Eric Ouellet © 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Canadian UFO wave 1966-67 (part 2 - Appendix)
The raw data is provided here. Please note there will be a part 3 to this case study.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Eric Ouellet © 2010
The Canadian UFO wave 1966-67 (part 2)
This post provides the data found about the UFO wave, and a general discussion about the preliminary findings. The layered analysis, strictly speaking, will be provided in the next post.
Data set
Although a number of ufologists have hailed the 1966-1967 UFO wave as the “mother of all UFO waves”[1], and some had their ufological career launched in its wake[2], very few comprehensive study of this wave has been produced. As far as I can see, there is no comprehensive data on the Canadian portion of this wave. Hence, the first challenge is to establish a comprehensive data set to have empirical material about the wave. There are a few books on UFOs in Canada[3], which emphasize a few selected cases. As well, there are many websites that provide information of various cases.
This is not surprising as it reflects the fragmentation of the private observation system discussed in the previous post. However, there are a few more comprehensive databases available, which only partly overlap. The data set for this case study was therefore produced by combining together those databases. Given the fragmentation of the private observation system, it is likely that the database I produced is not complete, but I am fairly confident that it represents over 90% of the reported cases in Canada for the period between 1 January 1966 and 31 December 1967. The databases used were Richard Hall’s study of the 1966-67 wave[4], the Government of Canada Archives[5], the websites UFO DNA (at ufodna.com), and Water-UFO (at waterufo.net). The choice of these databases was based on their apparent comprehensiveness, the identification of sources, and how systematic the data were coded. About a dozen sightings were not included, as they were explainable by conventional means, or there was not enough information to make any judgement.
The overall results are as follow:
Total sightings for 1966: 122
Total sightings for 1967: 233
Total for 1966-1967: 355 sightings
Preliminary analysis
As it is the case for the vast majority of UFO sighting reports, there is very little information to work with. The impact on the primary observation systems (i.e., the witnesses) is rarely recorded unless there are physiological effects or very ostentatious psychological impacts. As well, the potential impact of the observation system on the observed system is never looked into. Given that most of the data were recorded in the 1960s, this situation is not surprising as Keel and Vallée’s ideas about the centrality of the witnesses were only barely emerging at the time. Although, even today’s report are rarely prepared in the spirit of Keel and Vallée’s advice about the centrality of the witnesses’ personal history. Given these circumstances, it is impossible to assess a potential psi effect for every single case except for the few cases that were investigated in greater depth (like the Falcon Lake incident). This is a basic limitation found in the vast majority of the ufological material. However, basic statistical trends may be useful to assess if something is occurring at the higher level observation systems, i.e., the private and public systems.
Another issue to keep in mind is whether the sightings could be explained through conventional means or not. The problem is the same as for identifying psi effects. There are too little information available, and not enough resources to investigate. Using the findings of the project Blue Book, it became a rule of thumb in ufology to expect that 95% of sightings are caused by conventional causes. This assumption has never been really tested afterward because the private observation systems cannot afford to do so, as they are relying essentially on volunteers. This rule of thumb might be true if one does a longitudinal analysis over many years, but it appears to be less true when applied to a narrower set of data.
This is a first general finding of this case study: the 1966-67 UFO wave in Canada is likely to have a much greater percentage of “unexplained” cases compared to the total number of sightings. It is to be noted that Hynek had the same observation about the 1952 wave (242 unexplained for about 400 sightings or about 60% unexplained[6]). In other words, a key characteristic of a UFO wave is not only having more sightings, but also having a greater percentage of “unexplained” cases. In other words, a UFO wave is not only quantitatively different but also qualitatively distinct from a “normal” year. In the case of the Canadian portion of the 1966-67 UFO wave, this can be noted by the relatively high number of cases that can be qualified as “close encounters”, according to Hynek’s classification system. Although some close encounters can probably be explained by conventional means, given that they imply a much closer look, or physical evidence, or high strangeness, it is reasonable to expect greater fidelity. The Canadian data is as follow:
Year CE1 CE2 CE3 Total CE % of cases
1966 29 7 2 38 31.15%
1967 53 25 11 89 38.20%
Total 82 32 13 127 35.77%
Close encounters constitute nearly 36% of all cases. Even with a very conservative estimate that only one in three would be truly “unexplained”, it would still be about 12% “unexplained”, or over two times more than the 5% “unexplained” of the rule of thumb. However, even if all 36% would be “unexplained,” it is still almost half of the 1952 UFO wave rate. This is consistent with the notion that the 1966-67 wave was less ostentatious than the one of 1952, even if the overall number sightings across the world was much higher.
In the light of this finding, particular attention was paid to the closer encounters. This in turn led to the identification of 6 particular clusters of sightings that will be the focus of the layered analysis. These clusters are:
(a) Concentration of nearly half (15 out of 38) of the close encounters over the early summer of 1966 (between 1 June and 8 August), with a concentration in the last week of July. It is important to note that both the public and private observation systems were on it, but only the public system caught the end of July concentration.
(b) The Hamilton/Caledonia area in Ontario experienced a mini wave of its own in January and February 1967, with a short but intense second outburst in June 1967 (including a prominent CE3 experience, and one of the rare Canadian “men-in-black” reports). This was essentially noted by the private observation systems.
(c) The Sudbury area experienced also a mini wave between September and November 1967, with an interesting sighting on October 4th, the day of the Shag Harbour incident. It is important to note that only the public observation system seemed to be aware of this mini wave.
(d) At the end of July and August 1967, there was a concentration of CE3 experiences (6 out of 13), or almost half of all CE3 reports for the entire UFO wave. In this case, only the private observation system was potentially aware, although this should be expected as CE3 cases were implicitly outside the mandate of the NRC (National Research Council).
(e) The Shag Harbour incident is also noteworthy because of the simultaneous high quality sightings in Sudbury and in Quebec, as well as a very interesting case from the Nova Scotia sharing many similarities with a RSPK event. In this case both the public and private observation systems were on the lookout.
(f) The famous Falcon Lake incident of 20 May 1967 appears to be geographically an isolated incident. But a closer look reveals that it is located within a cluster of 12 close encounters between late April and late May 1967 (or about 10% of all close encounters for the entire wave). This cluster was essentially observed by the private system.
The raw data
Given the technical limitations of blog websites, the raw data summary tables will be provided in a separate post.
Notes for this post
[1] Expression used by Richard Hall, and echoed by the Karl T. Pflock in a book review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/reviews/reviews_18_4_pflock_2.pdf
[2] Like Canadian ufologist Jean Casault http://ovni-ufo-ufologie-extraterrestres-le-blog-des-repas-ufologiques.over-blog.com/article-jean-casault-ufologue-quebecois-publie-un-nouvel-ouvrage-47967218.html.
[3] Namely, Bondarchuk, Yurko. (1979). UFO Canada. Scarborough: Signet; Bray, Arthur. (1979). The UFO Connection. Ottawa: Jupiter Publishing; Rutkowski, Chris and Geoff Dittman. (2006). The Canadian UFO Report: The Best Cases Revealed. Toronto: Dundurn Press. Campagna, Palmiro. (1998). The UFO files: the Canadian connection exposed. Toronto: Stoddart.
[4] Hall, Richard. (2004). Alien Invasion of Human Fantasy? The 1966-67 UFO wave. Washington: Fund for UFO Research.
[5] Accessible online at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo. Also the website Canadian X-Files at http://ufo-joe.tripod.com provides a useful index to search the government database.
[6] Hynek, J. Allen. The Hynek UFO Report. New York: Dell, 1977, p. 264.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Data set
Although a number of ufologists have hailed the 1966-1967 UFO wave as the “mother of all UFO waves”[1], and some had their ufological career launched in its wake[2], very few comprehensive study of this wave has been produced. As far as I can see, there is no comprehensive data on the Canadian portion of this wave. Hence, the first challenge is to establish a comprehensive data set to have empirical material about the wave. There are a few books on UFOs in Canada[3], which emphasize a few selected cases. As well, there are many websites that provide information of various cases.
This is not surprising as it reflects the fragmentation of the private observation system discussed in the previous post. However, there are a few more comprehensive databases available, which only partly overlap. The data set for this case study was therefore produced by combining together those databases. Given the fragmentation of the private observation system, it is likely that the database I produced is not complete, but I am fairly confident that it represents over 90% of the reported cases in Canada for the period between 1 January 1966 and 31 December 1967. The databases used were Richard Hall’s study of the 1966-67 wave[4], the Government of Canada Archives[5], the websites UFO DNA (at ufodna.com), and Water-UFO (at waterufo.net). The choice of these databases was based on their apparent comprehensiveness, the identification of sources, and how systematic the data were coded. About a dozen sightings were not included, as they were explainable by conventional means, or there was not enough information to make any judgement.
The overall results are as follow:
Total sightings for 1966: 122
Total sightings for 1967: 233
Total for 1966-1967: 355 sightings
Preliminary analysis
As it is the case for the vast majority of UFO sighting reports, there is very little information to work with. The impact on the primary observation systems (i.e., the witnesses) is rarely recorded unless there are physiological effects or very ostentatious psychological impacts. As well, the potential impact of the observation system on the observed system is never looked into. Given that most of the data were recorded in the 1960s, this situation is not surprising as Keel and Vallée’s ideas about the centrality of the witnesses were only barely emerging at the time. Although, even today’s report are rarely prepared in the spirit of Keel and Vallée’s advice about the centrality of the witnesses’ personal history. Given these circumstances, it is impossible to assess a potential psi effect for every single case except for the few cases that were investigated in greater depth (like the Falcon Lake incident). This is a basic limitation found in the vast majority of the ufological material. However, basic statistical trends may be useful to assess if something is occurring at the higher level observation systems, i.e., the private and public systems.
Another issue to keep in mind is whether the sightings could be explained through conventional means or not. The problem is the same as for identifying psi effects. There are too little information available, and not enough resources to investigate. Using the findings of the project Blue Book, it became a rule of thumb in ufology to expect that 95% of sightings are caused by conventional causes. This assumption has never been really tested afterward because the private observation systems cannot afford to do so, as they are relying essentially on volunteers. This rule of thumb might be true if one does a longitudinal analysis over many years, but it appears to be less true when applied to a narrower set of data.
This is a first general finding of this case study: the 1966-67 UFO wave in Canada is likely to have a much greater percentage of “unexplained” cases compared to the total number of sightings. It is to be noted that Hynek had the same observation about the 1952 wave (242 unexplained for about 400 sightings or about 60% unexplained[6]). In other words, a key characteristic of a UFO wave is not only having more sightings, but also having a greater percentage of “unexplained” cases. In other words, a UFO wave is not only quantitatively different but also qualitatively distinct from a “normal” year. In the case of the Canadian portion of the 1966-67 UFO wave, this can be noted by the relatively high number of cases that can be qualified as “close encounters”, according to Hynek’s classification system. Although some close encounters can probably be explained by conventional means, given that they imply a much closer look, or physical evidence, or high strangeness, it is reasonable to expect greater fidelity. The Canadian data is as follow:
Year CE1 CE2 CE3 Total CE % of cases
1966 29 7 2 38 31.15%
1967 53 25 11 89 38.20%
Total 82 32 13 127 35.77%
Close encounters constitute nearly 36% of all cases. Even with a very conservative estimate that only one in three would be truly “unexplained”, it would still be about 12% “unexplained”, or over two times more than the 5% “unexplained” of the rule of thumb. However, even if all 36% would be “unexplained,” it is still almost half of the 1952 UFO wave rate. This is consistent with the notion that the 1966-67 wave was less ostentatious than the one of 1952, even if the overall number sightings across the world was much higher.
In the light of this finding, particular attention was paid to the closer encounters. This in turn led to the identification of 6 particular clusters of sightings that will be the focus of the layered analysis. These clusters are:
(a) Concentration of nearly half (15 out of 38) of the close encounters over the early summer of 1966 (between 1 June and 8 August), with a concentration in the last week of July. It is important to note that both the public and private observation systems were on it, but only the public system caught the end of July concentration.
(b) The Hamilton/Caledonia area in Ontario experienced a mini wave of its own in January and February 1967, with a short but intense second outburst in June 1967 (including a prominent CE3 experience, and one of the rare Canadian “men-in-black” reports). This was essentially noted by the private observation systems.
(c) The Sudbury area experienced also a mini wave between September and November 1967, with an interesting sighting on October 4th, the day of the Shag Harbour incident. It is important to note that only the public observation system seemed to be aware of this mini wave.
(d) At the end of July and August 1967, there was a concentration of CE3 experiences (6 out of 13), or almost half of all CE3 reports for the entire UFO wave. In this case, only the private observation system was potentially aware, although this should be expected as CE3 cases were implicitly outside the mandate of the NRC (National Research Council).
(e) The Shag Harbour incident is also noteworthy because of the simultaneous high quality sightings in Sudbury and in Quebec, as well as a very interesting case from the Nova Scotia sharing many similarities with a RSPK event. In this case both the public and private observation systems were on the lookout.
(f) The famous Falcon Lake incident of 20 May 1967 appears to be geographically an isolated incident. But a closer look reveals that it is located within a cluster of 12 close encounters between late April and late May 1967 (or about 10% of all close encounters for the entire wave). This cluster was essentially observed by the private system.
The raw data
Given the technical limitations of blog websites, the raw data summary tables will be provided in a separate post.
Notes for this post
[1] Expression used by Richard Hall, and echoed by the Karl T. Pflock in a book review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/reviews/reviews_18_4_pflock_2.pdf
[2] Like Canadian ufologist Jean Casault http://ovni-ufo-ufologie-extraterrestres-le-blog-des-repas-ufologiques.over-blog.com/article-jean-casault-ufologue-quebecois-publie-un-nouvel-ouvrage-47967218.html.
[3] Namely, Bondarchuk, Yurko. (1979). UFO Canada. Scarborough: Signet; Bray, Arthur. (1979). The UFO Connection. Ottawa: Jupiter Publishing; Rutkowski, Chris and Geoff Dittman. (2006). The Canadian UFO Report: The Best Cases Revealed. Toronto: Dundurn Press. Campagna, Palmiro. (1998). The UFO files: the Canadian connection exposed. Toronto: Stoddart.
[4] Hall, Richard. (2004). Alien Invasion of Human Fantasy? The 1966-67 UFO wave. Washington: Fund for UFO Research.
[5] Accessible online at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo. Also the website Canadian X-Files at http://ufo-joe.tripod.com provides a useful index to search the government database.
[6] Hynek, J. Allen. The Hynek UFO Report. New York: Dell, 1977, p. 264.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Canadian 1966-67 UFO wave (Part 1)
This post is the first one about the UFO wave that occurred in Canada in 1966-1967. Other countries, especially the United States, were also experiencing a UFO wave at time. As it will be explained below, the Canadian portion of the wave can be studied as a discrete portion of a wider event. This case study is in many ways an extension of the 1952 Washington D.C. case. The same foundational approach will be used, namely system theory and the Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI) developed by Walter von Lucadou to study recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis (RSPK) events, also known as poltergeists. However, given that the scope of the 1966-1967 UFO wave is much more complex than the 1952 events, the MPI will be used in the wider context of the Weak or Generalized Quantum Theory (GQT), as the MPI is a special case of the GQT[1]. The implications of the GQT will be described through the case study. First, some key conceptual and methodological issues requiring some discussion.
Psi displacement on a grand scale
As stated in the previous post, it is difficult to define what constitutes a UFO wave, even when it is actually occurring. The 1966-1967 wave is a clear illustrative case. John Keel was one of few who wrote about the UFO wave as it was occurring[2]. But for many the full realization that there was a major UFO wave unfolding came afterward, as the late Richard Hall noted in 1978 MUFON conference[3]. Similarly, the Canadian John Magor wrote an article in 1969 entitled “1967 Canadian UFO Wave: The Year We Were Invaded Without Knowing It”[4]. Magor noticed that people in Canada were aware that something was going on, but they did not really grasped the magnitude of the event. Furthermore, as a number of ufologists have underlined, by 1966 the Project Blue Book was only the shadow of itself, and for all intent and purpose there was no central repository for reporting UFO sightings. According to Hynek’s evaluation of Project Blue Book reports, there were only 36 “unidentified” for 1966 and 19 for 1967[5]. This situation certainly made the recognition of a UFO wave even more difficult.
If one looks at UFO waves as discrete events, then it is obvious that the 1966-67 wave was different from the American wave of 1952 and the European wave of 1954. The phenomenon was much more ostentatious in the 1950s than it was in the 1960s. Otherwise, people would have been aware that a major UFO wave was unfolding. Moreover, the 1952 wave seemed to have an epicentre (i.e., Washington D.C.), while the 1966-1967 wave clearly lack such epicentre. This is an important clue that should point our understanding of the UFO phenomenon, once more, towards a parapsychological (or parasociological) explanation. As it is well-known in experimental parapsychology, expected psi effects tend to decline over time but new ones are found after the fact through post-experiment review of data and among variables that were not suspected at first[6]. This is called the displacement effect.
Emergent properties of a large system
The MPI has been developed to study RSPKs, but there are some differences between RSPKs and UFO wave that require further analysis, especially in the context of a psi phenomenon that has been displaced. Poltergeist events, or RSPKs, tend to occur in a particular city, cause quite a mess, but then stop. The next one may appear years later usually in a different city, but creating similar psycho-social and physical effects. In other words, the larger observing system (i.e. the city) is rarely the same one. Or to put in the terminology of experimental parapsychology, there is also a new experimenter. In the case of UFOs, however, given that they were usually investigated by the armed forces and other national security agencies of a country, the observing system does not change over time, and therefore one should expect an accumulation effect in the observing system not present in RSPKs. Such accumulation, according to system theory, is a key condition to observe emergent properties of a system. Beyond the displacement effect discussed above, there were other important emergent properties linked to the 1966-1967 wave.
The first emergent property was the transition from a “public” to multiple “private” observation systems. By the 1960s, the public observation system came to suffer from “UFO fatigue,” so to speak. What is meant here is that in the 1950s the state, both in United States and Canada, was the main observational system with the project Blue Book and project Magnet (plus an ad hoc accumulation of data by various governmental agencies), respectively. By the 1960s, the state is not as active in the UFO data collection. In the U.S., the project Blue Book is much less active, and the pre-ordain Condon Report conclusions to get finally rid of the UFO issue is set in motion, leading to the formal closure of project Blue Book. In Canada, National Defence finally transferred their UFO files to the National Research Council in September 1967[7], who passed the buck to a group of University of Toronto professors (to create a Canadian version of the Condon Committee)[8]. They investigated a number of reports, but eventually closed the project in 1969 in the wake of the Condon Report conclusions[9]. The ultimate outcome of all this is that the observation came to rely solely on private citizens organized in UFO clubs and associations such APRO, NICAP, CAPIC and many others. By the 1970s, the observational system was essentially privatized, and very fragmented, but in the 1966-1967 the observational system could be described as being in a state of transition between a public and private and fragmented observational systems. From the point of view of the MPI, this situation implies that multiple pragmatic messages could be observed with several different intended audiences.
Another emergent property in the context of the MPI is linked to the fact that the suppression phase (as discussed in the 1952 case) never actually stopped because the public observational system was country-wide and had to deal with on-going sightings over many years. The lack of cooperation between the public observational system and the slowly emerging private systems is a well-known story which led to fuel conspiracy theories becoming mainstream ideas. Such phenomena have been studied extensively by social scientists, in different contexts, and there is nothing unusually about it when applied to the case of the UFO community. The more a dominant view is trying to suppress a minority view, the more it empowers the minority view to become the mainstream perspective[10]. By 1966-1967, the theories of conspiracy were fully part of the UFO world in the emergent private observational systems. In Canada, such views were also well entrenched by the 1960s[11]. Hence, even if today the suppression is almost completely gone from the public observational system, the perception of such suppression remains. From the point of view of the MPI, this conspiracy context becomes an integral part of the experience and should be present from the surprise phase. The prediction is therefore that the pragmatic message will be displaced from starting as having the shape of a conspiracy (to get attention) towards something that stubbornly refused to be a conspiracy (to express the pragmatic information) in spite of the best efforts of the conspiracy-minded investigators. This prediction is consistent with the “non-transmission” axiom of the GQT, as it will be discussed in the next post.
A third emergent property is linked to the fragmentation and privatization of the observational system. This new system, nested within what remained of the public system, developed over time its own orthodoxy, and engaged also in suppression as it wants to manage a reliable system too. Hence, a double system and MPI logic emerged, where the suppression in the new system is based on suppressing anything that is not consistent with the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). It is in this context that Jacques Vallée’s famous phrase declaring that he is a “heretic among the heretics” can be understood. This third emergent property was slowly getting in place in the 1960s, through the partial rebuttal of Jacques Vallée’s work on Magonia, James MacDonald’s assertion that there is something parapsychological about UFOs, and of course John Keel’s own rejection of the ETH. As in the case of the conspiracy theory emergent effect, the ET-like nature of the sightings attracted attention but “stubbornly refused” to be confirmed, also consistent with the “non-transmission” axiom of the GQT.
This ETH-based suppression came into full swing when the Roswell story started to gain significant traction in early 1980s. It is interesting to note that the private observation systems are now also suffering from “UFO fatigue” (or should I say fatigue from a persistent “lack of evidence about ETs”), as discussed in several previous posts. This translated in the last 10 years into what Jacques Vallée, once again, eloquently stated in a public conference: “there is very little research conducted today about UFOs, they are just waiting that the government reveals everything”. The private observation systems are now the shadow of themselves (BUFORA, SOBEP, to name a few), and it is unclear if there is a transition towards another observation system. It is ironic that the once despised public observational system is now begged for help by the private observational systems (Wall Street did not invent this...). If it is not transiting, then it is likely that UFOs will become part of the modern folklore like the medium séances of the 19th century, and the ghostly horse-drawn coaches and cavaliers of the 18th century. However, other psi phenomena that would be more consistent with prevalent social conditions would replace UFOs.
These emergent properties shed a different light on the notion of decline, so central in the study of psi phenomena. In the experimental setting of parapsychology, there is a well-known phenomenon of decline where psi effects are strong at first, but then decline in statistical observations. In the case of parasociological spontaneous cases (like UFOs), it is actually the “experimenters” (i.e. the observational system) that declines. Although not a new idea[12], this issue of experimenters’ decline is an important one for understanding the macro-psi effects, and it deserves more research.
Methodological implications
The issues discussed above have a number of important methodological implications for the study of the 1966-1967 UFO wave. First, it is critical to identify which observation system is being involved in which sightings. The analysis has to distinguish between the public and private ones to understand the local dynamics at play. From that point of view, distinguishing between the American and Canadian public observational systems is meaningful, and makes the analysis more manageable by focussing on the smaller system (i.e., the Canadian one). Similarly, private observational systems were also emerging in Canada, and could also be distinguished and studied separately from the American one. In other words, it requires a layered analysis.
A second set of methodological implications is linked to the first one. Layered systems do not mean that the there is a deterministic top-down impact cascading at each level of the system. As von Lucadou stated, “entanglement can arise in situations in which global observables pertaining to a system as a whole are not commuting with certain local observables pertaining to parts of the system”[13]. In other words, the layered analysis should avoid any forms of reductionism. Lastly, the role played by the notions of conspiracy and the ETH at the onset of various sightings should be carefully evaluated as framing the initial psi effect. There are particular predictions linked to these two idiosyncrasies that can be made and must guide the analysis. Namely, it is to identify both the initial carrier and content of the pragmatic information, as well as the displacement role of these idiosyncrasies in the application of the MPI.
References
[1] Lucadou, Walter von et al. (2007). “Synchronistic phenomena as entanglement correlations in generalized quantum theory”. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14(4): 50-74, p. 60.
[2] Keel, John. “North America 1966: Development of a Great Wave”. Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 13, #2, Mar.-Apr. 1967.
[3] Hall, Richard. “1967: The Overlooked UFO Wave and The Colorado Project”, MUFON 1978 UFO Symposium Proceedings, pp. 51-74. [Available online at http://www.nicap.org/papers/78hall-wave67.htm]
[4] Available online at http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc683.htm
[5] Hynek, Allen. (1977). The Hynek UFO Report. New York: Dell, p. 264.
[6] Lucadou, Walter von et al. (2007), p. 64.
[7] See http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-2501-e.html.
[8] Spurgeon, David. (1967). “U of T aerospace institute plans full-scale study of UFOs”. The Globe and Mail (September 20), p. 1.
[9] Tennyson, Rod. (2009). “The UTIAS UFO Project”. The UTIAS Newsletter 2009(2): 3. [Available online at www.utias.utoronto.ca].
[10] See in particular, Moscovici, Serge. (1976). Social Influence and Social Change. London: Academic Press.
[11] For instance, the journal of the Canadian Aerial Phenomena Investigation Committee had a number of vitriolic editorials against “official secrecy”, as reported in Colombo, John. (1991). UFOs over Canada: personal accounts of sightings and close encounters. Toronto: Hounslow, pp. 84 and ff.
[12] Discussed by Einsenbud about Kirlian effects and thought-photography that shown very interesting results, but were abandoned by the experimenters before a decline effect occurred, in Eisenbud, Jule. (1983). Parapsychology and the Unconscious. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, pp. 111-129. As well, George Hansen in (2001). The Trickster and the Paranormal. Philadelphia: Xlibris, pp. 178-182, noted paranormal research organizations (including the UFO ones) tend to have an ephemeral life and this appears to be an integral part of the activation of the trickster archetype, believed to be directly linked to psi effects.
[13] Lucadou, Walter von et al. (2007), p. 52.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Psi displacement on a grand scale
As stated in the previous post, it is difficult to define what constitutes a UFO wave, even when it is actually occurring. The 1966-1967 wave is a clear illustrative case. John Keel was one of few who wrote about the UFO wave as it was occurring[2]. But for many the full realization that there was a major UFO wave unfolding came afterward, as the late Richard Hall noted in 1978 MUFON conference[3]. Similarly, the Canadian John Magor wrote an article in 1969 entitled “1967 Canadian UFO Wave: The Year We Were Invaded Without Knowing It”[4]. Magor noticed that people in Canada were aware that something was going on, but they did not really grasped the magnitude of the event. Furthermore, as a number of ufologists have underlined, by 1966 the Project Blue Book was only the shadow of itself, and for all intent and purpose there was no central repository for reporting UFO sightings. According to Hynek’s evaluation of Project Blue Book reports, there were only 36 “unidentified” for 1966 and 19 for 1967[5]. This situation certainly made the recognition of a UFO wave even more difficult.
If one looks at UFO waves as discrete events, then it is obvious that the 1966-67 wave was different from the American wave of 1952 and the European wave of 1954. The phenomenon was much more ostentatious in the 1950s than it was in the 1960s. Otherwise, people would have been aware that a major UFO wave was unfolding. Moreover, the 1952 wave seemed to have an epicentre (i.e., Washington D.C.), while the 1966-1967 wave clearly lack such epicentre. This is an important clue that should point our understanding of the UFO phenomenon, once more, towards a parapsychological (or parasociological) explanation. As it is well-known in experimental parapsychology, expected psi effects tend to decline over time but new ones are found after the fact through post-experiment review of data and among variables that were not suspected at first[6]. This is called the displacement effect.
Emergent properties of a large system
The MPI has been developed to study RSPKs, but there are some differences between RSPKs and UFO wave that require further analysis, especially in the context of a psi phenomenon that has been displaced. Poltergeist events, or RSPKs, tend to occur in a particular city, cause quite a mess, but then stop. The next one may appear years later usually in a different city, but creating similar psycho-social and physical effects. In other words, the larger observing system (i.e. the city) is rarely the same one. Or to put in the terminology of experimental parapsychology, there is also a new experimenter. In the case of UFOs, however, given that they were usually investigated by the armed forces and other national security agencies of a country, the observing system does not change over time, and therefore one should expect an accumulation effect in the observing system not present in RSPKs. Such accumulation, according to system theory, is a key condition to observe emergent properties of a system. Beyond the displacement effect discussed above, there were other important emergent properties linked to the 1966-1967 wave.
The first emergent property was the transition from a “public” to multiple “private” observation systems. By the 1960s, the public observation system came to suffer from “UFO fatigue,” so to speak. What is meant here is that in the 1950s the state, both in United States and Canada, was the main observational system with the project Blue Book and project Magnet (plus an ad hoc accumulation of data by various governmental agencies), respectively. By the 1960s, the state is not as active in the UFO data collection. In the U.S., the project Blue Book is much less active, and the pre-ordain Condon Report conclusions to get finally rid of the UFO issue is set in motion, leading to the formal closure of project Blue Book. In Canada, National Defence finally transferred their UFO files to the National Research Council in September 1967[7], who passed the buck to a group of University of Toronto professors (to create a Canadian version of the Condon Committee)[8]. They investigated a number of reports, but eventually closed the project in 1969 in the wake of the Condon Report conclusions[9]. The ultimate outcome of all this is that the observation came to rely solely on private citizens organized in UFO clubs and associations such APRO, NICAP, CAPIC and many others. By the 1970s, the observational system was essentially privatized, and very fragmented, but in the 1966-1967 the observational system could be described as being in a state of transition between a public and private and fragmented observational systems. From the point of view of the MPI, this situation implies that multiple pragmatic messages could be observed with several different intended audiences.
Another emergent property in the context of the MPI is linked to the fact that the suppression phase (as discussed in the 1952 case) never actually stopped because the public observational system was country-wide and had to deal with on-going sightings over many years. The lack of cooperation between the public observational system and the slowly emerging private systems is a well-known story which led to fuel conspiracy theories becoming mainstream ideas. Such phenomena have been studied extensively by social scientists, in different contexts, and there is nothing unusually about it when applied to the case of the UFO community. The more a dominant view is trying to suppress a minority view, the more it empowers the minority view to become the mainstream perspective[10]. By 1966-1967, the theories of conspiracy were fully part of the UFO world in the emergent private observational systems. In Canada, such views were also well entrenched by the 1960s[11]. Hence, even if today the suppression is almost completely gone from the public observational system, the perception of such suppression remains. From the point of view of the MPI, this conspiracy context becomes an integral part of the experience and should be present from the surprise phase. The prediction is therefore that the pragmatic message will be displaced from starting as having the shape of a conspiracy (to get attention) towards something that stubbornly refused to be a conspiracy (to express the pragmatic information) in spite of the best efforts of the conspiracy-minded investigators. This prediction is consistent with the “non-transmission” axiom of the GQT, as it will be discussed in the next post.
A third emergent property is linked to the fragmentation and privatization of the observational system. This new system, nested within what remained of the public system, developed over time its own orthodoxy, and engaged also in suppression as it wants to manage a reliable system too. Hence, a double system and MPI logic emerged, where the suppression in the new system is based on suppressing anything that is not consistent with the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). It is in this context that Jacques Vallée’s famous phrase declaring that he is a “heretic among the heretics” can be understood. This third emergent property was slowly getting in place in the 1960s, through the partial rebuttal of Jacques Vallée’s work on Magonia, James MacDonald’s assertion that there is something parapsychological about UFOs, and of course John Keel’s own rejection of the ETH. As in the case of the conspiracy theory emergent effect, the ET-like nature of the sightings attracted attention but “stubbornly refused” to be confirmed, also consistent with the “non-transmission” axiom of the GQT.
This ETH-based suppression came into full swing when the Roswell story started to gain significant traction in early 1980s. It is interesting to note that the private observation systems are now also suffering from “UFO fatigue” (or should I say fatigue from a persistent “lack of evidence about ETs”), as discussed in several previous posts. This translated in the last 10 years into what Jacques Vallée, once again, eloquently stated in a public conference: “there is very little research conducted today about UFOs, they are just waiting that the government reveals everything”. The private observation systems are now the shadow of themselves (BUFORA, SOBEP, to name a few), and it is unclear if there is a transition towards another observation system. It is ironic that the once despised public observational system is now begged for help by the private observational systems (Wall Street did not invent this...). If it is not transiting, then it is likely that UFOs will become part of the modern folklore like the medium séances of the 19th century, and the ghostly horse-drawn coaches and cavaliers of the 18th century. However, other psi phenomena that would be more consistent with prevalent social conditions would replace UFOs.
These emergent properties shed a different light on the notion of decline, so central in the study of psi phenomena. In the experimental setting of parapsychology, there is a well-known phenomenon of decline where psi effects are strong at first, but then decline in statistical observations. In the case of parasociological spontaneous cases (like UFOs), it is actually the “experimenters” (i.e. the observational system) that declines. Although not a new idea[12], this issue of experimenters’ decline is an important one for understanding the macro-psi effects, and it deserves more research.
Methodological implications
The issues discussed above have a number of important methodological implications for the study of the 1966-1967 UFO wave. First, it is critical to identify which observation system is being involved in which sightings. The analysis has to distinguish between the public and private ones to understand the local dynamics at play. From that point of view, distinguishing between the American and Canadian public observational systems is meaningful, and makes the analysis more manageable by focussing on the smaller system (i.e., the Canadian one). Similarly, private observational systems were also emerging in Canada, and could also be distinguished and studied separately from the American one. In other words, it requires a layered analysis.
A second set of methodological implications is linked to the first one. Layered systems do not mean that the there is a deterministic top-down impact cascading at each level of the system. As von Lucadou stated, “entanglement can arise in situations in which global observables pertaining to a system as a whole are not commuting with certain local observables pertaining to parts of the system”[13]. In other words, the layered analysis should avoid any forms of reductionism. Lastly, the role played by the notions of conspiracy and the ETH at the onset of various sightings should be carefully evaluated as framing the initial psi effect. There are particular predictions linked to these two idiosyncrasies that can be made and must guide the analysis. Namely, it is to identify both the initial carrier and content of the pragmatic information, as well as the displacement role of these idiosyncrasies in the application of the MPI.
References
[1] Lucadou, Walter von et al. (2007). “Synchronistic phenomena as entanglement correlations in generalized quantum theory”. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14(4): 50-74, p. 60.
[2] Keel, John. “North America 1966: Development of a Great Wave”. Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 13, #2, Mar.-Apr. 1967.
[3] Hall, Richard. “1967: The Overlooked UFO Wave and The Colorado Project”, MUFON 1978 UFO Symposium Proceedings, pp. 51-74. [Available online at http://www.nicap.org/papers/78hall-wave67.htm]
[4] Available online at http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc683.htm
[5] Hynek, Allen. (1977). The Hynek UFO Report. New York: Dell, p. 264.
[6] Lucadou, Walter von et al. (2007), p. 64.
[7] See http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-2501-e.html.
[8] Spurgeon, David. (1967). “U of T aerospace institute plans full-scale study of UFOs”. The Globe and Mail (September 20), p. 1.
[9] Tennyson, Rod. (2009). “The UTIAS UFO Project”. The UTIAS Newsletter 2009(2): 3. [Available online at www.utias.utoronto.ca].
[10] See in particular, Moscovici, Serge. (1976). Social Influence and Social Change. London: Academic Press.
[11] For instance, the journal of the Canadian Aerial Phenomena Investigation Committee had a number of vitriolic editorials against “official secrecy”, as reported in Colombo, John. (1991). UFOs over Canada: personal accounts of sightings and close encounters. Toronto: Hounslow, pp. 84 and ff.
[12] Discussed by Einsenbud about Kirlian effects and thought-photography that shown very interesting results, but were abandoned by the experimenters before a decline effect occurred, in Eisenbud, Jule. (1983). Parapsychology and the Unconscious. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, pp. 111-129. As well, George Hansen in (2001). The Trickster and the Paranormal. Philadelphia: Xlibris, pp. 178-182, noted paranormal research organizations (including the UFO ones) tend to have an ephemeral life and this appears to be an integral part of the activation of the trickster archetype, believed to be directly linked to psi effects.
[13] Lucadou, Walter von et al. (2007), p. 52.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Primer for the Canadian wave case study
As discussed in several previous posts, it is difficult to assess what constitutes a UFO wave. There are a number of methodological challenges linked to the very notion of UFO wave.
Reporting issues
One of the main challenges is that not all UFO sightings are reported, and there can be a number of reasons for that. The first one is that people can be afraid of being turned into ridicule. This fear, however, seems to be much less present in the 21st century as the UFO phenomenon is much more entrenched into the popular culture. The second reason is linked to the first one, and it is about the lost sensitivity about UFOs. A lot of people are rather indifferent to the phenomenon, and unless it is a very usual experience, many people will simply shrug off the sighting and say it is probably a plane (or something like that). A third reason is the unprofessionalism of a number of ufologists that over time really gave a bad name to the field, and many people prefer not to report rather than having to deal with someone that might be a bit too weird for their liking and might turn their UFO experience into a circus. A last issue is that the general public is probably better now at identifying aircrafts and satellites in sky than before, hence there are probably less incentive to pay closer attention to the sky.
On this last point, I had an instructive personal experience. I live in an area where there have been a number of sightings of triangular UFOs. I actually “saw” one a few weeks ago. It was a regular plane on a long landing path towards the international airport, but at night it looked like triangle at the angle I looked at it. Also, “it made no noise” (a famous “smoking gun” in the ETH world). Yet, anyone living not too far from a major airport knows very well that a plane does not have to be that far in the sky to not be audible (especially true for newer jetliners). Based on the prevalent wind patterns, my area is bound to have “triangular UFOs” on a recurrent basis. I can see that some people who are not used to aircrafts may be considering that it is a UFO, but in this day and age of skies having, literally, daily aircraft traffic jam, informal knowledge about aircraft is much more common compared to the situation in the 1950s and 1960s. But such knowledge is never perfect. We may be now in a reverse context, where there is a number of UFOs that are misconstrued as IFOs.
Limited investigative capabilities
A second challenge is that only a small percentage of UFO sightings are actually investigated. Here too there are some obvious reasons for this. Almost all investigations are now conducted by volunteers from UFO organizations and clubs, and they have very limited resources to go around investigating. So only a few are investigated. Then, there is the selection process to maximize the use of limited resources, oftentimes based on unconscious criteria. The usual criteria are: either “easy” cases (not requiring much time, money and travel), or cases which fits the basic assumptions underlying the ETH. Reporting bias in ufology is a long standing issue, and there is no improvement on the horizon.
Fragmentation
A third and last challenge is the fragmentation of information. Given that there is no central repository for investigated UFO cases, then it is much more difficult to really assess if there is a UFO wave while it is occurring. It is usually much after the fact that the existence of a UFO wave can be identified by gathering data from multiple sources. The 1966-67 UFO wave is representative of this pattern.
UFO waves as social realities
The net result is that UFO waves tend to be identifiable in real time only when the phenomenon “insists” long enough around a given area to get the attention of the mass media. The 1973 wave in the United States, Belgian wave of 1989-90, and the 2008 mini wave in Pennsylvania are good examples of this process. Although there is a physical reality behind UFO waves, they are for all intent and purpose social realities. It is so simply because we can only notice them when there is a social process of mass communication occurring, which in turn shapes the very content of a UFO wave. The objective reality of UFO waves is not directly reachable. It can only be grasped through our socially shared subjective processes. Studying UFO waves is first and foremost a sociological task, but taking such an approach is not tantamount to say that it is all in the head of the witnesses.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Reporting issues
One of the main challenges is that not all UFO sightings are reported, and there can be a number of reasons for that. The first one is that people can be afraid of being turned into ridicule. This fear, however, seems to be much less present in the 21st century as the UFO phenomenon is much more entrenched into the popular culture. The second reason is linked to the first one, and it is about the lost sensitivity about UFOs. A lot of people are rather indifferent to the phenomenon, and unless it is a very usual experience, many people will simply shrug off the sighting and say it is probably a plane (or something like that). A third reason is the unprofessionalism of a number of ufologists that over time really gave a bad name to the field, and many people prefer not to report rather than having to deal with someone that might be a bit too weird for their liking and might turn their UFO experience into a circus. A last issue is that the general public is probably better now at identifying aircrafts and satellites in sky than before, hence there are probably less incentive to pay closer attention to the sky.
On this last point, I had an instructive personal experience. I live in an area where there have been a number of sightings of triangular UFOs. I actually “saw” one a few weeks ago. It was a regular plane on a long landing path towards the international airport, but at night it looked like triangle at the angle I looked at it. Also, “it made no noise” (a famous “smoking gun” in the ETH world). Yet, anyone living not too far from a major airport knows very well that a plane does not have to be that far in the sky to not be audible (especially true for newer jetliners). Based on the prevalent wind patterns, my area is bound to have “triangular UFOs” on a recurrent basis. I can see that some people who are not used to aircrafts may be considering that it is a UFO, but in this day and age of skies having, literally, daily aircraft traffic jam, informal knowledge about aircraft is much more common compared to the situation in the 1950s and 1960s. But such knowledge is never perfect. We may be now in a reverse context, where there is a number of UFOs that are misconstrued as IFOs.
Limited investigative capabilities
A second challenge is that only a small percentage of UFO sightings are actually investigated. Here too there are some obvious reasons for this. Almost all investigations are now conducted by volunteers from UFO organizations and clubs, and they have very limited resources to go around investigating. So only a few are investigated. Then, there is the selection process to maximize the use of limited resources, oftentimes based on unconscious criteria. The usual criteria are: either “easy” cases (not requiring much time, money and travel), or cases which fits the basic assumptions underlying the ETH. Reporting bias in ufology is a long standing issue, and there is no improvement on the horizon.
Fragmentation
A third and last challenge is the fragmentation of information. Given that there is no central repository for investigated UFO cases, then it is much more difficult to really assess if there is a UFO wave while it is occurring. It is usually much after the fact that the existence of a UFO wave can be identified by gathering data from multiple sources. The 1966-67 UFO wave is representative of this pattern.
UFO waves as social realities
The net result is that UFO waves tend to be identifiable in real time only when the phenomenon “insists” long enough around a given area to get the attention of the mass media. The 1973 wave in the United States, Belgian wave of 1989-90, and the 2008 mini wave in Pennsylvania are good examples of this process. Although there is a physical reality behind UFO waves, they are for all intent and purpose social realities. It is so simply because we can only notice them when there is a social process of mass communication occurring, which in turn shapes the very content of a UFO wave. The objective reality of UFO waves is not directly reachable. It can only be grasped through our socially shared subjective processes. Studying UFO waves is first and foremost a sociological task, but taking such an approach is not tantamount to say that it is all in the head of the witnesses.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The psi circuit: A tentative model (part 3)
This post, the third and last part of the tentative model presentation, describes the key elements of the model. It is in many ways a synthesis of many ideas found in a number of previous posts. The tentative model will be tested in the near future through another case study about the 1966-1967 UFO wave, especially emphasizing the Canadian portion.
Social memory
The concept of social (or collective) memory is not a new one in the social sciences. The French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs was one of the first to use it to study the working class of the 1920s and 1930s. He looked into the shared memories of people in the labor movement, especially about major events such as major strikes, and how such memories were transmitted over time and how certain elements of their collective history are kept while others are forgotten (in other words, collective memory is also selective, and such a selection is also a sociological process in itself). He used multiple methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative to assess the content of memories and evaluate how much they are spread across a given population.
This concept is critical for the proposed model because it offers ways of establishing a baseline to distinguish between the conscious and unconscious elements of social psyche. For instance, the older science fiction stories that Bertrand Méheust[1] identified as providing the basic narrative for UFO reports and experiences were not part of the collective memories anymore in the 1940s and 1950s. Yet, those stories were not so old that no one would be aware of them; they were in the collective unconscious. Methodologically speaking, a number of empirical methods can be used to assess the content of social memory, but the main ones remain focus groups and text analysis.
Social unconscious
As discussed in numerous posts, the content of the social unconscious[2] provides both the content for social psi events (fairies and demons in the past, good and bad aliens today; airships yesterday, spaceships today). But if psychoanalytical parapsychology[3] is right, it is also the source of the tensions or desires leading to a social psi effect. I just found an interesting author that looks into the social dimension of the unconscious, Clotaire Rapaille, who runs a major marketing business build on uncovering collective archetypes. He wrote a book on Culture Code and I will review it in the near future. His methodology is very similar to the one used by Ginach[4] and by those practicing group analytics[5], discussed in previous posts, using focus group to “extract” the content of the commonly shared unconscious, as well as text analysis.
The challenge in investigating spontaneous psi effects, as Batcheldor and other parapsychologists [6] have found, however, is that consciousness needs to be bypassed. Hence, the very fact of studying the unconscious can bring elements to the consciousness and preventing psi effects to occur, or reducing substantially its potency. The outcome of this is that the unconscious in the case of UFO studies might be only researchable post-facto by looking into how new representations are created.
It is interesting to note that those who study collective creativity in business organization underline that creativity is an emergent phenomenon and occurs when people from different parts of an organization meet and discuss. In the normal non-psi realm, the problem becomes part of the collective consciousness of the organization and a creative solution is negotiated.[7] Yet, the seeds of the solution were already present unconsciously, spread across various components of the organization.
In the case of spontaneous psi effects, people do not talk to negotiate a solution so there are no directly observable emergent effects. Yet, a “psi solution” (so to speak) emerges through creating something that will surprise everyone, and yet it is their collective creation. It is in those terms that psi effects can be construed as acts of creation.[8] In the case of UFOs, at least in the early days of the phenomenon, this non-local (in the sense of quantum physics) type of “solution” implies odd symbiotic relationships between various groups like the civil servants and the military in the 1952 Washington case. Similar strange symbiotic relationship seemed to have occurred between the Roswell believers and elements of the national security apparatus, as described at length by Gregg Bishop [9]. The same might have occurred between the Catholic believers and the rationalist republicans of Portugal during the Fatima events of 1917 [10].
Could it be that the decline in the social interest in UFOs, intimately linked to a lack of major UFO events for many years, be symptomatic of a degradation of a basic symbiotic unconscious social relationship at the centre of the UFO phenomenon? To be more specific, on one hand the authorities are more open than ever before about UFOs (France, UK, Canada, Russia and others declassifying and making available lots of UFO documents), and on the other hand the excesses of the Roswell ufological hysteria just turned off so many people interested in UFO and conspiracies theories that the “biggest story of our time” is no more. Could the symbiotic relationship simply collapsed due to the power of indifference? Difficult to say, but it is a hypothesis generated by the model.
Social consciousness
This concept is as old as sociology itself, and has been described extensively by the classical French sociologist Émile Durkheim. The importance of this portion of the model is once again to distinguish what remains below the threshold of the observable. The tension or desires found in the social unconscious should not be found in the discussions and debates of a community in any great extent. The relative absence of a thorny issue in the public realm, but possibly found in the margins, is thus a key indicator for potential social psi effects. It is also important to note that the content of the social unconscious can be about a future event having strong emotional power, like in the case investigated by John Keel in the Mothman Prophecy [11]. In such case, it cannot be known publically as it has not occurred yet.
The key methodological outcomes of this is that once the investigator has found something in the social unconscious that could be at the source of social psi effects, then he or she has to confirm that it is not present in the social consciousness of the concerned community.
Social representations
The concept of social representations has been developed by yet another French social scientist, Serge Moscovici. Social representations are more focused elements of the social unconscious, and are outcomes of social creativity. Moscovici’s main interest was to study how certain views and ideas move from being the purview of a few to be held by the many (for instance the language of psychoanalysis became part of everyday conversations through the 1950s and 1960s), and the associated translation process of jargon becoming everyday concepts (what he calls common sense). One of the key issues is that if some ideas and views resonate with already existing socially shared but unconscious views, they are more likely to be adopted. Moscivici and his followers use both focus group and text analysis as a key method to uncover social representations and the translation processes.
Once again, for spontaneous social psi effects, the new social representation (i.e., the specific solution or creation) remains below the threshold of the unconscious and coagulates in what I call the social psi pathway. The production of psi effects, even in a spontaneous context, remains something rare and probably difficult to do. However, once some forms are created it is easier for psi effects to repeat themselves through the established forms. In other words, once the notion of flying saucers has been established, it provided a common form-pathway that can ease the production of psi effects. The key for the tentative model is that social representations do not get translated into what it is, but it is translated into something else (like a UFO). This notion is very similar to the notion of displacement, so central to understand poltergeists [12].
The same can be said for ghosts, Marian apparitions, but also of the séance setting of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The pathways are collectively shared social representations (or idiosyncracies) that can be used as “platforms” for social as well as individual psi creativity for various types of unconscious tensions or desires. Hence, investigating the internal symbolism of a social psi effect is likely to be only useful at the early stages, when a new form emerges. Once the pathway is established, it can serve a variety of underlying tensions or desire in producing psi effects. The concept of morphic field developed by Rupert Sheldrake [13] is here quite useful to describe the pathway development process, and Sheldrake as shown that psi can behave as a morphic field. The more something is used the stronger and established in its form it will be; hence the enduring forms found in UFO reports.
Social behavior
This is the most ostentatious part of any sociological study. Yet, in the case of studying social psi effects, the behavior that would lead to resolving the unconscious tensions or desires tends to not occur right away. Even if the psi effect has a comprehensible symbolic meaning, it is usually ignored or completely misunderstood. Once a pathway is established, then the symbolic meaning becomes extremely hard to decipher as the form used becomes institutionalized (like Barney Hill’s challenges with racist America being at the source of his experience eventually becomes the prototype of the Greys, which has nothing to do with racism in later psi events).
Should the social behavior resolves, even only partially, the underlying social tensions or desires leading then the psi effect should ceased immediately. This is seen in poltergeist cases when people realize that it is their inter-personal issues that are at the source of the phenomenon. In the 1952 Washington UFO incidents, the military got involved and interested (too much would say some people), and the UFO story was even able to displace from the headlines the coverage of the Democratic Convention for a day; this was the beginning of the end for that UFO wave.
In general, spontaneous social psi event tend to be an alternative channel for social communications that is rather symptomatic of a collective inability to communicate about difficult underlying social issues or tensions.
Notes
[1] Méheust, Bertrand. (1978). Science-fiction et soucoupes volantes. Paris: Mercure de France.
[2] Studied by people like Leledakis, Kanakis. (1995). Society and Psyche: Social theory and the unconscious dimension of the social. Oxford: Berg; Main, Roderick. (2006). “The Social Significance of Synchronicity”. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 11: 36-53; Machotka, Otakar. (1964). The Unconscious in Social Relations: An analysis of unconscious processes in personality, society, and culture. New York: Philosophical Library.
[3] In particular, Eisenbud, Jule. (1983). Parapsychology and the Unconscious. Berkeley: North Atlantic Book; Fodor, Nandor. (1959). The Haunted Mind: A psychoanalytical look at the supernatural. New York: Garrett.
[4] Ginach, Michal. (2004) “War Against or For Terrorism?: The underlying fantasy behind the Israeli pattern encounter with the Palestinian”. Discourse of Sociological Practice 6: 1-12
[5] For instance, Dalal, Farhad. (2001). “The social unconscious: A post-Foulkesian perspective”. Group Analysis 34(4): 539-555; Powell, Andrew. (1991). “Matrix, mind and matter: From the internal to the eternal”. Group Analysis 24(3): 299-322; Zeddies, Timothy J. (2002). “Unconscious experience in social and historical context”. Group Analysis 35(3): 381-389.
[6] Batcheldor, Kenneth J. (1984). “Contributions to the theory of PK induction from sitter-group work”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78(2): 105-122; Heath, Pamela Rae. (2003). The PK Zone: A cross-cultural review of psychokinesis. Lincoln: iUniverse; Owen, Iris M. and M. Sparrow. (1976). Conjuring up Philip: An Adventure In Psychokinesis. Harper & Row; Reihart, Philip B. (1994). “PK induction: An extension of Batcheldor approach”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 88: 137-145.
[7] For a good overview of this literature, please see Watson, Elizabeth. (2007). “Who or What Creates? A conceptual framework for social creativity”. Human Resources Development Review 6(4): 419-441.
[8] See in particular, Favre, François. (1978). “Caractère généraux des apparitions”. Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/cargenapp.htm]; (2004). "Psi et intentionalité". Unpublished text available on Internet at http://www.sciencesphilo.fr/uploads/doc/psi_et_intentionnalite.pdf; Viéroudy, Pierre. (1978a). “Vagues d'Ovnis et psi collectif”. Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA06_VAGUEOVNIS.htm]; (1978b). “Les témoins d'Ovnis sont-ils des sujets psi ?” Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA06_TEMOINSOVNIS.htm]; (1983). “Signification archétypique des apparitions OVNI”. Revue de Parapsychologie 15 (August). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA15_VieroudyOVNIS.htm].
[9] Bishop, Greg. (2005). Project Beta: The story of Paul Bennewitz, national security, and the creation of a modern UFO myth. New York: Paraview.
[10] Fernandes, Joaquim and F. D’Armada. (2005). Heavenly Lights: The apparition of Fatima and the UFO phenomenon. San Antonio: Anomalist.
[11] Keel, John. (1975). The Mothman Prophecies. New York: Tor.
[12] Lucadou, Walter von. (1995). “The Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI).” European Journal of Parapsychology 11: 58-75; Lucadou, Walter von and F. Zahradnik. (2004). “Predictions of the Model of Pragmatic Information about RSPK”. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association Convention 2004.
[13]Sheldrake, Rupert. (1981). A New Science of Life. London: Victoria Works; (1987) The Presence of the Past. New York: Bantam; (1991). The Rebirth of Nature: The greening of science and god. New York: Bantam; (2006). "Morphic Fields". World Futures 62: 31-41.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Social memory
The concept of social (or collective) memory is not a new one in the social sciences. The French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs was one of the first to use it to study the working class of the 1920s and 1930s. He looked into the shared memories of people in the labor movement, especially about major events such as major strikes, and how such memories were transmitted over time and how certain elements of their collective history are kept while others are forgotten (in other words, collective memory is also selective, and such a selection is also a sociological process in itself). He used multiple methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative to assess the content of memories and evaluate how much they are spread across a given population.
This concept is critical for the proposed model because it offers ways of establishing a baseline to distinguish between the conscious and unconscious elements of social psyche. For instance, the older science fiction stories that Bertrand Méheust[1] identified as providing the basic narrative for UFO reports and experiences were not part of the collective memories anymore in the 1940s and 1950s. Yet, those stories were not so old that no one would be aware of them; they were in the collective unconscious. Methodologically speaking, a number of empirical methods can be used to assess the content of social memory, but the main ones remain focus groups and text analysis.
Social unconscious
As discussed in numerous posts, the content of the social unconscious[2] provides both the content for social psi events (fairies and demons in the past, good and bad aliens today; airships yesterday, spaceships today). But if psychoanalytical parapsychology[3] is right, it is also the source of the tensions or desires leading to a social psi effect. I just found an interesting author that looks into the social dimension of the unconscious, Clotaire Rapaille, who runs a major marketing business build on uncovering collective archetypes. He wrote a book on Culture Code and I will review it in the near future. His methodology is very similar to the one used by Ginach[4] and by those practicing group analytics[5], discussed in previous posts, using focus group to “extract” the content of the commonly shared unconscious, as well as text analysis.
The challenge in investigating spontaneous psi effects, as Batcheldor and other parapsychologists [6] have found, however, is that consciousness needs to be bypassed. Hence, the very fact of studying the unconscious can bring elements to the consciousness and preventing psi effects to occur, or reducing substantially its potency. The outcome of this is that the unconscious in the case of UFO studies might be only researchable post-facto by looking into how new representations are created.
It is interesting to note that those who study collective creativity in business organization underline that creativity is an emergent phenomenon and occurs when people from different parts of an organization meet and discuss. In the normal non-psi realm, the problem becomes part of the collective consciousness of the organization and a creative solution is negotiated.[7] Yet, the seeds of the solution were already present unconsciously, spread across various components of the organization.
In the case of spontaneous psi effects, people do not talk to negotiate a solution so there are no directly observable emergent effects. Yet, a “psi solution” (so to speak) emerges through creating something that will surprise everyone, and yet it is their collective creation. It is in those terms that psi effects can be construed as acts of creation.[8] In the case of UFOs, at least in the early days of the phenomenon, this non-local (in the sense of quantum physics) type of “solution” implies odd symbiotic relationships between various groups like the civil servants and the military in the 1952 Washington case. Similar strange symbiotic relationship seemed to have occurred between the Roswell believers and elements of the national security apparatus, as described at length by Gregg Bishop [9]. The same might have occurred between the Catholic believers and the rationalist republicans of Portugal during the Fatima events of 1917 [10].
Could it be that the decline in the social interest in UFOs, intimately linked to a lack of major UFO events for many years, be symptomatic of a degradation of a basic symbiotic unconscious social relationship at the centre of the UFO phenomenon? To be more specific, on one hand the authorities are more open than ever before about UFOs (France, UK, Canada, Russia and others declassifying and making available lots of UFO documents), and on the other hand the excesses of the Roswell ufological hysteria just turned off so many people interested in UFO and conspiracies theories that the “biggest story of our time” is no more. Could the symbiotic relationship simply collapsed due to the power of indifference? Difficult to say, but it is a hypothesis generated by the model.
Social consciousness
This concept is as old as sociology itself, and has been described extensively by the classical French sociologist Émile Durkheim. The importance of this portion of the model is once again to distinguish what remains below the threshold of the observable. The tension or desires found in the social unconscious should not be found in the discussions and debates of a community in any great extent. The relative absence of a thorny issue in the public realm, but possibly found in the margins, is thus a key indicator for potential social psi effects. It is also important to note that the content of the social unconscious can be about a future event having strong emotional power, like in the case investigated by John Keel in the Mothman Prophecy [11]. In such case, it cannot be known publically as it has not occurred yet.
The key methodological outcomes of this is that once the investigator has found something in the social unconscious that could be at the source of social psi effects, then he or she has to confirm that it is not present in the social consciousness of the concerned community.
Social representations
The concept of social representations has been developed by yet another French social scientist, Serge Moscovici. Social representations are more focused elements of the social unconscious, and are outcomes of social creativity. Moscovici’s main interest was to study how certain views and ideas move from being the purview of a few to be held by the many (for instance the language of psychoanalysis became part of everyday conversations through the 1950s and 1960s), and the associated translation process of jargon becoming everyday concepts (what he calls common sense). One of the key issues is that if some ideas and views resonate with already existing socially shared but unconscious views, they are more likely to be adopted. Moscivici and his followers use both focus group and text analysis as a key method to uncover social representations and the translation processes.
Once again, for spontaneous social psi effects, the new social representation (i.e., the specific solution or creation) remains below the threshold of the unconscious and coagulates in what I call the social psi pathway. The production of psi effects, even in a spontaneous context, remains something rare and probably difficult to do. However, once some forms are created it is easier for psi effects to repeat themselves through the established forms. In other words, once the notion of flying saucers has been established, it provided a common form-pathway that can ease the production of psi effects. The key for the tentative model is that social representations do not get translated into what it is, but it is translated into something else (like a UFO). This notion is very similar to the notion of displacement, so central to understand poltergeists [12].
The same can be said for ghosts, Marian apparitions, but also of the séance setting of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The pathways are collectively shared social representations (or idiosyncracies) that can be used as “platforms” for social as well as individual psi creativity for various types of unconscious tensions or desires. Hence, investigating the internal symbolism of a social psi effect is likely to be only useful at the early stages, when a new form emerges. Once the pathway is established, it can serve a variety of underlying tensions or desire in producing psi effects. The concept of morphic field developed by Rupert Sheldrake [13] is here quite useful to describe the pathway development process, and Sheldrake as shown that psi can behave as a morphic field. The more something is used the stronger and established in its form it will be; hence the enduring forms found in UFO reports.
Social behavior
This is the most ostentatious part of any sociological study. Yet, in the case of studying social psi effects, the behavior that would lead to resolving the unconscious tensions or desires tends to not occur right away. Even if the psi effect has a comprehensible symbolic meaning, it is usually ignored or completely misunderstood. Once a pathway is established, then the symbolic meaning becomes extremely hard to decipher as the form used becomes institutionalized (like Barney Hill’s challenges with racist America being at the source of his experience eventually becomes the prototype of the Greys, which has nothing to do with racism in later psi events).
Should the social behavior resolves, even only partially, the underlying social tensions or desires leading then the psi effect should ceased immediately. This is seen in poltergeist cases when people realize that it is their inter-personal issues that are at the source of the phenomenon. In the 1952 Washington UFO incidents, the military got involved and interested (too much would say some people), and the UFO story was even able to displace from the headlines the coverage of the Democratic Convention for a day; this was the beginning of the end for that UFO wave.
In general, spontaneous social psi event tend to be an alternative channel for social communications that is rather symptomatic of a collective inability to communicate about difficult underlying social issues or tensions.
Notes
[1] Méheust, Bertrand. (1978). Science-fiction et soucoupes volantes. Paris: Mercure de France.
[2] Studied by people like Leledakis, Kanakis. (1995). Society and Psyche: Social theory and the unconscious dimension of the social. Oxford: Berg; Main, Roderick. (2006). “The Social Significance of Synchronicity”. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 11: 36-53; Machotka, Otakar. (1964). The Unconscious in Social Relations: An analysis of unconscious processes in personality, society, and culture. New York: Philosophical Library.
[3] In particular, Eisenbud, Jule. (1983). Parapsychology and the Unconscious. Berkeley: North Atlantic Book; Fodor, Nandor. (1959). The Haunted Mind: A psychoanalytical look at the supernatural. New York: Garrett.
[4] Ginach, Michal. (2004) “War Against or For Terrorism?: The underlying fantasy behind the Israeli pattern encounter with the Palestinian”. Discourse of Sociological Practice 6: 1-12
[5] For instance, Dalal, Farhad. (2001). “The social unconscious: A post-Foulkesian perspective”. Group Analysis 34(4): 539-555; Powell, Andrew. (1991). “Matrix, mind and matter: From the internal to the eternal”. Group Analysis 24(3): 299-322; Zeddies, Timothy J. (2002). “Unconscious experience in social and historical context”. Group Analysis 35(3): 381-389.
[6] Batcheldor, Kenneth J. (1984). “Contributions to the theory of PK induction from sitter-group work”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78(2): 105-122; Heath, Pamela Rae. (2003). The PK Zone: A cross-cultural review of psychokinesis. Lincoln: iUniverse; Owen, Iris M. and M. Sparrow. (1976). Conjuring up Philip: An Adventure In Psychokinesis. Harper & Row; Reihart, Philip B. (1994). “PK induction: An extension of Batcheldor approach”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 88: 137-145.
[7] For a good overview of this literature, please see Watson, Elizabeth. (2007). “Who or What Creates? A conceptual framework for social creativity”. Human Resources Development Review 6(4): 419-441.
[8] See in particular, Favre, François. (1978). “Caractère généraux des apparitions”. Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/cargenapp.htm]; (2004). "Psi et intentionalité". Unpublished text available on Internet at http://www.sciencesphilo.fr/uploads/doc/psi_et_intentionnalite.pdf; Viéroudy, Pierre. (1978a). “Vagues d'Ovnis et psi collectif”. Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA06_VAGUEOVNIS.htm]; (1978b). “Les témoins d'Ovnis sont-ils des sujets psi ?” Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA06_TEMOINSOVNIS.htm]; (1983). “Signification archétypique des apparitions OVNI”. Revue de Parapsychologie 15 (August). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA15_VieroudyOVNIS.htm].
[9] Bishop, Greg. (2005). Project Beta: The story of Paul Bennewitz, national security, and the creation of a modern UFO myth. New York: Paraview.
[10] Fernandes, Joaquim and F. D’Armada. (2005). Heavenly Lights: The apparition of Fatima and the UFO phenomenon. San Antonio: Anomalist.
[11] Keel, John. (1975). The Mothman Prophecies. New York: Tor.
[12] Lucadou, Walter von. (1995). “The Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI).” European Journal of Parapsychology 11: 58-75; Lucadou, Walter von and F. Zahradnik. (2004). “Predictions of the Model of Pragmatic Information about RSPK”. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association Convention 2004.
[13]Sheldrake, Rupert. (1981). A New Science of Life. London: Victoria Works; (1987) The Presence of the Past. New York: Bantam; (1991). The Rebirth of Nature: The greening of science and god. New York: Bantam; (2006). "Morphic Fields". World Futures 62: 31-41.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
The psi circuit: A tentative model (part 2)
This post is describing in greater details the proposed model to study the social dimension of psi effects, and UFO events in particular. The emphasis is placed today on the overall architecture upon which the model is built, and the rational for such architecture. The next post will look in more details at the individual elements of the model.
Architecture
Split between the empirical and the interpretative
The overall architecture of the model is based on a synthetic view of a number of researches in parapsychology, and especially research on psychokinesis (PK). One important finding in parapsychology is that psi effects are most likely the outcome of unconscious mental processes. This conclusion was expressed by the founder of the discipline, J. B. Rhine, already in 1954[1], and remains one of the most enduring issue in parapsychology. The issue is that if unconscious processes are at the centre of the phenomena, then it becomes very difficult to study it. North American psychology is particularly adverse to the study of the unconscious, as cognitive psychology (emphasizing conscious perception) and behaviourist psychology (emphasizing a “black box” approach through an input-output stimulation view of the human mind) are the dominant perspectives. North American parapsychology also suffered from this problem, and it can be clearly noted by the undervaluing of researchers who focussed on the unconscious such as Fodor Nandor and Jule Eisenbuld. In spite of these internal debates within psychology and parapsychology, any models of psi (and social psi included) need to locate the most dynamic portions of the phenomena under the threshold of empirical observation.
It is for this reason that the proposed model for social psi has a built-in ontological assumption that divides between empirical sociology (i.e., what can be observed through social behaviour), and what requires interpretation to understand such behaviours. The interpretative sociology has a long history and is well-established but it would be beyond the scope of this discussion to present such history here. Suffice to say that there are many sociological tools available, developed by classical sociologists such Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and more recent ones like Erving Goffman, Herbert Blumer, Alfred Schutz, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, as well as all the research conducted in the present field of “cultural studies". The key here is to not ignore what is beyond the threshold of direct observation, which would otherwise lead one to the same trap as the one positivist psychology found itself, and in my opinion the greatest barrier to the advancement of parapsychology.
The role of consciousness
The proposed model is also synthesizing some of the key findings on PK research. If unconscious processes are at the centre of psi effects, then consciousness is very much in the way when it is time to produce psi effects. It is for this reason that most parapsychologists think that spontaneous psi effects are stronger than the ones produced in laboratory or experimental settings, and that “ongoing psi on demand” is all but an impossible task. Batcheldor[2] noted that in his group PK experiment he had to use all kind of tricks to get people mind off the experiment (like using humour, playing illusionist tricks, etc.) so that the unconscious can act without interference from the consciousness. Pamela Heath, in her extensive survey of PK research[3] found that the suspension of the intellect, altered states of consciousness, dissociation, openness to emotions, meditative states were keys to produce PK effects. Once again, the conclusion is that consciousness has to be circumvented.
This fundamental issue in parapsychology is represented in the model by the difference between the red and green lines. The red line represents spontaneous psi effects which are circumventing consciousness, while the green line represents the conscious task to produce psi effects in experimental conditions that is then setup in a way where the unconscious is given a chance afterward to circumvent consciousness. Batcheldor was able to do so in his group PK experiment, although it was not easy. It is less than clear if a social-level experiment could be produced in such a way. The fact that an action would be socially known as being “an experiment”, and then finding “social-level distractions” afterward to make the social consciousness “forget” about the experiment so that a social psi effect could occur might be impossible. In other words, given the nature of social relations and social communications, I think it is nearly impossible to do social psi experimentation. The only exception would be to use unethical deception (for instance hooking up with a group of UFO believers, feeding them with believable stories about UFOs having a very particular content, and then see if some of that content emerges in future sightings where a degree of objectivity can be assessed—like multiple unconnected observers). [4] The net result, however, is that there are serious reasons for limiting research on spontaneous social psi. In turn, this has serious consequences. Predictive statements cannot be verified experimentally (the preferred approach in Western science), but only through confirming after the fact how a social psi event unfolded. This is essentially the approach used in the 1952 Washington case study.
Circular nature
The model was not presented as circle essentially due to my very limited artistic abilities. But once a psi effect occurs, it can modify behaviour, which in turn becomes a new element of one’s memory about psi. If one sees a UFO, or has a telepathic feeling, it is very likely that he or she will have a much different attitude in the future about UFOs or ESPs. The circular nature of psi is certainly validated through the well-known notion of declining results in parapsychology. When someone tend to guess correctly more often than normal, then his or her confidence is boosted which in turn is both helping the process in reinforcing the unconscious belief in psi and disabling the process by causing stressful expectations to perform. The more loops in the circuit are completed, the less likely someone will perform because the conscious stress eventually overrides the unconscious belief. In cases where expectations to perform are neutralized, then it is boredom that replaces stress but with the same declining results in the end.
In the case of spontaneous psi, however, the circuit works somewhat differently. A psi event will reinforce the belief in the paranormal, which reinforces the unconscious belief that there is “something” to it. Yet, this “something” has to be attributed to a non-human force or entity so that there is no stress related to performing (it is not me but “it” that does that), and no boredom as it is seen as something extraordinary. This issue is clearly addressed in von Lucadou’s model with the notion of “displacement”, and discussed at length in the 1952 Washington case study. From a social psi perspective, it is critical for spontaneous social psi effects to continuing occurring to have a community of believers, be it about aliens, ghosts, demons, etc., to create such a displacement. In the proposed model, this translates in the creation of new social representations, or the reinforcement of existing representations. UFOs, which are simply Unidentified Flying Objects, were rapidly equated with extra-terrestrial visitors in spite of having very little evidence to support such a view. But without such social representations, a “semi-permanent” displacement towards the non-human to explain social psi effects cannot occur at the social level. In other words, contrary to von Lucadou’s model which is dealing with small groups of people’s (family or co-workers) belief that a ghost is responsible for the events and where the events eventually dissipates , social-scale phenomena like UFOs need to be continuously reinforced by an ongoing active belief system (what would be in von Lucadou’s terminology an “ongoing displacement”). That’s one of the key differences between the individual level and the social level.
This synthesis from parapsychology plays in particular ways at each step of the circuit, and these will be discussed in the next post.
[1] Rhine, J.B. (1954). “The science of nonphysical nature”. Journal of Philosophy 51: 801-810.
[2] Batcheldor, Kenneth J. (1984). “Contributions to the theory of PK induction from sitter-group work”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78(2): 105-122.
[3] Heath, Pamela Rae. (2003). The PK Zone: A cross-cultural review of psychokinesis. Lincoln: iUniverse.
[4] For those who are strong believers in conspiracy theory, such an experimental scenario might be the most realistic one about UFOs, science, and governmental authorities.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Architecture
Split between the empirical and the interpretative
The overall architecture of the model is based on a synthetic view of a number of researches in parapsychology, and especially research on psychokinesis (PK). One important finding in parapsychology is that psi effects are most likely the outcome of unconscious mental processes. This conclusion was expressed by the founder of the discipline, J. B. Rhine, already in 1954[1], and remains one of the most enduring issue in parapsychology. The issue is that if unconscious processes are at the centre of the phenomena, then it becomes very difficult to study it. North American psychology is particularly adverse to the study of the unconscious, as cognitive psychology (emphasizing conscious perception) and behaviourist psychology (emphasizing a “black box” approach through an input-output stimulation view of the human mind) are the dominant perspectives. North American parapsychology also suffered from this problem, and it can be clearly noted by the undervaluing of researchers who focussed on the unconscious such as Fodor Nandor and Jule Eisenbuld. In spite of these internal debates within psychology and parapsychology, any models of psi (and social psi included) need to locate the most dynamic portions of the phenomena under the threshold of empirical observation.
It is for this reason that the proposed model for social psi has a built-in ontological assumption that divides between empirical sociology (i.e., what can be observed through social behaviour), and what requires interpretation to understand such behaviours. The interpretative sociology has a long history and is well-established but it would be beyond the scope of this discussion to present such history here. Suffice to say that there are many sociological tools available, developed by classical sociologists such Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and more recent ones like Erving Goffman, Herbert Blumer, Alfred Schutz, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, as well as all the research conducted in the present field of “cultural studies". The key here is to not ignore what is beyond the threshold of direct observation, which would otherwise lead one to the same trap as the one positivist psychology found itself, and in my opinion the greatest barrier to the advancement of parapsychology.
The role of consciousness
The proposed model is also synthesizing some of the key findings on PK research. If unconscious processes are at the centre of psi effects, then consciousness is very much in the way when it is time to produce psi effects. It is for this reason that most parapsychologists think that spontaneous psi effects are stronger than the ones produced in laboratory or experimental settings, and that “ongoing psi on demand” is all but an impossible task. Batcheldor[2] noted that in his group PK experiment he had to use all kind of tricks to get people mind off the experiment (like using humour, playing illusionist tricks, etc.) so that the unconscious can act without interference from the consciousness. Pamela Heath, in her extensive survey of PK research[3] found that the suspension of the intellect, altered states of consciousness, dissociation, openness to emotions, meditative states were keys to produce PK effects. Once again, the conclusion is that consciousness has to be circumvented.
This fundamental issue in parapsychology is represented in the model by the difference between the red and green lines. The red line represents spontaneous psi effects which are circumventing consciousness, while the green line represents the conscious task to produce psi effects in experimental conditions that is then setup in a way where the unconscious is given a chance afterward to circumvent consciousness. Batcheldor was able to do so in his group PK experiment, although it was not easy. It is less than clear if a social-level experiment could be produced in such a way. The fact that an action would be socially known as being “an experiment”, and then finding “social-level distractions” afterward to make the social consciousness “forget” about the experiment so that a social psi effect could occur might be impossible. In other words, given the nature of social relations and social communications, I think it is nearly impossible to do social psi experimentation. The only exception would be to use unethical deception (for instance hooking up with a group of UFO believers, feeding them with believable stories about UFOs having a very particular content, and then see if some of that content emerges in future sightings where a degree of objectivity can be assessed—like multiple unconnected observers). [4] The net result, however, is that there are serious reasons for limiting research on spontaneous social psi. In turn, this has serious consequences. Predictive statements cannot be verified experimentally (the preferred approach in Western science), but only through confirming after the fact how a social psi event unfolded. This is essentially the approach used in the 1952 Washington case study.
Circular nature
The model was not presented as circle essentially due to my very limited artistic abilities. But once a psi effect occurs, it can modify behaviour, which in turn becomes a new element of one’s memory about psi. If one sees a UFO, or has a telepathic feeling, it is very likely that he or she will have a much different attitude in the future about UFOs or ESPs. The circular nature of psi is certainly validated through the well-known notion of declining results in parapsychology. When someone tend to guess correctly more often than normal, then his or her confidence is boosted which in turn is both helping the process in reinforcing the unconscious belief in psi and disabling the process by causing stressful expectations to perform. The more loops in the circuit are completed, the less likely someone will perform because the conscious stress eventually overrides the unconscious belief. In cases where expectations to perform are neutralized, then it is boredom that replaces stress but with the same declining results in the end.
In the case of spontaneous psi, however, the circuit works somewhat differently. A psi event will reinforce the belief in the paranormal, which reinforces the unconscious belief that there is “something” to it. Yet, this “something” has to be attributed to a non-human force or entity so that there is no stress related to performing (it is not me but “it” that does that), and no boredom as it is seen as something extraordinary. This issue is clearly addressed in von Lucadou’s model with the notion of “displacement”, and discussed at length in the 1952 Washington case study. From a social psi perspective, it is critical for spontaneous social psi effects to continuing occurring to have a community of believers, be it about aliens, ghosts, demons, etc., to create such a displacement. In the proposed model, this translates in the creation of new social representations, or the reinforcement of existing representations. UFOs, which are simply Unidentified Flying Objects, were rapidly equated with extra-terrestrial visitors in spite of having very little evidence to support such a view. But without such social representations, a “semi-permanent” displacement towards the non-human to explain social psi effects cannot occur at the social level. In other words, contrary to von Lucadou’s model which is dealing with small groups of people’s (family or co-workers) belief that a ghost is responsible for the events and where the events eventually dissipates , social-scale phenomena like UFOs need to be continuously reinforced by an ongoing active belief system (what would be in von Lucadou’s terminology an “ongoing displacement”). That’s one of the key differences between the individual level and the social level.
This synthesis from parapsychology plays in particular ways at each step of the circuit, and these will be discussed in the next post.
[1] Rhine, J.B. (1954). “The science of nonphysical nature”. Journal of Philosophy 51: 801-810.
[2] Batcheldor, Kenneth J. (1984). “Contributions to the theory of PK induction from sitter-group work”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78(2): 105-122.
[3] Heath, Pamela Rae. (2003). The PK Zone: A cross-cultural review of psychokinesis. Lincoln: iUniverse.
[4] For those who are strong believers in conspiracy theory, such an experimental scenario might be the most realistic one about UFOs, science, and governmental authorities.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
The social psi circuit: A tentative model (Part 1)
This post is proposing a tentative model to explain social psi effects based on the literature surveyed up to this point, and some afterthought emerging out of the historical case studies presented here. The model is presented as a “circuit” because there is an apparent recurrent component to psi effects.
Preliminary remarks
There is one challenge linked to parasociology in general, and UFO studies in particular, that needs to be highlighted. Knowledge is usually produced by alternating between induction and deduction, or by observation and conceptualization. New data are required to validate or modify concepts and models which are necessary if one is to produce more than mere description (i.e., producing an explanation). Concepts and models are required to assess which data are relevant, as data about the entire reality cannot be collected without being quickly overwhelmed (i.e., distinguishing between the signal and the noise). Overtime, there is a synergy between more accurate observations and better conceptualization, ultimately leading to better explanations. This is the ideal model of scientific knowledge production.
The reality, however, is that there are cultural preferences within the Western world about induction and deduction. Namely, in the English-speaking world there is a clear preference for induction (i.e., the portion starting from observation and moving very slowly towards conceptualization). People who are from cultures that are linked to those of continental Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) tend to have a preference for deduction (i.e., it is more important to spend energy to have good concepts so that most of the noise is removed when it is time to observe). Deduction also means to adapt existing concepts developed and tested for comparable problems so that one avoids re-inventing the wheel. For those who are familiar with philosophy of science, it is illustrated by the David Hume versus René Descartes fault line, which has been at the source of many misunderstandings. In the end, however, both induction and deduction are needed to make sense of the world around us.
This brings us to UFO studies. In the United States, most of UFO research is very much influenced by the cultural preference for induction, sometimes taking the shape of a militant ideology. The problem of such approach is that one is at serious risks of never moving beyond description, and so never reaching a sound explanation. This problem is even further compounded if one relies on the highly speculative notion of extra-terrestrial visitations for an explanation, over which “visitations” we have no control anyway. Hence, induction would be at the mercy of somebody else’s incomprehensible idiosyncratic wishes.
Parasociology, as discussed here, is very much influenced by a preference for deduction. This may cause “cognitive dissonance” to many interested in UFOs. But this choice for a more deductive approach is not just a cultural preference. Since the late 1940s, there have been a lot of observations and reports about UFOs, probably in the hundreds of thousands. Although the quality of such observations varies considerably, it is fair to say that there is a very healthy amount of good reports out there. But the question that everyone should ask is: what kind of serious conceptualization did occur to further refine observations since? Unfortunately, the answer is not a whole lot. More observations of the same are not what is needed at this point, as it cannot bring a qualitatively different type of data. This can only serve to reinforce the present situation where many have given up and essentially camped on the position saying “what else could it be but ETs?,” and then waiting for ET to show up and or the government to “reveal everything” (assuming they really know something worth of mention). In other words, ufology is stuck, and it has been stuck for quite a while. A major dose of serious deductive work, as described above, is now required before engaging in further observations. It is how I interpret Jacques Vallée’s point stated in a 2006 interview:
“SR: What are your thoughts on the state of ufology in 2006?
JV: It’s a mess. There is valuable research going on, but it is carried out by individuals working with almost no financial or logistical resources. The few scientists who are still actively involved are forming a new version of the old “Invisible College,” communicating privately to stay away from the sensationalism that has taken over the field. As for what remains of the organized groups, they are not playing the role of disseminating information, conducting field research or encouraging critique and open debate. They are little more than lobbies for a particular point of view. This is a pity, because periods of low UFO activity like the current one present the best opportunity to do quiet research. By centering the whole discussion of the phenomenon on highly-charged, but poorly-researched issues like Roswell and abductions, ufologists have lost credibility, alienated the scientific public and opened the floodgates to hundreds of Internet sites where the wildest rumours circulate. No wonder serious researchers are going underground!”[1]
Parasociology is dedicated at getting UFO and paranormal research out of the underground, but ufology has to be ready for a new type of research. Once again, let’s emphasize that deductive work is not based on pure speculation, as most inductive-thinking people tend to believe. It is based on borrowing and adapting research on what is known about other realities that share similar characteristics to what is to be studied. This way we can move from the known and go towards the unknown, and avoid re-inventing the wheel, whenever possible. The most difficult part of all this, however, is that when “similar characteristics” are compared, it is not necessarily at the observation level, i.e., on the superficial level. It is oftentimes at the deep or “structural” level where the similarities can be found, and this requires a fair bit of lateral thinking. A simple example is the physics of weather. On the surface, snow, drizzle, fog, wind and drought have little superficial resemblance, but it is the same physics that explains them all at the deep structural level. Parasociology approaches the UFO phenomenon with the same spirit that weather physicists are approaching climate issues, (and I would say that climate issues are as controversial as UFO research...).
So, the following model should be seen as an attempt to synthesize existing knowledge established in a number of various fields where there are structural similarities with paranormal phenomena, UFO included. As well, this model should also be seen as a step towards better identifying the signal from the noise, to be verified in future empirical research. Hence, deduction, like induction, should not be an end in itself. We need both.
Foundational notions
The proposed model is based on research and observation conducted by a number of serious researchers, and is trying to move from the known in order to move towards the unknown. Without repeating the content of all previous posts dealing with reviewing the literature on the nexus paranormal-UFO phenomena, it is important to highlight what is known.
The paranormal-UFO nexus
Jacques Vallée’s research is well-known in ufology. He found that many witnesses had paranormal experience before, during and after a sighting. Furthermore, the narrative structure of encounter with what has been construed as non-human entities shares a lot of similarities with folkloric myths. John Keel, coming from a different angle, considered that UFO phenomena are difficult to distinguish from other paranormal phenomena, and that it is probably wiser to see them as part of continuum rather than being discreet realities. The younger Jerome Clark provides also an interesting overview of the observational similarities between UFOs and paranormal phenomena. On the other side of the Atlantic, John Spencer and Albert Budden also found many similarities between the two, confirming empirically the findings of Vallée and Keel. Jenny Randles is famous for her concept of “Oz Factor”, which is essentially about altered states of consciousness (ASC) found in many UFO events. According to many parapsychologists, ASC is considered a key psychological state in psi events. A few parapsychologists, in particular Scott Rogo and Manfred Cassirer also ventured in the UFO territory and found extensive similarities. French authors François Favre, Bertrand Méheust, and Pierre Viéroudy coming from very different directions also found that “paranormality” is at the centre of the UFO experience, also confirming findings by researchers in the United States and the United Kingdom. There are a number of other less known researchers who came to similar conclusions, also based on empirical research.
The fact that the few researchers who cared to explore the paranormal-UFO nexus found so many similarities shows that it cannot be ascribed to coincidence or wishful thinking. There is a serious empirical base behind their assertions. Ignoring it is simply moving away from scientific work.
The social dimension
Many of the above researchers could not help but also notice that there is a social dimension to the paranormal side of the UFO experience. Once again, Vallée was deeply impressed at how the UFO phenomenon changed the life of so many people in such a deep way, and that many appeared to gain psychic abilities. The younger Jerome Clark was one of the first to push for an exploration of the social unconscious and the UFO phenomenon, as there are clearly “social constructions” embedded in the UFO experience that closely intertwined with the paranormal dimension. Randles, through her research, reinforced the notion that the apparent technology perceived in UFO tend to be just a few years ahead of technological progress on Earth, and therefore social representations seem to play a key role in the experience. Méheust provided the most serious analysis to date about the intimate link between social representation (i.e., science fiction) and UFOs. Viéroudy found a number of strong correlations between major social events and UFO waves. On the social dimension too, there are other lesser known researchers who came with similar findings.
The weaker link in this case is from parapsychology that has not spent much energy trying to understand the social dimension of psi. The notable exceptions are the small group experiments conducted by Batcheldor, Owen and Sparrow, and the Globe Consciousness Project. This last research effort has been described by leading parapsychologist Dean Radin in Entangled Minds as a first step in investigating “social psi.” However, it is fair to say that parapsychology has been able to show that there is enough evidence to seriously consider that psi effects is likely to occur at different levels: individual, small group, and large group.
Joining forces
In light of the above research about both the paranormal-UFO nexus, and social dimension of UFO and paranormal events, it appears clear that ufology would benefit from investigating in more depth how its social dimension intersects with the paranormal one. In other words, ufology, parapsychology and sociology should join forces, as existing research points towards an unexplored research potential to uncover. The question is then how to go about it? It is where a trans-disciplinary model becomes useful and critical to generate research hypotheses.
Graphic Representation
Below is the model’s graphic representation, which will be explained at length in the next post. However, let’s note that it is integrating the previously presented PEMIE model, which also take stocks of what is known about the materiality of UFOs.
[1] The rest of the interview can be found at http://www.dailygrail.com/node/3252.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Preliminary remarks
There is one challenge linked to parasociology in general, and UFO studies in particular, that needs to be highlighted. Knowledge is usually produced by alternating between induction and deduction, or by observation and conceptualization. New data are required to validate or modify concepts and models which are necessary if one is to produce more than mere description (i.e., producing an explanation). Concepts and models are required to assess which data are relevant, as data about the entire reality cannot be collected without being quickly overwhelmed (i.e., distinguishing between the signal and the noise). Overtime, there is a synergy between more accurate observations and better conceptualization, ultimately leading to better explanations. This is the ideal model of scientific knowledge production.
The reality, however, is that there are cultural preferences within the Western world about induction and deduction. Namely, in the English-speaking world there is a clear preference for induction (i.e., the portion starting from observation and moving very slowly towards conceptualization). People who are from cultures that are linked to those of continental Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) tend to have a preference for deduction (i.e., it is more important to spend energy to have good concepts so that most of the noise is removed when it is time to observe). Deduction also means to adapt existing concepts developed and tested for comparable problems so that one avoids re-inventing the wheel. For those who are familiar with philosophy of science, it is illustrated by the David Hume versus René Descartes fault line, which has been at the source of many misunderstandings. In the end, however, both induction and deduction are needed to make sense of the world around us.
This brings us to UFO studies. In the United States, most of UFO research is very much influenced by the cultural preference for induction, sometimes taking the shape of a militant ideology. The problem of such approach is that one is at serious risks of never moving beyond description, and so never reaching a sound explanation. This problem is even further compounded if one relies on the highly speculative notion of extra-terrestrial visitations for an explanation, over which “visitations” we have no control anyway. Hence, induction would be at the mercy of somebody else’s incomprehensible idiosyncratic wishes.
Parasociology, as discussed here, is very much influenced by a preference for deduction. This may cause “cognitive dissonance” to many interested in UFOs. But this choice for a more deductive approach is not just a cultural preference. Since the late 1940s, there have been a lot of observations and reports about UFOs, probably in the hundreds of thousands. Although the quality of such observations varies considerably, it is fair to say that there is a very healthy amount of good reports out there. But the question that everyone should ask is: what kind of serious conceptualization did occur to further refine observations since? Unfortunately, the answer is not a whole lot. More observations of the same are not what is needed at this point, as it cannot bring a qualitatively different type of data. This can only serve to reinforce the present situation where many have given up and essentially camped on the position saying “what else could it be but ETs?,” and then waiting for ET to show up and or the government to “reveal everything” (assuming they really know something worth of mention). In other words, ufology is stuck, and it has been stuck for quite a while. A major dose of serious deductive work, as described above, is now required before engaging in further observations. It is how I interpret Jacques Vallée’s point stated in a 2006 interview:
“SR: What are your thoughts on the state of ufology in 2006?
JV: It’s a mess. There is valuable research going on, but it is carried out by individuals working with almost no financial or logistical resources. The few scientists who are still actively involved are forming a new version of the old “Invisible College,” communicating privately to stay away from the sensationalism that has taken over the field. As for what remains of the organized groups, they are not playing the role of disseminating information, conducting field research or encouraging critique and open debate. They are little more than lobbies for a particular point of view. This is a pity, because periods of low UFO activity like the current one present the best opportunity to do quiet research. By centering the whole discussion of the phenomenon on highly-charged, but poorly-researched issues like Roswell and abductions, ufologists have lost credibility, alienated the scientific public and opened the floodgates to hundreds of Internet sites where the wildest rumours circulate. No wonder serious researchers are going underground!”[1]
Parasociology is dedicated at getting UFO and paranormal research out of the underground, but ufology has to be ready for a new type of research. Once again, let’s emphasize that deductive work is not based on pure speculation, as most inductive-thinking people tend to believe. It is based on borrowing and adapting research on what is known about other realities that share similar characteristics to what is to be studied. This way we can move from the known and go towards the unknown, and avoid re-inventing the wheel, whenever possible. The most difficult part of all this, however, is that when “similar characteristics” are compared, it is not necessarily at the observation level, i.e., on the superficial level. It is oftentimes at the deep or “structural” level where the similarities can be found, and this requires a fair bit of lateral thinking. A simple example is the physics of weather. On the surface, snow, drizzle, fog, wind and drought have little superficial resemblance, but it is the same physics that explains them all at the deep structural level. Parasociology approaches the UFO phenomenon with the same spirit that weather physicists are approaching climate issues, (and I would say that climate issues are as controversial as UFO research...).
So, the following model should be seen as an attempt to synthesize existing knowledge established in a number of various fields where there are structural similarities with paranormal phenomena, UFO included. As well, this model should also be seen as a step towards better identifying the signal from the noise, to be verified in future empirical research. Hence, deduction, like induction, should not be an end in itself. We need both.
Foundational notions
The proposed model is based on research and observation conducted by a number of serious researchers, and is trying to move from the known in order to move towards the unknown. Without repeating the content of all previous posts dealing with reviewing the literature on the nexus paranormal-UFO phenomena, it is important to highlight what is known.
The paranormal-UFO nexus
Jacques Vallée’s research is well-known in ufology. He found that many witnesses had paranormal experience before, during and after a sighting. Furthermore, the narrative structure of encounter with what has been construed as non-human entities shares a lot of similarities with folkloric myths. John Keel, coming from a different angle, considered that UFO phenomena are difficult to distinguish from other paranormal phenomena, and that it is probably wiser to see them as part of continuum rather than being discreet realities. The younger Jerome Clark provides also an interesting overview of the observational similarities between UFOs and paranormal phenomena. On the other side of the Atlantic, John Spencer and Albert Budden also found many similarities between the two, confirming empirically the findings of Vallée and Keel. Jenny Randles is famous for her concept of “Oz Factor”, which is essentially about altered states of consciousness (ASC) found in many UFO events. According to many parapsychologists, ASC is considered a key psychological state in psi events. A few parapsychologists, in particular Scott Rogo and Manfred Cassirer also ventured in the UFO territory and found extensive similarities. French authors François Favre, Bertrand Méheust, and Pierre Viéroudy coming from very different directions also found that “paranormality” is at the centre of the UFO experience, also confirming findings by researchers in the United States and the United Kingdom. There are a number of other less known researchers who came to similar conclusions, also based on empirical research.
The fact that the few researchers who cared to explore the paranormal-UFO nexus found so many similarities shows that it cannot be ascribed to coincidence or wishful thinking. There is a serious empirical base behind their assertions. Ignoring it is simply moving away from scientific work.
The social dimension
Many of the above researchers could not help but also notice that there is a social dimension to the paranormal side of the UFO experience. Once again, Vallée was deeply impressed at how the UFO phenomenon changed the life of so many people in such a deep way, and that many appeared to gain psychic abilities. The younger Jerome Clark was one of the first to push for an exploration of the social unconscious and the UFO phenomenon, as there are clearly “social constructions” embedded in the UFO experience that closely intertwined with the paranormal dimension. Randles, through her research, reinforced the notion that the apparent technology perceived in UFO tend to be just a few years ahead of technological progress on Earth, and therefore social representations seem to play a key role in the experience. Méheust provided the most serious analysis to date about the intimate link between social representation (i.e., science fiction) and UFOs. Viéroudy found a number of strong correlations between major social events and UFO waves. On the social dimension too, there are other lesser known researchers who came with similar findings.
The weaker link in this case is from parapsychology that has not spent much energy trying to understand the social dimension of psi. The notable exceptions are the small group experiments conducted by Batcheldor, Owen and Sparrow, and the Globe Consciousness Project. This last research effort has been described by leading parapsychologist Dean Radin in Entangled Minds as a first step in investigating “social psi.” However, it is fair to say that parapsychology has been able to show that there is enough evidence to seriously consider that psi effects is likely to occur at different levels: individual, small group, and large group.
Joining forces
In light of the above research about both the paranormal-UFO nexus, and social dimension of UFO and paranormal events, it appears clear that ufology would benefit from investigating in more depth how its social dimension intersects with the paranormal one. In other words, ufology, parapsychology and sociology should join forces, as existing research points towards an unexplored research potential to uncover. The question is then how to go about it? It is where a trans-disciplinary model becomes useful and critical to generate research hypotheses.
Graphic Representation
Below is the model’s graphic representation, which will be explained at length in the next post. However, let’s note that it is integrating the previously presented PEMIE model, which also take stocks of what is known about the materiality of UFOs.
[1] The rest of the interview can be found at http://www.dailygrail.com/node/3252.
Eric Ouellet © 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)