Abductee Research -Accounting for Psychosis

[trainedobserver]

I thought the question came from the perspective that people with psychiatric histories are generally excluded by abductee researchers already. I don't know how many written accounts or documentaries clearly state that the people represented have no history of mental illness, etc., etc. I think including folks with severe problems could certainly complicate things though and since time and money are prime considerations excluding them seems reasonable. You could make an argument either way I guess.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Exploring both and looking at the similarities is important since they are probably related.

 

[boomerang]

Are abductees who are deeply troubled by their abductions ever treated with antipsychotic medications? If so, what effect does it have on their experiences? What I usually see in the literature is a rush to hypnosis and subsequent publication. Credible data is out there (Dr. Elizabeth Loftus et al) to suggest hypnosis and guided imagery is more likely to generate false memories than recall real ones. Extraterrestrial or not.

 

[willbfree]

Ahem. (Sorry if I'm getting too sarcastic, I feel p****d.) John Mack Totaly Truly Beeleeved Donna Bassett, while she sat (alledgedly on his lap) and told him about Kruschev and Kennedy aboard the ET space ship she was on. You want that guy concluding what your brain state is?

See
Donna Bassett Pt 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

Hadn't heard the "sat on his lap" bit added to the story until now. Watch the story grow!

 

[Hotkafka]

Right now there seems to be a running bias in the scientific camp that pathology ultimately underlies all paranormal phenomenon, which of course leads to a tidy dismissal of troublesome abductee and contactee accounts, and all things inexplicable inbetween. I think it's overzealous to make this blanket assumption, especially considering the recent progress of non-ordinary states of consciousness research, particularly with that of NDE's. There's plenty evidence to suggest that pathology need not precede nor underlie an individuals access to non-ordinary states, .i.e. see OBE's, NDE's, Lucid Dreaming, Remote Viewing, Alpha States, etc. The narratives around these events do seem to converge, however, and that is what's more interesting.

Perhaps in our search to uncover the mystery of the brain we need to be more open to the latent possibilities of the unconscious. I think in the case with researchers like John Mack, he may have begun with a very narrow perspective on what was happening, a bias or assumption about what was behind such narratives, but eventually ended up in a whole 'nother camp bridging Transpersonal Psychology and transformative states, i.e. the territory of non-ordinary states of consciousness. Perhaps that's why in the end you didn't see him bothering to put folks like Donna Bassett on a steady diet of antipsychotics- he started to expand his perspective to include process. Those orbiting outside of the professional field of psychology tend to believe that every person who has a wacky belief or who looses touch is automatically deemed pathological once they step foot in front of a clinician. This is simply not true. The trend in the field is to actually allow and work with non-ordinary states as opposed to jumping into a medication regimen, if possible. Non-ordinary states do not always indicate pathology, and actually too early an intervention has a inverse correlation on a non-pathological outcome. Actually we're finding out that these states are often transitional, and at times indicate a temporary psychic restructuring process. Off course the opposite is sometimes the case and pathology may result, but many times it doesn't, and it's not altogether rare for people to come out the other end of such processes all the better for it. It's tricky territory however and there is crossover, however a bad outcome (a psychotic diagnosis) doesn't necessarily indicate a negative correlation. In the case of pathology, the narratives may indicate a restructuring process that hasn't managed to find the correct supports -which simply indicates the need for more research on what's truly going on. Having said that, there is another bias beneath that of non-ordinary states -which is that they correlate 100% to native brain activity. Despite the heavy modern neurobiological bias, the brain/mind, psyche/soma connection is still not well understood. Plenty of years of research left ahead to get our heads around this issue, and still, our "heads" may be the very thing that's getting in the way.

 

[trainedobserver]

Despite the heavy modern neurobiological bias, the brain/mind, psyche/soma connection is still not well understood. Plenty of years of research left ahead to get our heads around this issue, and still, our "heads" may be the very thing that's getting in the way.

I'm just a layperson in this area but it seems like all we have to work with are functional models, similar the situation with Bohr's atom, of these things. Studying the instrument with the instrument that you are studying certainly does create its own problems.

Would you agree that we are mostly unconscious with the island of awareness floating in a deep ocean of invisible activity within the organism? We truly are mysterious things in a mysterious universe even if you leave the paranormal and anomalous out of the picture.

 

[Kim323]

I see that this thread has been revivied, and it's an intriguing poll and topic. The overwhelming vote seems to be that the "similarities between abductees and psychotic narratives should be explored." The runner up is "psychosis should not eliminate the possibility of a true abductee account." They seem to me to be a bit contradictory, but that's the nature of humanity and the ubiquity of psychological issues among us all, and I'd include myself.

I do believe strongly that a clear definition of psychosis can be and has been arrived at, the full blown kind that has clear auditory, paranoiac, visual, etc. symptoms. I read, probably too much, clinical psychiatric stuff, and even the DSM used by psychiatrists and psychologists is fascinating, but you can find tiny droplets of yourself in many of the lists of qualifying symptoms provided. Read Psychiatric Times for controversy swirling about the new DSM in progress. I do think, however, that psychiatry is more of a science than many people would like to believe, though it is often off the cuff dismissed. I won't quote the official, so to speak, definition of psychosis, it can be found, and allowances are clearly made for, and just off the top of my head and from my memory, psychotic disorder not brought on by...................., and on and on. But clear and full blown psychosis I think is pretty readily determined, and in my opinion should be excluded from consideration of an abduction experience, or rather, and this sounds contradictory, the psychosis itself IS the true explanation OF THE "ALIEN ABDUCTION." I don't see how this possibility should NOT be an easy determination, and that's the end of the matter. Further exploration of that person's experience should be dismissed, yes, out of hand, except for sympathy, help, and yes, a prescription for medication. Psychosis/schizophrenia/etc. are devastating illnesses. And this is NOT a criticism of Hotkafka's poll; I don't think I could have come up with better statements to vote on, and I do genuinely bow to his personal qualifications and experience as a psychotherapist.

Even the Axis II personality disorders, nasty little beasts that wreak destruction on others, are a matter of elevation on a scale of personality traits we all possess. Borderline PD can have transient episodes of dissociation and psychosis. I think clear cases of psychosis, again, should be excluded, or again, included for a time period to then dismiss the possibility that the "abduction" could be "true."

But then that gets us into the runner up in the poll. What's a "true abductee account"? I take it to mean, perhaps wrongly, as an account believed by the experiencer to be true, but aren't they all believed in by the experiencers? My opinion is that the whole premise of an "alien abduction" as actual fact that an actual alien/visitor was involved(!) should be categorically dismissed, if not for psychotic reasons pretty readily discernable, than for consideration of other possibilities that have been studied, and really, there are not many to choose from. But an actual event: preposterous, and an affront to rationality. As a study of PSYCHOLOGY, of human nature, of spirituality, yes, yes, yes, deserving of study, and study has been done.

I agree with Hotkafka that research into transpersonal states is interesting. Some very respected scientists have studied that, the study by Rick Strassman with DMT, or more to what Hotkafka speaks of, Near Death Experiences. There are extensive discussions on a podcast I haven't listed to for a while, but did and want to return to, it's called Skeptiko, I think, and there are some reputable researchers on that show on either side of that topic.

There are, in my memory and yes, my opinion, these explanations for "alien abduction" experiences, and you can see my other posts on this on another thread:

1. Ok, psychosis. And this may well be the case, and I think, as above, that can be pretty accurately determined, and end of matter. I'm not saying that psychosis shouldn't be studied in and of itself, my Heavens no, and Carl Jung's opinion was that they were a window into archetypes released by some sort of brain dysfunction that allows the unconscious, personal and collective, to break through. I know, a simplification.
2. sleep paralysis. The most common and accepted explanation, and I provided two links to studies done by Susan Blackmore and Susan Clancey on this phemonenon. Again, a topic worth of study in and of itself, and if that's the explanation, end of matter.
3. attention seeking. Not to be discounted as an explanation at all. If not from the public at large, then from individual researchers of all stripes, credentialed and otherwise. There you are, on a public forum, on the Anderson Cooper show (what a twit he is), writing about your experience, telling it to a psychologist, family members, friends, and well, oh no, experiencers wouldn't do any of that because of the ridicule. Sure. And there are plenty of credulous people out there ready to give them attention, sympathy, take on their "cases," and on and on. Sure, most just drift off into oblivion, but there are other cases where paydirt, monetarily or in terms of some sort of personal satisfaction, has been gained.
4. Now, if the experiencer continues to feel that revisitation may occur again or feels or senses that it is, wishes for it, feels that that meeting with the alien/aliens/visitors may provide an explanation of what happened during an experience that is genuinely frightening, has time lapse elements, etc., I think a different explanation is possible, and this is my opinion, and I've discussed it before. If numbers 1, 2, and 3 are eliminated, then I think that some sort of inherent yearning within all of us is at play here. I know spirituality/religion are buzzwords here, so I'm using them cautiously, and terming it that inherent yearning for something bigger.

You can see this in another thread, where I've discussed beliefs by many scientists that anthropomorphism is dominating the SETI search, the whole science of thinking about intelligent extraterrestrials beings. This is a psychological phenomenon, and scientists with impressive credentials are not immune to thinking that technological, cultural, historical, biological, etc., evolution has taken place on other worlds MUCH LIKE it has taken place on our planet.

I think a religious yearning (and I use that term cautiously again) exists in all of us, or if you'd prefer, a psychological yearning, to believe in something bigger. I happen to believe in that, but that's as far as I go, I give credence to it as a positive force. But this alien abduction stuff, if it incorporates denial of numbers 1, 2, and 3 as explanations for an experiencer, especially if revisitations are sensed, if totemic representations or drawings are indulged in, if there's a hope for further contact (and this speaks against a belief in sleep paralysis being the explanation by the experiencer), the something else is at work. I think it's a very natural wish for what I've described with the word religion here. Nothing to be ashamed of. Granted, and this is my opinion, I believe that this yearning in ALIEN ABDUCTIONS has taken a very primitive/proto/quasi/remote religious form, but it is that in my opinion that very thing nevertheless. There has been an evolution, culturally and theologically, in religion. But the basic root has been there, certainly in Cro-Magnon, even in Neanderthal man (poor despised fellows!), and who knows in the family tree where it really began, but to deny it within yourself is a form of denial of yourself. If you do that, then you, in my opinion, set yourself up for a form of narcissism that can take the form of malignancy. An alien abduction experiencer might as well give in to it in its quasi/proto form, and acknowledge it. But that's my opinion. But to deny that we have matured over the many centuries this yearning, and it isn't perfect by any means, but to project it onto intelligent extraterrestrials that, really, statistically speaking, are improbable to say the least, is absurd. The Drake equation has more absurdities to it than is acknowledged. We may well be alone in terms of ever, EVER, meeting up with intelligent extraterrestrials, and "alien visitations" and "alien abductions" should be categorically dismissed if it is maintained that an actual alien even possibly may have been involved.

To me, it's as simple as 1, 2, 3, 4. But I may have missed some explanations. Kim

 

[Hotkafka]

I'm just a layperson in this area but it seems like all we have to work with are functional models, similar the situation with Bohr's atom, of these things. Studying the instrument with the instrument that you are studying certainly does create its own problems.

Would you agree that we are mostly unconscious with the island of awareness floating in a deep ocean of invisible activity within the organism? We truly are mysterious things in a mysterious universe even if you leave the paranormal and anomalous out of the picture.

I would agree with the later statement, and certainly the founders (Freud and Young) of the modern psychiatric and psychology movements would as well. However brain-based theories might not, although I think you see a general trend to revisit and find room for these approaches in current psychological theory -mostly because of gaps in research. Personally, as a professional, I think it's a no brainer to see the power of the unconscious at work after a few years of practice. Actually, it seems you'd really have to go out of your way to avoid seeing it's influence. However, I personally don't find the dynamic structure and process of the mind all that mysterious. It's just another model that requires an adjustment in language. It's more a matter of exposure to process, like anything, and perhaps the biggest barrier to our accepting these concepts is a cultural one that really goes out of its way to assert the primacy of the ego.

 

[trainedobserver]

It's more a matter of exposure to process, like anything, and perhaps the biggest barrier to our accepting these concepts is a cultural one that really goes out of its way to assert the primacy of the ego.

I think I'm realizing that more and more. To me it seems like the ego is more along for the ride than in control while simultaneously being under the impression that it is driving. It's like when you play a video game with a small child of one or two years of age. They want to play and if you give them a controller and let them think they are controlling the action rather than you, they seem just as happy to mash the buttons and whoop and react as though they are in control. At some point though they will become aware of it and want to learn how to really control the action on the screen. Is that even reasonably close to describing what is going on? A friend once told me I should shut up about this sort of thing and stop babbling about these things I'm neither formally educated or trained to talk about. Of course if I did that I wouldn't say much about anything.

 

[Voyager]

I see that this thread has been revivied, and it's an intriguing poll and topic. [...]

To me, it's as simple as 1, 2, 3, 4. But I may have missed some explanations. Kim

Anthropocentricity or Egocentricity:

The prevailing world view, probably shared by all cultures, is an Anthropocentric (1) one. This stance has found it’s first expression in the Bible, Genesis 1:28 (2).
Whether our ideology stems from the religion, which put the idea in our heads, or whether our human Ego centrism (3) found it’s way into the scriptures is moot. It resembles the question about the egg and the chicken. No one can answer it. Fact is, that some Anthropocentric believe, that the world, and even the universe, was only created for one reason – for us human beings. Although we, as human beings, are unique in nature it does not necessarily mean, that the whole world and the universe is our dominion, our serfdom, for us to do as we please.

 

[boomerang]

The argument of ufo phenomena and "abnormal" human behavior is somewhat circular. The history of the phenomenon indicates something unavoidably personal. We have too many cases on record of ufos responding not only to the acts, but to the thoughts of witnesses to discount. Witnesses often come away behaviorally changed, almost psychically "burned" as if their deepest subconscious minds had touched the informational equivalent of dangerously high voltage.

It's sort of a space where Carl Jung meets Jaques Vallee. The personal unconscious meets the mysterious power of the collective unconscious in the ufo encounter. The ego--the part of us floating on the surface that interacts most directly with the world--has experienced a troubling sea change.

Jung would say this happens under other circumstances as well--with hallucinogenic drugs psychotic states, and even in gifted and creative individuals whose work is derived from the power of the collective unconscious. Hence the fine line between genius and insanity.

Apologies to genuine students of depth psychology! I am just dabbling here.

 

[trainedobserver]

I seen enough evidence to convince me that UAPs or UFOs are physical objects that trigger radar and other sensors. That puts them squarely in the real world. Their effect on the human psyche could understandably be profound and seems to have a historical basis. Comets and other celestial events certainly have had profound effects on the human psyche and behavior throughout history.

 

[boomerang]

Trained, I need to be clear.

Ufo's undoubtedly manifest as physical objects in the real world. So does human consciousness as a function of the brain. But the history of close encounters suggests a sentient force having almost complete control of our reality, including space, time, and our perception of that reality. I think this is why so many avid and honest researchers start their quest with a determination to solve the ufo enigma as a traditional 'nuts and bolts' problem, only to wind up with at least one foot in the so-called paranormal.

I don't see the 'nuts and bolts' vs paranormal models as mutually exclusive. We need a model that describes where these lines of investigation--physical reality, the realm of thought and perception, somehow converge.

Neither Vallee nor Jung claimed ufos to be merely harmless hallucinations. I read their work as searching for a better understanding of how mind and the laws of nature interact.

 

[trainedobserver]

My only real conviction or belief about all of this is that nothing is really what it seems to be on the surface. Beyond that it's hard for me to make any kind of definitive statement about anything.

 

[Qetuoadgjl]

Trained, I need to be clear.

Ufo's undoubtedly manifest as physical objects in the real world. So does human consciousness as a function of the brain. But the history of close encounters suggests a sentient force having almost complete control of our reality, including space, time, and our perception of that reality. I think this is why so many avid and honest researchers start their quest with a determination to solve the ufo enigma as a traditional 'nuts and bolts' problem, only to wind up with at least one foot in the so-called paranormal.

I don't see the 'nuts and bolts' vs paranormal models as mutually exclusive. We need a model that describes where these lines of investigation--physical reality, the realm of thought and perception, somehow converge.

Ala Richard Dolan who has struggled and abdicated to that struggle by declaring his best opinion is the UFO/aliens are all about the paranormal.

 

[Qetuoadgjl]

I seen enough evidence to convince me that UAPs or UFOs are physical objects that trigger radar and other sensors. That puts them squarely in the real world.

Not necessarily, all that means is that they may be able to manipulate our radar to show an image. Which since most UFOs are not radar-imaged, makes more sense.