Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
For the last few episodes Chris has taken a bit of a beating regarding his 'grumpiness', bitterness, frustration, ...call it what you like. I've seen this happen in long-term researchers into the paranormal or UFO's and I thought I'd share my thoughts on the matter to spur a little discussion.
Disclaimer; I'm a psychology enthusiast but am NOT a psychologist. The following involves psychological speculation and discussion. Please try not to judge.
Focusing on UFO research for the purposes of scope, I see two overall categories of long-term researchers; the agnostic and the evangelical. Both types of researchers acknowledge one key factor; there's 'something' going on in our skies....there's an inexplicable truth to the UFO phenomenon, however the split comes from the perceived explanation.
The evangelical researcher will latch onto a pet theory and develop methods of arguing their theory against competing ideals within the field. I'm thinking of the Stanton Friedman's here, but we all know others. Researchers who swear by the multi-universal, Moon-men, or ultra-terrestrial hypotheses as a source for the phenomenon are other examples.
Then you have the agnostic researchers. These long-standing investigators are a bit more honest and truthful with themselves, never finding sufficient evidence to come down on the side of any fence out there. Over time agnostic researchers grow frustrated, anxious, angry, intolerant, and conflicted over the fact that they can't resolve the mystery. You have the definitive phenomenon, but all explanations come up short. Here's where the grumpiness comes in, and I've seen it in popular researchers such as The Paracast's former cohost dB, Chris O'brien, and Don Ecker. Don's admitted his frustration has caused him to toss his hands up and walk away from the field altogether in the past, but after a few months or years he drifts back to the mystery. The PC's former cohost admitted that the UFO mystery and everything that went with it drove him to the brink ... that he didn't think he could cope with it any longer. He ended up walking away from UFO discussions, as far as I know, for good. D.Ecker is an example of a researcher who steps away for a long period of time to try to distract his mental process then re-engage. Everybody deals with stress and conflict different. Others, such as the late Jim Mosely address the stress of the field through humor and mischievousness. Chris O'Brien seems to be at the brink of this point, experiencing the frustration and anxiety of being presented with a problem and no feasible solution.
Ironically, I believe an evangelical approach to the field is better for emotional self defense and well-being. Pinning down a pet theory, such as the ETH, allows one to reconcile the phenomenon and rationalize it. From there self-defense mechanisms are put in place to address competing theories and ideas even if they're not rejected out-right. Examples are, as I said, Friedman or Preston Dennett...intelligent researchers who cling (some would say desperately) to their ideals. Though they may get tired of arguing their point over and over again; mentally, emotionally they have a founded and grounded belief, and at the end of the day I think this makes them happier while remaining in the field and researching such things.
This doesn't make evangelicals more right, however, in the end the agnostic view of UFO research is a fatal, destructive one. Hundreds of years of research has gone into UFO research and we still have no solid answer. Agnostics won't find it either, any time soon, and will only drive themselves mad looking for that solid answer. In their own way, evangelicals already have their answer.
I count myself among the agnostics in the field, and have well-experienced the frustration and stress of the conflicts I describe. I've taken some time off...stepped away from it all, but yes, keep coming back because of my fascination of the phenomenon.
Addressing Chris and his recent "grumpiness", maybe it's time he take a break from the research too, or at least take a deep breath and re-group his thoughts. Doing so may lead to the acceptance that an answer to UFO's and the like isn't to be found within our lifetime, therefore he should just enjoy the research for the sake of enjoyment instead of desperately seeking the source. As they say, it's the journey, not the destination, that should be enjoyed.
By I digress. In the end I believe you can pick any researcher or enthusiast who's been looking into this stuff for any length of time and drop them into one of these two categories. I invite thoughts and opinions on the matter.
Peace.
J.
Disclaimer; I'm a psychology enthusiast but am NOT a psychologist. The following involves psychological speculation and discussion. Please try not to judge.
Focusing on UFO research for the purposes of scope, I see two overall categories of long-term researchers; the agnostic and the evangelical. Both types of researchers acknowledge one key factor; there's 'something' going on in our skies....there's an inexplicable truth to the UFO phenomenon, however the split comes from the perceived explanation.
The evangelical researcher will latch onto a pet theory and develop methods of arguing their theory against competing ideals within the field. I'm thinking of the Stanton Friedman's here, but we all know others. Researchers who swear by the multi-universal, Moon-men, or ultra-terrestrial hypotheses as a source for the phenomenon are other examples.
Then you have the agnostic researchers. These long-standing investigators are a bit more honest and truthful with themselves, never finding sufficient evidence to come down on the side of any fence out there. Over time agnostic researchers grow frustrated, anxious, angry, intolerant, and conflicted over the fact that they can't resolve the mystery. You have the definitive phenomenon, but all explanations come up short. Here's where the grumpiness comes in, and I've seen it in popular researchers such as The Paracast's former cohost dB, Chris O'brien, and Don Ecker. Don's admitted his frustration has caused him to toss his hands up and walk away from the field altogether in the past, but after a few months or years he drifts back to the mystery. The PC's former cohost admitted that the UFO mystery and everything that went with it drove him to the brink ... that he didn't think he could cope with it any longer. He ended up walking away from UFO discussions, as far as I know, for good. D.Ecker is an example of a researcher who steps away for a long period of time to try to distract his mental process then re-engage. Everybody deals with stress and conflict different. Others, such as the late Jim Mosely address the stress of the field through humor and mischievousness. Chris O'Brien seems to be at the brink of this point, experiencing the frustration and anxiety of being presented with a problem and no feasible solution.
Ironically, I believe an evangelical approach to the field is better for emotional self defense and well-being. Pinning down a pet theory, such as the ETH, allows one to reconcile the phenomenon and rationalize it. From there self-defense mechanisms are put in place to address competing theories and ideas even if they're not rejected out-right. Examples are, as I said, Friedman or Preston Dennett...intelligent researchers who cling (some would say desperately) to their ideals. Though they may get tired of arguing their point over and over again; mentally, emotionally they have a founded and grounded belief, and at the end of the day I think this makes them happier while remaining in the field and researching such things.
This doesn't make evangelicals more right, however, in the end the agnostic view of UFO research is a fatal, destructive one. Hundreds of years of research has gone into UFO research and we still have no solid answer. Agnostics won't find it either, any time soon, and will only drive themselves mad looking for that solid answer. In their own way, evangelicals already have their answer.
I count myself among the agnostics in the field, and have well-experienced the frustration and stress of the conflicts I describe. I've taken some time off...stepped away from it all, but yes, keep coming back because of my fascination of the phenomenon.
Addressing Chris and his recent "grumpiness", maybe it's time he take a break from the research too, or at least take a deep breath and re-group his thoughts. Doing so may lead to the acceptance that an answer to UFO's and the like isn't to be found within our lifetime, therefore he should just enjoy the research for the sake of enjoyment instead of desperately seeking the source. As they say, it's the journey, not the destination, that should be enjoyed.
By I digress. In the end I believe you can pick any researcher or enthusiast who's been looking into this stuff for any length of time and drop them into one of these two categories. I invite thoughts and opinions on the matter.
Peace.
J.
Simple fact is—I'm not frustrated w/ the 'field' nor the subject. Everyone has the right to suspend their disbelief and slurp the jello and who am I to cast aspirations? I'm frustrated that I have been lassoed into spending too much unpaid time keeping the Paracast relevant and attracting guests that have something new and creative to offer. If I were able to cut away 3 or 4 of my other time commitments, maybe my 'grumpiness' would subside some, until then, I'll still have an attitude about jello-slurping kook-aid drinkers and that I'm spec'ing my time here w/ little to show for it. Many are called and few can hang. Those that do hang always need to justify the time and energy it takes to make it happen.
