a desperately needed fresh start. It might not have been the intent of the book, but clearly ufology is getting in a bigger “mess”, as Vallée is keenly aware.  The greatest opportunity missed by this book is that by looking into pre-modern eras the authors could have really set aside their unfortunate and implicit notion of technology to understand UFOs, and started to look into ancient anomalies as simply human events. As well, as Vallée has been aware for quite a long time, ufology and parapsychology would greatly benefit from talking to each other; this would have been a golden opportunity to do so.

Jacques Vallée is in my opinion the best researcher in the world of ufology. In this second decade of the 21^st century, he also appears to be one of the last remaining few serious ufologists. He published probably what is to be his last major book, in an atmosphere now much less contaminated by the moronic Roswell/Majestic hysteria. Unfortunately, not even the greatest ufologist can save ufology from itself.  

Socially Ostentatious Anomalies

As part of establishing a clearer path for the parasociological project, it is clear to me that the object of study needs further clarifications. Although social psi remains the central concept, psi is by definition not directly observable as it is about acquiring information or altering matter without using known means of information exchange or matter modification. In other words, the concept of psi is built on the notion that it is manifestation of “something” without observable cause-and-effect. Psi can only be approached through indirect means.

Parapsychologists have devised 2 generic classes of object for study that seem to express the presence of psi effects, namely extra-sensory perception (ESP), and psychokinesis (PK). In both cases, they describe phenomena that are observable. In the case of parasociology, a proper research object would be something combining a socially observable event that is considered as defying conventional explanations. I propose, as a heuristic conceptual tool, the notion of Socially Ostentatious Anomalies (SOA) for the main object of study for parasociology, or for those who are found of methodological terminology SOA as the main unit of analysis. Under the concept of SOA, many phenomena can be studied, such as UFO waves, Marian apparitions, sea and lake monsters, etc. Right now, the concept of SOA does not include phenomena that are much more localized such as haunting, poltergeists, and various “private” apparitions. This last set of phenomena should still be studied by parasociology (especially by investigating the hypothesis that such phenomena are psi effects requiring a “community of believers”), but their more localized social dynamics require developing analytical tools akin to micro-sociology, which is left for now to future research.

A first attempt to use SOA

In the third post on the Canadian 1966-67 UFO wave case study, I noted that UFO waves seem to be following a pattern based on solar cycles, namely that they tend to occur during the ascending phase of solar activity, near the maxima period, and this was happening at every other solar cycle, based on 3 data points. I extended the hypothesis by introducing other SOAs, namely Marian apparitions, and found something intriguing.

One of the most famous Marian apparitions investigated by the Catholic Church was the one in Lourdes, France, that occurred between February and July 1858. This occurred during the ascending phase of the solar cycle 10, relatively near to the maxima.

Another very famous Marian apparition, also investigated by the Church, occurred in Fatima, Portugal, between May and October 1917. This event also happened during the ascending phase of the solar cycle, in this case no. 15, near the maxima. 

 

 
A further look shows that there are time periods where SOA seem more likely to occur, which brings more parallels between UFO waves and Marian apparitions, although not linked to a particular period of solar cycles. The ghost planes wave of late 1933 over Sweden occurred less than a year after two sets of Marian apparitions in Belgium, in Beauraing and in Banneux in early 1933. Both were investigated by the Church. The UFO wave of 1966-1967 was followed by the apparitions at Zeitoun, Egypt, in early 1968, and was investigated by the Coptic Church.Finally, the October 1973 UFO wave was preceded by the Marian apparitions at Akita, Japan, starting in June of the same year. It was investigated by then Monsignor Ratzinger, who is now the present Pope Benedict.

As discussed in the Canadian case study, the UFO waves of 1947, 1967, and the one in Belgium in 1989-90, also occurred during the ascending phase of the solar cycles near the maxima, for cycle 18, 20, and 22, respectively. By looking at SOA, and not only UFO waves, we have now 5 data points.

Given that SOA are relatively rare events, this brings a number of interesting questions about the possibility that SOA are enabled by similar conditions, which still remain unknown for the time being. If this is a correct assumption, then it is further indications that SOA are indeed of a similar nature, even if they “express” themselves through a wide variety of shapes and forms.

One possible commonality between UFO events and Marian apparitions seems to be the electro-magnetic impact of solar cycles, which is in line with some findings about the nexus between UFO events and electro-magnetism, as discussed in the Materiality of UFOs.

At this time, to be fair, I cannot find other SOA that could be related to the Airship wave of 1897-98 (middle of declining phase of cycle 13 (1890-1901)); the British Airship wave of 1909 (declining phase of cycle 14 (1902-1913), but still in maxima plateau); the Foo Fighters era (late phase of cycle 17, and early phase of cycle 18 (1944-1954)); the 1952 UFO wave (middle of declining phase of cycle 18), and the 1958 UFO wave (maxima of cycle 19 (1954-1964)). So, it is obvious that although there might be a pattern emerging, not all the variables are known at this time.

What to expect for 2012?

As discussed in the Canadian case study, the near maxima ascending phase of the present solar cycle (no. 24) will happen towards the end of 2012. Yes, at the same as the presumed “end of the world”, based on a seriously ignorant understanding of the Mayan archaeology. What is more interesting is that I can make a parasociological testable hypothesis that the end of 2012 will be propitious for SOA to occur. However, as the parapsychologist Walter von Lucadou noted about psi effects, a phenomenon can only act “as it pleases” as long as it is not observed too attentively. In other words, observation removes indeterminacy in a system, and thus creative quantum entanglements are less likely to occur. Given that a lot of people will expect something “big” to happen in December 2012, then it will be difficult for SOA to occur, as a variety of systems will be observed attentively. So, here is my modified parasociological hypothesis: in the second half of 2012, should a SOA occurs, it will be completely unrelated to any “end of the world” symbolism. UFOs and Marian apparitions have both a history of being associated with millenaries views, and I do not think they are good candidates for SOA in 2012. In fact, we may see a new and creative form of SOA, or may be a low key one like Nessie reporting back to duty may emerged.

In any event, this testable hypothesis has been laid openly and justified based on the parasociological approach, and no one can say that parasociology is not falsifiable.

 
 
Eric Ouellet (c) 2011

Back to the basics: parasociology and parapsychology

Jacques Vallée has long been complaining that he was the only not knowing what is behind the UFO phenomenon. The good news is that is not the only one. Indeed, the UFO phenomenon is a mystery, and in spite of the best attempts of many people, it still remains a mystery.

The real issue, in my opinion, is that the empirical inductive approach towards the UFO phenomenon has reached its course. Observations of the physical aspects of the phenomenon (shape, color, speed, etc.) have not yield any new significant knowledge since the 1970s. I think that the craze during the 1980s and 1990s about Roswell and governmental conspiracies was in part propelled by the fact inductive approaches were not fruitful anymore. The conspiracy approach, a variation of the ETH, was a hypothesis that generated new questions, and encouraged people to seek new types of data (especially classified government documents). Unfortunately for the proponents of the conspiracy hypothesis, it also reached its course as no new knowledge of substance was generated.

Similarly, the observation of paranormal effects in UFO events, explored by people like Vallée, Keel, Randles, Mack, and others also reached its course by the year 2000 (altered state of consciousness, poltergeist events, telepathy, premonition, vision, etc.). The ground-up approach of taking witnesses’ testimony and trying to find out pattern has yielded as much as it could. To keep approaching the phenomenon with the same set of questions and data will, invariably, lead to the same unsatisfying answers. 

To have different questions, leading to analyze a different set of data, and look at older data from a different angle, requires sound new hypotheses. Hypotheses are not things that someone would take out of a hat. They require to be fully justified based on existing knowledge, on rational analysis, and their fundamental assumptions laid open for transparent scientific debate.  

Trying to prove a hypothesis is not equivalent knowing what the phenomenon is, but one has to be careful to not fall into the trap of projecting results where there are no results. It is why any new hypothesis has to be fully explained and justified in a transparent way. Deviations from the original intent can be identified immediately.  

Parasociology and sociology 

Émile Durkheim, the founder of modern sociology, is well-known for defining the discipline as being a "science of institutions", and about "their genesis and their functioning”, in his classical book The Rules of Sociological Method (1895). He further defined institutions as "collective ways of action and thinking" that exist on their own right, outside the individuals, and which have a coercive influence over individuals' consciousness, acting from the outside in.

From this classical definition, it is clear that the "paranormal" can be considered as a social institution. It is made of collective beliefs and practices which tend to impose themselves on individual consciousnesses. In the case of UFOs, for instance, the belief in ET and governmental conspiracies has shaped the field. It is very hard to have a sound discussion about UFOs without having believers telling you how wrong one can be if he or she does not share those beliefs. They can even become aggressive at times. In other instances, this can lead to bizarre and yet very dangerous cults, as Jacques Vallée showed many years ago in Messengers of Deception.  

The few sociologists who studied the paranormal, borrowing a lot from the social study of religion, focused on those shared collective beliefs and ways of acting, and in essence considered the paranormal as another social institution (but a close cousin to religion). 

The parasociological approach, on the other hand, is not about looking at a particular social institution, like the various sociologies that emerged over time (sociology of the family, of religion, of gender, of organization, of economic structures, of labor, etc.). Its basic premise is that there is something akin to “social psi” having an influence on societies, which can affect any “collective ways of action and thinking” (i.e. any institution). Hence, the main focus of parasociology is to develop both methodologies to assess the presence of such “social psi”, and a consistent and grounded conceptual framework to generate testable hypotheses. The UFO phenomenon has been selected as a particular empirical object to develop the methodologies and conceptual framework for reasons already explained before. A useful way to extract some of the key assumptions behind the parasociological approach to UFOs is by comparing it with some of the assumptions of parapsychology.

The limits of parapsychology as a model for parasociology 

The general concept of psi has been developed by researchers in parapsychology, and therefore parasociology has to rely substantively on parapsychology. But it is important to underline that there are limits to such reliance. Andrew Nichols provides an interesting discussion on what is parapsychology, and this can be used to contrast it with parasociology.

1. Parapsychology is concerned with individual experiences that are considered as paranormal by both the experiencer and society.  

Parasociology is not particularly concerned with individual experiences, but it is rather interested by events that are socially observed and considered as paranormal. Of course, it is individuals who perceived paranormal events, but the social reception and the context allowing such events to occur are situated beyond the individual. I understand that this view maybe disconcerting for those who do not have training in social sciences, because it is not intuitive. But science is about going beyond the surface of things. 

2. “Parapsychology asserts that such experiences are not, in and of themselves, indicative of psychopathology.” 

Parasociology, also, does not consider that a society experiencing paranormal events is a necessary sign of collective delusion, although social delusion can accompany paranormal events. Furthermore, if social psi might be the outcome of social tensions, it does not have to be the case all the time. I look at the UFO phenomenon metaphorically as a grand scale poltergeist (RSPK), which implies that some sort of tensions would be the main driver. A wider array of possibilities needs to be investigated, such as a “dialogue” between the social unconscious and the collective consciousness that takes a paranormal form on some occasions (like an objectified social dream). 

3. “Parapsychology asserts that paranormal-type experiences are often a source of personal transformation or healing to the individual” 

Parasociology, in theory, is open to the notion that paranormal events can change societies, especially in creating or reshaping religion as a social institution. However, this has not been the present focus of parasociology as it is seeking to establish, first, the possibility of “social psi”. Furthermore, the parallels between individual transformation and social transformation are dubious, especially in the context of large and complex societies. The UFO phenomenon certainly participated in the enlargement of the paranormal institution in Western countries, but did it really transform societies? Not really, as we are still dealing with something quite marginal, socially speaking. Yet, the notion of possible social impact on a particular sub-group should be integrated into parasociology in the future. 

4. Parapsychology accepts that “transpersonal consciousness incorporates other individuals, living and deceased, as well as objects and/or locations which are meaningful to the individual. This transpersonal stratum of consciousness is the source of genuine paranormal experiences, whether experienced consciously or subliminally”. 

Parasociology, as a sociological endeavor, does not see the world as an aggregation of individuals, as psychology and parapsychology tend to do. The social unconscious and the collective consciousness have dynamics of their own that cannot be reduced to individual experiences, be it transpersonal or not. However, parasociology assumes that social psi emanates from the social unconscious and that it can emerge, at times, into the collective consciousness. This view is profoundly modern and sociological in nature, as it assumes that the social realm determines the social. The main addition to this view from parasociology is that not all the social realm is observable by using the traditional methodologies of the social sciences. In other words, if the UFO phenomenon is an expression of the social unconscious, then there is no need to seek an extra-social explanation for it (like the ETs, the Gods, etc).   

5. “Parapsychology asserts that the prudent use of certain techniques (e.g. trance induction, automatisms) may facilitate access to the transpersonal unconscious”. 

Parasociology assumes that there are social conditions more favorable to the emergence of social psi effects, but such conditions remain to be researched. Furthermore, given the very significant logistical and ethical challenges linked to societal experiments, parasociology does not rely on experimental approaches, and has to rely on spontaneous and historical cases.  

6. “Parapsychology assumes no stance on the question of physical measurement or recording of paranormal phenomena. There is no conclusive evidence that physical measures or recording techniques (photography, audio-recording, etc.) are capable of detecting paranormal energies or entities.” 

Parasociology does not pay much attention to the physical dimension of paranormal events, although the presence of physical anomalies is considered as a useful indicator. As well, social synchronicities, which would be considered as a form of social psi, do not necessarily require any physical anomaly to be present. There are many UFO observations that are ignored by ufologists because they turned out to be caused by conventional objects, yet when one looks more carefully, these observations can be synchronistic to either paranormal events or other “genuine” UFO observations. Hence, the parasociological approach rejects the primacy of the physical UFO reality to study the phenomenon. A much wider net needs to be cast to get useful data. 

7. “Parapsychology is a scientific approach [...] However, humanistic parapsychology also incorporates psychological/spiritual development...” 

Parasociology does not espouse any “New Age” beliefs, nor does it accept teleological assumptions about “growth of humanity”. Parasociology remains centered on the original intent of sociology to understand the genesis and functioning of social institution, irrespective of the values one may project into them.  

8. “The task of parapsychology is threefold. [...] parapsychologist seeks to determine whether this assertion is factual, or if the experience is subjective in nature. Next, the parapsychologist analyzes the gathered material, seeking meaningful patterns relating the event to the percipient=s personal history, mythological concepts, etc. Finally, the parapsychologist offers counseling and advice to the percipient [...]” 

The first two tasks of parasociology are similar: (1) asserting the factual or subjective nature of a paranormal event, (2) in light of what is meaningful in a given society. However, parasociology unlike psychology, does not have a clinical aim to offer counseling. A parasociological explanation, assuming that it would be accepted by the larger society may play a role in diffusing a difficult social situation (like a state of panic). But the skeptics are already playing that role. The main difference of a parasociological approach would be a more sensitive and sensible way to diffuse social tensions emerging out of a paranormal event. Yet, given that the “voice of reason” is usually ignored in most fights between skeptics and believers (especially prevalent in the UFO world), any social role for parasociology remains essentially theoretical at this point.

9. “Parapsychological Counseling is client-centered and non-directive, i.e., paranormal experiences should be studied within the cultural and social context in which they occur.” 

Any equivalent for parasociology would be to offer advice to governmental agencies about the relativistic nature of paranormal events; leaving decision-makers determine what would be the best course of action. It was more or less the position taken by Hynek, and in some of the early assessments of the UFO phenomenon (like the 1948 Lipp Report). Here too, such potential for parasociology remains essentially theoretical. 

10. “Parapsychology supports no specific religious interpretation of paranormal experiences, and makes no assertions with regard to the question of conscious survival after death, nor does it assert the literal existence of an objective “spirit world” or of non-corporeal entities, extra-terrestrial beings, etc.”

Actually, here I disagree with Andrew Nichols. What distinguishes parapsychology from the older psychical sciences is the rejection of non-human entities to explain paranormal events. 

Parasociology, as discussed before takes the same approach as parapsychology, and for the same reasons. Involving non-human entities in the explanation prevents any possibility of a scientific approach. Given that non-human entities can call the shots at will, then there is no possibility of establishing patterns as one would do in natural sciences; and given that they are not human, we cannot make any hypothesis based on our common humanity as one would do in social sciences. Non-human entities, as a conceptual notion, lead to a scientific dead end by definition. The parasociological approach remains part of the overall project of the modern scientific institution.

Parasociological methodology – a first approximation

After investigating at length the parapsychological literature (particularly the one about spontaneous macro psi effects like poltergeist phenomenon (RSPK)) and explored in detail a number of UFO wave cases, I found a few methodological criteria that appear particularly useful to explore parasociological hypothesis.  These criteria still remain, of course, wide and allow competing analyses to emerge without being able to determine firmly which one is the most accurate. However, it should be seen as a step forward in that it provides some rigor and discipline to parasociological analysis, and can open the way to find additional criteria that would narrow down the number of possible competing analyses to explore the genesis of UFO events.

It is important to remember that these criteria for investigating possible parasociological effects (or social psi effects), are all attempting to circumvent the significant problem of absence of observable causal relationships between the social and the physical realm. They are:

1.       The observation system is social.

This means that the UFO phenomenon received enough attention from the general public to be noted. This is usually done through the mass media, but it can also be done through governmental agencies collecting data about UFOs, in which case the observation system would be the state. This criterion is based on a number of findings and theories emerging from parapsychology, where a psi phenomenon is considered to be the outcome of an emotional intent, which are making psi activities meaningful events. The key question is meaningful for whom? The range of visibility of psi phenomenon can be a good indicator to assess to whom is destined the psi effect, i.e. to whom the information is destined. Hence, a social psi event should be destined to society at large, or its governance if the state is the observation system.

2.       Chronological proximity

This means that a UFO event or series of UFO events should occur around the same time as a meaningful social event. It can be a few days before or after a particularly meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge. But such event is usually not known publically at the time. Chronological proximity can only be found out after the fact. This criterion is based on a number of findings and theories emerging from parapsychology where psi effects are believe to be emerging from the unconscious, which is by definition not observable; like the feeling of “something will happen” but not knowing what it is. At the social level, there are individual actions that will have a significant social impact, but their scope and nature cannot be known yet, but can be “felt”.

3.       Geographical proximity

This means that a UFO event or series of UFO events should occur in a geographical area that is around a particularly meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge. Like in the case of Chronological proximity and for the same reasons, such event is usually not known publically at the time. This criterion is based on the same notion that psi effects are information destined to “someone”, and that “someone’s” attention needs to be grabbed.

4. Symbolic relationship

The UFO event or series of events carry symbolism that can be related to particularly meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge. Such symbolism, however, is the one of the unconscious and can be quite subtle in nature, oftentimes only comprehensible through lateral forms of thinking, and usually much after the fact. This criterion is based on a number of findings and theories emerging from parapsychology where psi effects are the outcome of unconscious processes, and that the language of the unconscious is fundamentally symbolic.

5. Internal validity through mutually reinforcing criteria

These four criteria should reinforce each other. The yet unknown meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge should be considered as being such (i.e. meaningful and emotional) by the people who are part of the social observation system. The symbolism found in the event can also be found in the geography (e.g., name of the place where observations are made) and the chronology (e.g., a particular anniversary in the same timeframe). The “message” carried through symbolism is meaningful for the observation system if it can decipher it. Etc.

That's all folks! - Well, not really

UPDATE

13 May 2011

Dear all,

After discussing off line with a number of people, I decided to get back on. However, I will post not as regularly as I did. There might be weeks where I will have many posts, and then a break for a couple months, depending if I have something to report.

Best,

Eric

Dear readers,

After debating with myself for quite sometime now, I decided that it is time to put the parasociological project to rest.

As discussed in my post of 26 september 2010 "Parasociology: to be or not to be", the obstacles against the parasociological project are formidable, whether they are epistemological, conceptual, empirical or social. Someone else, more talented than me, will have to pursue this line of inquiry.

I would like to thank all those who provided comments and constructive criticism. I really appreaciated your support.

I will let the blog on for quite a while, so it will remain available for those interested in using the material therein.

Farewell,

Eric