Guest Suggestion - psychologist

[TClaeys]

I was thinking it would be great to hear from a psychologist on the show. A psychologist that has no interest in UFO's, abductions, ghosts, etc per se.

I would love to hear an objective professional give his/her opinion on those subjects filtered through their expertise. They may be able to shed some different light on the subjects of abductions. Of the UFO replacement religion. Of ghostly encounters. And I would love to hear how some of these allegedly highly educated people turn into complete blathering lunatics like Webre, Salla, and so on. I mean how does that transformation actually occur and what are the triggers??

There are so many questions that could be asked in light of the topics that the Paracast covers. And while we may not agree with the whole assessment, at least it would be another angle to look at things.

I have a hunch that some people are either deluded, mentally unstable, fantasy prone, pathalogical liars, or whatever else. But I don't actually KNOW what that really means and how it happens. It would be useful and perhaps eye opening to hear a professional comment and explain these things as they see it. The brain is a very sophisticated thing and we have yet to discover much about it.

So, .... does anyone know a psychologist that might be willing to share their insight on these subjects?? I suppose they could remain anonymous so as not to dent their reputation. But I would guess they have seen this kind of thing before and might be willing to help educate us. And of course it would be up to the hosts to decide if such an interview would happen. But I just thought it might add more to the pie. More to think about.

 

[pupilstutor]

tc

you need to know what being in the world is, not means, and in order to do that you need to depsychologise it. Then it's essential to shatter the pretensions of the knowing subject to set itself up as the measure of objectivity.

Why do you set yourself up in an area of experience where all you do is make negative value judgements? Why do you have the answers when you never had the experiences?

 

[conor]

Great idea! What about one further - a round table with an anthropologist, a sociologist and a phsychologist? That would be a great show IMO. You would have to make sure that they all have at least a little familiarity with teh topic. I listened to an episode of Jim Harold's Paranormal Podcast (don't worry, it's not a regular occurance), and it actually turned out to be a good episode. He was interviewing a woman who wrote a book treating the abduction phenonemon as a cultural one, and examined "shifts" (ie. from contactees to the scientific examination style of abductions). Rather than debate whether these things are real or not, she simply examined cultural attitudes towards the phenonemon. This kind of stepping back from the subject would be highly valuable IMO.

Before we start debating if these things are real or not, and someone infers that by treating the topic as a cultural phenonemon you are somehow treating the phenonemon as not real/manmade (in some way), then that is not true of such studies at all. Rather, people's attitudes are examined. People could do such studies on the recession or the fall of the Berlin wall or what ever. People have done studies on the meaning of the chair in different cultures! That would be the anthropological/sociologiocal side of things.

As for the psychology side of things, that's an interesting one because even more so than the anthropologist, who kind of naturally takes a step back from each of his or her cases, the psychologist should ideally have a great , or at least some, knowledge of the phenonemon as it is experienced by individuals. Otherwise you could have a good old fashioned blanket denial of any veracity to the phenonemon, labeling experiencers as kranks because not everything would fit in with an established world view. That may not forward the thinking on the topic in any way.

Conversely, it may be fun to hear Gene and David rip into the dismissive way in which mainstream science treats UFOs. It would be sort of like role reversal with regards to who they normally grill (at one end of the spectrum you get the "true believers" unwilling to look at the facts, and at the other end you get the scientist unwilling to look at the facts that do not concur with established scientific thought).

 

[leftystrat]

Great idea!

So long as you realize that psychologists are like that old joke about excretory orifices and opinions: everybody has one.

Think of `expert witnesses' in court: each side hires one to put forth their explanation.
Psychologists may not agree with each other any more than economists

But it's still a really good idea for a guest.


P.S. Don't neglect your prostate. That's what got Frank Zappa.

 

[TClaeys]

tc

you need to know what being in the world is, not means, and in order to do that you need to depsychologise it. Then it's essential to shatter the pretensions of the knowing subject to set itself up as the measure of objectivity.

Why do you set yourself up in an area of experience where all you do is make negative value judgements? Why do you have the answers when you never had the experiences?

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about??

 

[Fcseven]

I think A psychologist would be an excellent idea for the show.The only trouble I would see is Gene and David actually having to pay the cost of a 2 hour session with one.No one should have to flip a bill like that for a podcast imo.

 

[TClaeys]

I think A psychologist would be an excellent idea for the show.The only trouble I would see is Gene and David actually having to pay the cost of a 2 hour session with one.No one should have to flip a bill like that for a podcast imo.

Ha! Didn't think about that.