Date: 7 Feb 1999 21:54:16 -0500
From: jpolanik@mindspring.com
To: illusions@bticc.net
Subject: [illusions] Abductions and Researcher Bias


-=> Illusions Mailing List <=-

-=> WARNING!!! THIS LIST IS UNMODERATED! READ AND POST AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!


Abductions and Researcher Bias

by Martin Kottmeyer

(originally appeared in The Devil's Advocate magazine/website,
http://www.ksinc.net/~devilsad/ufo.htm, reposted to alt.alien.research
and alt.paranet.ufo.)


You have just surveyed a little over a dozen abduction investigators who
have collectively handled over 1700 cases. You learn 4 of them say they
have a generally favorable attitude about the nature of abduction
experiences; 3 of them say such experiences are generally negative. You
say to yourself this is a nice opportunity to test whether or not there
is an investigator effect shaping the experiences of those they work
with. You meticulously compile and collate the survey data.

Finally you get the following results: Abductees with positive-attitude
investigators more often feel positive about their abduction
experiences. Their reactions to the entities are more often positive.
The entities are perceived more often as warm and cordial. More often
one of the entities seems familiar or caring. The abductees more often
see themselves as partners in the experience. They more often may even
identify themselves as alien. On the downside they more often have vague
anxieties after their experiences.

Abductees with negative-attitude investigators, on the other had, more
often feel negative about their experiences. They hate and dislike the
beings more often. The beings themselves are more often perceived as
cold and business-like. The abductees see themselves more often as
victims.

Do you conclude A) Clearly it makes a difference which investigator an
abductee goes to and it would be prudent to recommend that anyone
wanting to explore an abduction experience seek a positively-opinionated
investigator; or B) Despite many claims and fears to the contrary, the
investigators' hand proves almost invisible, its touch nearly negligible
in formulating the abduction.

Though you have now resolved the pragmatic issue to everyone's
satisfaction, your work is not yet done. You also want to know if these
attitudes influence the imagery and plot of abduction stories.

You look down the data columns and what you read goes something like
this: Positive attitude investigators have a lower percentage of
humanoids and standard Grays and a higher percentage of human-like
Nordics in their files. Their cases are less likely to involve missing
time and the experiences are shorter in duration. Unexpectedly,
examination experiences are more common, but they are less likely to
involve implants, manual handling, and the genitals. The aliens less
often give threats or orders to forget. More often they give tours of
the ship and school the abductee. Like the Space Brothers of the
contactees they warn about future catastrophes and cataclysms more
often. Their abductees are more likely to show increased psychic
abilities. There are some puzzles. Their abductions more often involve
paralysis. The crafts are more often disc-like. The interiors are more
often cool and indirectly lit.

Negative attitude investigators, in contrast, have higher percentages of
humanoids, and standard Grays. Curiously, the trait of vestigial noses
is more common. The examinations more often involve implants, manual
handling, and the genitals are less likely to involve sample-taking. In
line with the Hopkins scenario, there are more scenes involving
nurseries and hybrids. Their abductees are less likely to be given tours
of the ship. They are more often threatened and ordered to forget. There
are fewer warnings about future catastrophes. They more often have body
scars and marks. There is less about increased psychic abilities or
changes in habits following the experiences. There are also some
puzzles. There are more otherworldly journeys. There are more messages
of reassurance. There is less anxiety during their capture, less
paralysis. Their experiences are longer. The crafts are less likely to
be disc-shaped. The rooms are more likely to be rectangular or
wedge-shaped and less often indirectly lit. Finally, their abductees are
less likely to suffer nausea or diarrhea after an experience.

Do you conclude A) The results make more sense than not. Those details
that don't make sense seem less central to the drama of the story and
might be resolvable by further study; or B) The meaning of any
relationship between attitude and description escapes ready
comprehension.

You have likely already guessed that this study is not hypothetical. It
was part of a much larger study conducted by Thomas E. Bullard and
recently published by the Fund for UFO Research under the title The
Sympathetic Ear: Investigators as Variables in UFO Abduction Reports.
The results reported here are my reading of data columns P and N of his
Table 37. If you picked A for your conclusions, your assessment matches
mine. If you picked B, you conclusions match the author of the study.
They are quotes respectively from the summary after the title page and
from page 89. I singled out that part of the study, most of which is
excellent by the way, as the most relevant test of Philip Klass's
observation that Leo Sprinkle's abductees report kinder, gentler aliens
than Budd Hopkins. He felt it was not coincidence that the personal
beliefs of the investigators seemed to color the experiences of their
subjects. While Bullard cites Klass's opinion as what is under test, he
seems to forget the specifics of what Klass says as the argument goes
along and ends up fighting against some exaggerated position that no
skeptic I know of ever advanced. Bullard's data replicates what Klass
says and the central pragmatic issue of whether it is advisable to point
abductees to positively-minded investigators is demonstrated as
prudently correct.

Why does Bullard offer the conclusions in the B quotes? It appears to be
that he regards the puzzles in the data as so paramount that they
vitiate any claim for a real investigator effect. Some details are
completely unaffected by the attitude of the investigator. Though fair
enough as a question of what is involved in a full portrait of the
abduction phenomenon, the fact remains that the data does not contradict
the specific claims that have been made by the critics he cites.

It would be interesting to know how many readers of this study accept
Bullard's conclusion without looking at the table of results. The main
reason I bothered to double-check things was because the two lines I
quoted seemed too unlikely. One can't read the UFO abduction literature
without seeing the hand of the investigator is all too visible. Some
examples:

# Christie totally accepts the idea of Space Brothers and has
participated in workshops were she chats with beautiful space beings.
She attends a meeting between her boyfriend and Budd Hopkins and is
eventually regressed, yielding an experience involving needles in her
nose and vagina. Hopkins concludes that her change of mind proves the
Space Brothers are a myth and that abductions are traumatically real
(Int'l UFO Reporter, Jan/Feb. 1987); # John Mack repeatedly asks
abductees why hybrids, if they are to repopulate a post-holocaust earth,
seem so listless and wan. Next we learn Jerry has an abduction where the
hybrid is seen as beautiful, angelic, young adults. Peter proclaims they
do not appear listless to him, but have a vitality all their own.
(Abduction, p. 415); # David Jacobs finds aliens that are totally
non-human and avers that contactee claims are a convenient touchstone
for deciding which reports are probably bogus. (Secret Life, pp. 236,
284.) Richard Boylan's subjects gets a variety suggestive of at least a
dozen races and they often share human characteristics like a reverence
for life and the importance of caring for children. A chapter devoted to
messages from these experiences is filled with material identical to
that of the contactees of the Fifties right down to an advocacy of
vegetarianism. (Close Extraterrestrial Encounters, chapter 14, 15.)

Each would doubtless insist their methods are superior, their results
more believable, than the prior views. Doubtless, too, their subjects
agree. Somebody's wrong here. I would not be shocked if everybody's
wrong here. Since ufologists are to some extent getting what they
believe, be careful which views you side with. I wonder if we could
convince Camille Paglia to take up ufology. I'd love to see what sort of
aliens she'd find.


^__^__^__^__^__^__^

Joseph Polanik, 
Trionic Research Institute, 

--
-=> Unsubscribe: Send message to: 
-=> Subscribe: Send message to: 
-=> Posted by: jpolanik@mindspring.com