Nick Redfern Warns UFO Fans Not to Become Obsessed

7/8/2016

Tonight Ancient Aliens returns after a one-week hiatus with a depressing episode in which they take Talbot Mundy’s fictional group of Nine Unknown Men, equate them with the Greek account of the Egyptian Ennead, and make them into a real galactic council. While we wait for them to transform science fiction into pseudoscience, I wanted to share a bit of Nick Redfern’s latest article for Mysterious Universe, in which he discovered that many of the people involved in Fortean research range from obsessive to mentally ill.

Redfern describes his own work on Fortean subjects, which by his own account runs from 8 AM to 5 PM five days per week, around 45 hours devoted to monsters, ghouls, little green men, etc. But he expressed his shock and upset that some of his colleagues in the field of Fortean research are obsessive to the point of having no other interests than feeding their obsession with one particularly small subfield of fringe studies.

He describes the case of one Phoenix-based ufologist who had organized his entire life around researching UFO events that occurred on September 19, a day he felt was key to understanding the aliens’ agenda. Redfern described him as having “Obsessive Compulsive Disorder,” though he did not mean it as a clinical diagnosis. He then described another young man he met at a UFO conference who had become fixated on the time 11:11 and had filled notebook after notebook with ramblings about the number, which he saw as the sign of supernatural powers that were controlling his mind:

Over the 20 or so minutes that we chatted, it became disturbingly clear to me that this man’s life was being directed by (as he saw it) invisible entities that lurked in his home and who endlessly tormented and manipulated him with that now near-infamous number. My suggestion that he got out a bit more and made some friends – which might have taken his mind off sitting alone and constantly waiting for 11:11 to come around every twelve hours – was not what he wanted to hear. It was, however, absolutely all I had to offer.

There isn’t really much that one can do in these situations, but telling the man to go out and make friends probably wasn’t the most effective approach. From Redfern’s description, it would seem that man has a mental illness and needs professional help.

I encounter many of the same types of unhinged comments and painful obsessives. I received at least a few emails each week that seem to come from people who are mentally ill. They talk about how aliens or ghosts are haunting them at night, how they can’t sleep because of their fear of monsters, or how they have devoted every waking moment of their lives to a highly specific and quite wrong hypothesis about the real forces that control the world or manipulated history, or whatever.

It’s always sad, but one thing I have learned is that engaging with these types only feeds into their obsessions. I wish there were something I could do for them, but there isn’t really. Unfortunately, ignoring them is often the best thing. I’m sure every group has its share of obsessives and the mentally ill, but fringe history and Foretana seem to attract a larger, or at least more visible, share. Perhaps it is because the development of whacky ideas requires a certain degree of obsession (if not actively concocting falsehoods for cash).

“All I’m doing is pointing out that when UFOs become the dominating factor in a person’s life, it’s not a good thing,” Redfern said.

63 Comments

Nick Redfern

7/8/2016 12:51:24 pm

I would say that "shock and upset" are way off target and way too emotion-filled.

"Unfortunately more than occasionally inevitable" would be much more accurate words.

Correct, it was not a clinical diagnosis of OCD, but it clearly was that. For example, I remember him locking the car-door with the remote and then physically checking the driver's door was locked 3 or 4 times. He did the same with the rings on the oven, repeatedly turning it on and off until he was satisfied it was finally off. There were a couple of similar things too.

As for the kid at the AZ-based UFO Congress I mentioned, I think telling him to get out the house and have a life is exactly what was needed. Taking a tactful approach isn't always the best approach. Sometimes people need - and deserve - a harsh wake-up call in such circumstances.

Fi Fo

7/8/2016 03:43:35 pm

Don't worry Nick, everything you believe in parallels the Bible. The Annunciation was an alien impregnation of a human being.

Peter Ford

10/22/2018 01:43:37 pm

The Annunciation was nothing to do with aliens. It was a spiritual event in which God took a hand in human affairs. If that sounds too highly unlikely, then try this one. Something came from nothing in the far distant past. Such nothing that there was not anywhere forb anything to e4xist. I this and the Resurrection to be t he absolute truth.

7/8/2016 06:31:59 pm

Nick, my brother is a mental health counselor. The symptoms you describe, according to discussions he and I have had in the past, could indeed be OCD....but they could also be indicative of paranoia stemming from schizophrenia, drug use, or even severe anxiety.

Only a mental health counselor, over a series of interviews, is qualified to make a diagnosis. The most you can accurately say is, "He clearly needed mental health care."

Also, here's a harsh wake-up call for YOU: you were cruel to the Arizona kid, jerk. No, "Get a life" is NOT a "deserved wake-up call," especially for someone else who clearly has need of mental health aid. "I really think you should go see a counselor" is what you should have told him. Treating someone who is ILL as if it's a character flaw is just an asshole move, sir.

Fi Fo

7/8/2016 07:28:52 pm

There are mental health counsellors who take the Jesus Bloodline seriously.

Nick Redfern

7/11/2016 09:31:46 am

Look, he asked my opinion, and I gave it. As I noted in the article, we chatted about all this for around 20 minutes, so I didn't dismiss him out of hand, we actually had a fairly extensive discussion.

But, you will recall from the article how I mentioned about him sitting in front of the clock, waiting for 11:11 to come around, every 12 hours. He specifically mentioned this - which is why I referred to it - and mentioned how more weirdness would happen on a Friday night. So, I told him what I thought was the truth, even if it might sound harsh to some. I said, something like this:

"Well, in my opinion, sitting at home on a Friday night, all alone, and panicking as 11:11 gets closer isn't a good thing. Getting out on a Friday night with a bunch of friends would maybe take your mind off it all - instead of being all alone, isolated and clock-watching."

Yes, I'm sure a mental health counselor would suggest something very different. But, he asked me, someone who has no mental health training. But, I am someone who has seen this kind of obsession before. And, whether someone likes it or not, I'm going to give my honest opinion, whether they think that makes me a jackass or nor not.

Whether people agree with my approach or not, it IS unhealthy sitting all alone on a Friday night - maybe every night - and being isolated etc. So, as I see it, getting out if you are in that situation is a good thing.

But, yes, if you want a professional response, ask a mental care professional, not someone like me who writes books about Bigfoot, UFOs, etc etc. I can only give an opinion as a regular person, which is what I did - like it or like it not.

flip

7/12/2016 01:44:02 am

"Whether people agree with my approach or not, it IS unhealthy sitting all alone on a Friday night - maybe every night - and being isolated etc. So, as I see it, getting out if you are in that situation is a good thing."

Yeah, back to that stigma again... it's only unhealthy if the person doing these things is unhappy about it or if they find it interferes with other aspects of their life (ie employment, etc). That's actually part of therapy: if it doesn't bother the person then it's considered a 'positive' symptom which doesn't necessarily need to be addressed. It's the negative symptoms that people work on, and how negative they are and whether to work on them or not is decided not by laymen, friends or family, but by the therapist (and their research) and the patient. You're being paternalistic in your ideas in assuming that a person must be sociable to live a happy life, especially given that you don't define how sociable a person needs to be in order to be consider 'normal' or 'healthy' (possibly because that definition doesn't exist?). It's only social norms that tell you it's unhealthy (it's cultural, not medical), and not all of us subscribe to those norms or can live up to them even if we want to.

Noted that you completely ignore the fact that even if the person does want to change this behaviour, their mind and physical circumstances may get in the way of that; so you continue to be a jackass by being utterly ableist in assuming that if Nick Redfern can do it, so can they. Would you have been so quick to offer this advice had the person been in a wheelchair? And in a neighbourhood not known for its ease of access?

A ***HUGE*** amount of stigma towards mental health issues is that it's 'just a state of mind', that 'you aren't trying hard enough', that it's 'laziness', that 'you are just being rude'. So telling someone that they should 'just get out more' has the not-so-subtle undertones of victim blaming, mental illness denial, and positive thinking bullshit that is so prevalent amongst people who have never experienced these problems. In other words, it's like telling a person in a wheelchair to just try standing up more often and then they'll be able to walk.

It's really not a harsh truth: you just smugly announced to the world that you have no interest in understanding someone else's circumstances, or even learning the factual issues facing mentally ill people. In fact, you did nothing but spout pseudoscientific misperceptions about mental health issues. That's not truth, and it's not intellectually honest to do so when you yourself admit you know nothing of the subject.

As someone who does currently experience agoraphobia, social anxiety, panic attacks when I go out, depression, lethargy and heavy amounts of stigma from family and friends: fuck you, and yes that's some shitty advice. Also, as someone who is wired to be asocial and cares nothing for going out on a Friday night and doesn't give a shit if this makes me a 'loser' or 'unhealthy': fuck you. Not all people are extroverts, and not all of us want to be, and no one has to live up to to your narrow-minded standards.

"As for my character, I say what I think, like it or not. Being tactful is really quite stupid."

Heh, same excuse people use to deny they're being insensitive asses to people of colour, women and LGBT. You're not being honest and blunt; you're being a weasel who refuses to think outside their own experience and consider they might not know as much as they think about a particular topic than those who live every day dealing with it. You admit you're a layman on the topic of psychology, why not admit that you are ignorant of certain aspects of a mentally ill person's life, capabilities and interests? (Hell, I did that myself below...)

Here's an idea: don't speak on topics you know nothing about. Like psychology. It's an actual scientific topic with actual research, so if you perceive yourself at all to be skeptically or scientifically minded, challenge your own ideas about it by reading up on it.

(This site is an excellent place to start for an inside view of stigma: http://the-orbit.net/brutereason/2014/04/16/your-uninformed-and-incorrect-opinions-about-psychology/)

And lastly, because this needs to be reiterated based on how you've responded: IT IS NOT UP TO YOU TO DIAGNOSE SOMEONE. ASSUMING A PERSON IS MENTALLY ILL BASED ON ONE OR TWO QUIRKS AND A HALF HOUR CONVERSATION IS PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC, AND YOUR ADVICE THAT IS BASED ON YOUR AMATEUR OPINION IS NOTHING BUT ENCOURAGING AND CONTINUING STIGMA. UNLESS YOU HAVE A MEDICAL DEGREE OR ONE IN PSYCH, OR HAVE EVEN A PASSING KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESEARCH, YOU CAN NOT DECIDE WHAT IS UNHEALTHY OR NOT.

But please, continue to double down on telling someone with a mental illness how they totally weren't at all being ableist...

(With sincere apologies to Jason, because this is the one topic that gets my hackles up... feel free to moderate accordingly)

flip

7/8/2016 10:27:11 pm

Actually, telling someone with mental health issues to 'just get out of the house and make some friends' is an assholic comment. Plenty of us with a mental illness find we have to deal with the following: extreme lethargy to do anything, extreme boredom, agoraphobia, a lack of interest in being sociable, a fear of other people's condemnation or stigma... plus for some of us we have financial issues which means we may have limited ability to maintain a social lifestyle. This is nothing to say that if you're already introverted it makes you feel inferior to be told that being quiet/shy/indoors is somehow bad; adding to low self esteem problems.

Without knowing someone's personal situation you come across as privileged, and gave advice that may just have confirmed in his head that nobody gets him.

A better solution would be to do what you'd do with most people: sit down and listen, ask questions, be polite, and if at all possible, not be dismissive or judgemental.

flip

7/8/2016 10:33:58 pm

Correction: I should add that this is only *if* this person has a mental illness, which is of course, not something a layman should be diagnosing or assuming.

I would add to that for some people with few good things in their lives, having a hobby to enjoy may actually be you know, a good thing? That it's not necessarily a sign of OCD or paranoia but just a case of boredom. Many people spend hours and days on Call of Duty, does that mean gamers are now particularly predisposed to OCD or other mental illnesses?

Gary

7/10/2016 09:24:53 am

"A better solution would be to do what you'd do with most people: sit down and listen, ask questions, be polite, and if at all possible, not be dismissive or judgemental. "
That's what a therapist would do. And then they would try to get the person to work at changing self destructive behavior. You are off on your criticism.

flip

7/10/2016 09:53:43 am

"That's what a therapist would do. And then they would try to get the person to work at changing self destructive behavior. You are off on your criticism."

1. Talking to people in the manner I described is usually how people treat friends or acquaintances. Have a conversation, you know? That's what I was suggesting.

2. You're assuming this behaviour *is* self destructive. For some it is, for some it isn't. Having a hobby, keeping to oneself, is only destructive if you subscribe to the idea that every person in the world can and should meet the extroverted social norms. Not all of us want to, or are capable of, being social beings. If that person is fine with how they live, then who cares? (A therapist also wouldn't force their patient into a treatment without their consent by the way, unless there were seriously extreme -ie. dangerous- circumstances) My criticism stands: stigma says that you're not truly human if you're asocial.

But I'm curious Gary: what would you have done if you were Redfern?

Nick Redfern

7/12/2016 09:06:20 am

You say:
"And lastly, because this needs to be reiterated based on how you've responded: IT IS NOT UP TO YOU TO DIAGNOSE SOMEONE."

Correct, yes, it's not up to me to diagnose. But here's the deal: HE asked ME for advice. I didn't force it on him. So, I gave it as I could.

Also, the whole reason why I suggested he get out on a Friday night is because, as you'll see from my comment above, he said the 11:11 things got worse specifically on Friday nights. So, my point is this: suggesting he get out on a Friday night, as I see it, would be good because that was the worst night for him. It's not just about having a good time on a Friday night, it's about doing something that would take his mind off that Friday night issue.

Nick Redfern

7/12/2016 02:15:51 pm

Flip:

You say: "You admit you're a layman on the topic of psychology, why not admit that you are ignorant of certain aspects of a mentally ill person's life, capabilities and interests?"

That's absolutely 100 percent true. But, again, HE approached ME. He did not ask a mental health professional for advice. He asked a regular person with no knowledge of such issues, so I gave the best advice I could.

Again: he told him it got worse on a Friday night. Why, I don't know; only he can say. I did not brush him off, I was not dismissive of him. As I said, we chatted for 20 minutes or so. I did what I felt was a good thing, given the Friday night circumstances. I suggested that putting himself in a different position, situation and location on a Friday night.

As someone with no mental health training, but as the person he approached, I said what I think would be helpful if I was in his position on a Friday night.

You also quote my words: "As for my character, I say what I think, like it or not. Being tactful is really quite stupid."

And then you say: "Heh, same excuse people use to deny they're being insensitive asses to people of colour, women and LGBT."

Number one, it was not an excuse. Those words of mine were a response to Clete who said, and I quote, that I "swindle" people. I certainly do not.

And I would never be an ass to women, people of color or LGBT.

You also say: "You're not being honest and blunt; you're being a weasel who refuses to think outside their own experience.

No, I am not. I gave advice to that kid, based on what would be the best approach if I was in his shoes. That's not refusing to think outside my own experience.

flip

7/13/2016 06:00:28 am

Redfern:

I dropped my usual civil tone in this conversation, which I regret (really really shitty week which only piles on when I see this stuff) because yelling tends to make people defensive. I am full-throated when engaging on other topics but am at least civil when I do it. For that I apologise, but remain resolute that you are indeed, wrong on this.

Repeating your assertions without actually engaging with my criticisms or concepts is just bad strategy. You've ignored practically all my points and somehow think that being a layperson excuses you from holding some (unintentional) outmoded ideas or reconsidering your stance. I don't care that you were responding to a question, I care about *how* you responded.

A person might take this opportunity to look at what they said, think to themselves "I said what I felt was right at the time", consider the responses here, read some other thoughts on mental health, then maybe ponder whether it was ill-advised. If you'd just have considered that instead (even if you dismissed it afterwards), explained your reasoning, or properly defended your position (other than some sort of appeal to having good intentions), then I would have respected it; even if you ended up disagreeing with me. You don't even do that much.

Hint: just because you think you're being helpful, just because you have good intentions, does not change the fact that you might actually be wrong. In fact, this 'being helpful/good intentions' thing is also a great stigmatic technique and one that comes up literally all the time with mental health. It's paternalistic, assumes things of the person you're trying to help, often doesn't take into account other circumstances -like poverty- and many times is used to offer assistance in ways that actually harms progress. See my comment about the religious psych student for an example. Or this:

Fun fact, on the Respectful Insolence blog an alt medder tried to avoid explaining why they thought having *too little sex* caused my depression. They couldn't explain their reasoning because you see I was already suicidal by the time I was 10. But I guess they 'meant well', so I should have just ignored their obviously screwed up ideas about health.

Or this: even with the best intentions, friends and family have made things worse for me because they were caught up in their own misconceptions of mental health and enforcing some some of nebulous concept of 'normal'. Quite often,
trying to follow their advice actually worsened things because I was pushing myself to do things that I couldn't cope with based on their suggestions and peer pressure to be more 'normal'. (Yeah, going out on a Friday night is so easy and normal it's not really something you might talk to a therapist about. Especially when you used to be able to do that stuff so it should be 'easy' to do it again right? Internalised stigma does that, prevents you from seeing how hard things actually are) It's easy to take advice from people and not critically evaluate it because you're in trouble and you need help and you can't see through your current haze; even if the advice itself is not actually helpful or practical.

You may think what you said is fairly innocuous but there are far-ranging effects on mentally ill people based on subtle attitudes that are threaded through society. The mentally ill have been used as guinea pigs, politically convenient hostages, relegated to 'that thing that women do when they get uppity and want attention', ignored in favour of exorcisms or prayers, swept under the carpet for veteran health care, treated as fools, without evidence considered outright criminals on spec, tricked into confessions for crimes they did not do, used as foils to dealing with gun crimes (cause then you get to pretend like it's not a cultural thing), ostracised for being different though their behaviours harms no one, corralled into a monolith for a variety of conversations about 'those crazy tin foil hatters', lused as a trope in media, and for the most part are treated as if they have a personal weakness or laziness. Or in extreme cases, as victims in literal witch hunts in recent years purely for the sake of having something for a mob to kill.

You may not be aware of it, but language and culture has a lot of subtle messages about how we treat issues of mental health, normalcy and eccentricity. Those attitudes do as much harm as all those things listed above because it affects the way the mentally ill are treated and the way we treat ourselves. It sabotages our best efforts to get better, denies us support when we need it, forces us to be reliant on others instead of living full and independent lives, and cements all of the negative crap that we think about our place in the world. It makes us more prone to being victims of crimes, more likely to be unemployed and homeless, and more unable to escape from these issues because no one gives a shit about mental health care.

Stigma is threaded into

flip

7/13/2016 06:03:56 am

Stigma is threaded into society so much that I do it myself sometimes. It's not ok to do it; but it's even worse to continue on when it's pointed out to you. That you responded to a question is fine, but please consider that maybe just maybe *how* you responded furthers that stigma in a very real but subtle way.

If you're not willing to even take a moment to rebut the numerous issues I pointed out, or at least consider them, and to only scream "but I was asked to!" there's no reason for me to engage further. If nothing else, because I've had a really crappy week. I might check back, I might reply, but I definitely won't respond if you just continue as you are.

"And I would never be an ass to women, people of color or LGBT. "

But apparently are fine with being an ass to those with disabilities. ;)

Your language and attitude, as much as you don't want to admit it, does indeed convey an ableist way of thinking and outmoded concepts of mental health.

Just... sigh... put your skeptical hat on for a moment and check out what people in the field of psych say. Some of them blog at The Orbit, linked above somewhere. They speak on stigma, language and cultural attitudes and is a good entry point to the discussion.

Please FSM, let this be the last of it, and let's all go back to reading about pseudohistory...

Luke link

7/20/2017 09:48:19 pm

Good grief - you seem to have 'flipped' FLIP, Nick Redfern was asked his opinion and he gave it - if you don't like that then it's just tough - and your use of the word 'privileged' in this context makes you sound like one of those idiotic social justice warriors...

woger

7/8/2016 01:43:01 pm

Has anyone ever read about the Highgate Vampire? The two main characters in that would make a great case study.

Ken

7/8/2016 01:46:39 pm

People are 'mentally ill' as a result of causes unrelated to their interests or fields of study. There are plenty of mentally ill folks in every walk of life - religion, science, sports, writing, etc., not just fringe history or beliefs.

Evidently the illness comes first, the obsession with 'freaky' beliefs more of an outgrowth of random events eventually leading them into one field or another.

I would be surprised if there were any more 'mentally ill' UFO fanatics than there are mentally ill fundamental Christians, cops, or schoolteachers.

7/8/2016 06:41:56 pm

Mental illness is, generally speaking, the result of a human brain not functioning quite right, yes. Given that depression is a mental illness that is highly common, you are probably at least somewhat correct to note that there are large numbers of people in every possible group who have suffered or still suffer from mental illnesses. The rates of what types of mental illnesses are suffered within what groups can be highly variable, though. Like, you're absolutely going to see more PTSD cases among first responders than you are, say, computer programmers. So without some statistics, I'd hold back judgment on percentages of mentally ill UFO fanatics. It's possible that there ARE more people with paranoid-type mental health issues among UFO fanatics, strictly because that whole mythos is based on a paranoid premise--ie, that aliens are watching us or even kidnapping us--so it wouldn't be that surprising to find that "Aliens are watching/kidnapping us" is the shape of the paranoia for way more people than, oh, "kindergarten children are abducting me." On the other hand, paranoia is irrational by definition, so maybe there ARE more "kindergarten children are abducting me" delusions.

Fi Fo

7/8/2016 07:30:44 pm

These are not objective observations but speculative subjective observations based on individual prejudices

Ken

7/8/2016 08:32:11 pm

I have worked a solid 45 years as a mechanical engineer and I have come into contact with literally hundreds of colleagues and engineering managers with unmistakable mental illness. Often the smartest and most creative are the worst. The best strategy is to steer clear of them and concentrate on your own job.

flip

7/8/2016 10:16:03 pm

"The best strategy is to steer clear of them and concentrate on your own job."

Really? The best strategy for dealing with people with disabilities is to act like they don't exist?

Sigh... this thread is seriously full of ableist stigma-based pseudoscientific bullcrap. Yet another example of people thinking that because they have a mind they are somehow experts on mental illnesses.

How is it that the majority of regulars here are generally so good at seeing through racism, sexism, etc but are so willing to conflate fringe ideas with mental illness stigma? Yet another example of people thinking that because they have a mind, they are somehow qualified to judge who is or isn't mentally ill...

flip

7/8/2016 10:41:07 pm

Correction to myself: some of the commenters have been ableist. Some haven't. Teaches me to post after scanning and not reading. *bad Flip, bad*

spookyparadigm

7/10/2016 05:10:18 pm

I suspect you're right about the people interested in the field just being like everyone else. This is also why you find UFO, Bigfoot, etc. believers in the ranks of government officials, politicians, etc.

But where I would differ is in the specific history of UFOs (there are similar patterns in the satanic panic and various paranormal phenomena. Weirdly, the one I can't think of good examples is cryptozoology), of people taking those who either were diagnosed with or likely had mental illness and using them as the clay to make the bricks of ufology, and in fact in many cases these are foundational bricks.

Go ahead and try to tell the story of UFOs and related ideas without these four individuals, especially the first two. In each case, someone took their claims, rewrote them, and turned them into major elements of the lore. That's the key difference, someone using these people to propel a story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sharpe_Shaver

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_K._Bender

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment (for Allende/Allen)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bennewitz

flip

7/12/2016 01:25:15 am

Your problem then is with the people who take advantage of the vulnerable. This isn't exclusively an issue in UFOs (or with the mentally ill), but alt med (fake cancer treatments, etc) and other things that take advantage of ignorance. People of all situations will seek answers and often are lead down bad paths. Well-educated couples shun vaccines, use homeopathy, take their babies to chiropracters. Gay Christians try conversion therapy. Physicists are also creationists. They're smart, logical and rational: but still falling for woo.

I will admit that the use of hypnosis is more problematic in UFOlogy, and likewise many people who actually need proper psychiatric treatment might get drawn into seeking 'alternative' help through UFOlogy. This to me speaks more to the stigma attached to mental health, because people tend to be reluctant to ask or receive help and might find alternative ways of dealing with it that are less stigmatised. But you know what? People in alt med also provide 'services' for mental health problems, promising cures with vitamins, with chiropractic, with chakras. As hinted at above, anything fringe is likely to prey on anyone for a variety of reasons. The people attracted to this stuff are doing so because they aren't aware of, or deny, the facts or myths of these claims. I still see nothing to damn people for, other than that we're ALL flawed and biased and looking for answers.

As a side note: I once overheard a conversation in which a young girl was talking about her plans to study psychology. She added that she was doing so because she hoped to bring her patients closer to the light of god. As an atheist I'm disgusted at the idea that a person who seeks help might not get it because someone thinks religion is a better treatment plan than science-based therapy or meds. So is it that mentally ill people are more prone to seek out alternatives - or could it possibly be that society itself creates a feedback loop where no one takes it as an actual medical problem?

Until I see some stats, I will not be convinced that mentally ill people are more prone to fringe stuff than everyone else. (I actually did a brief search on Pubmed but couldn't think of any decent search terms to pop up appropriate studies and only got false positives) Tackle the people using the mentally ill as props, sure, but only because they're victims of pseudoscience like everyone else.

spookyparadigm

7/12/2016 01:10:49 pm

Hi, I don't see these in the same vein as alt med, they're something else. Sort of.

You may well be up on Shaver etc., but the bit I'm specifically noting

Shaver wrote paranoid letters about evil creatures (the Deros) causing all the world's ills through control rays (ala the influencing machine), causing car wrecks, oppression, crimes. They would also kidnap people and sexually humiliate, torture, and murder them, eat them, etc.. He also transcribed keys to the language Mantong (basically Man Tongue). These letters were edited/rewritten by publisher Ray Palmer. They increased subscriptions. Moreover, other people started sending in their own versions of Dero encounters, communicating with each other in the letter columns, etc.. This eventually became the community out of which UFOs emerged, Palmer created some of the first UFO articles, etc., and claimed they were tied to Shaver.

The other cases follow similar patterns (Bender and Barker, Bennewitz and several folks including AFOSI). Rather than preying on these people to sell them snake oil, they use them as evidence to sell a fantasy to a larger audience. Barnum is probably the closer model, except that at least I think Barnum paid his employees better (though I could be wrong), and actually let them know they were employees.

I really wish someone with actual credible background in psychology would write an article about this phenomenon. It isn't about the mental illness nor the specific delusions that result. It's (a) the pattern of people exploiting the likes of Shaver to create a wider fantasy and (b) the willingness of an entire community for generations after to ignore the obvious problems here. I mean, not only does this have an evidence implication for these subsequent beliefs, but the ethics are just nasty.

You mention abduction, and yes, I think the same kind of thing is at play here in some cases (anyone remotely interested in this issue should go look up the Emma Wood fiasco, or Carol Rainey's exposes on Budd Hopkins). But the recovered memory meme/community/whatever makes that even more complex (maybe that is why it has gotten some additional scholarly attention, whereas these mythmaking pairs haven't).

flip

7/13/2016 03:54:43 am

spookyparadigm, to be homest I'd need to do a lot more reading on this stuff to get into the nitty gritty, something I don't have the patience for right now.

Gut feeling though: it feels cherry-picked. A lot of the people who share my diagnosis are prone to 'fantasy', but often talk of diving into fiction, fanfic, writing novels and watching TV or movies. Are producers then taking advantage of the mentally ill by producing more fantasy-based content, like Harry Potter? ... Then you have stats, where the percentage of people who are fantasy prone are probably a small amount of the population.

It is interesting to think about and would make a good study I think, to see the stats of how the population, general and mentally ill, would split as to holding what beliefs. You'd have to control for religion too... and maybe alt med.

And a follow-up could be seeing how the mentally ill break down in terms of access to decent health care. Even in a socialised medicine country - Australia - I'm limited by finances. As a poor person I can visit my doctor as many times as I need and the government pays for my visits; but will only give me 12 free sessions a year for therapy. My point is that if you have crappy health services, then people will either seek alternatives out of desperation, and/or will be more vulnerable due to lack of support. As you say, Emma Woods is a prime example of how you can be taken advantage of even though she was initially seeking help for a legitimate undiagnosed issue.

It's a pity I'm no academic, as it indeed would be interesting to see how much is nature and how much is nurture.

spookyparadigm

7/13/2016 09:55:08 am

I'm not talking about stats or populations (as I noted, I don't think there is a case for a greater relationship between mental illness and any given belief system/community).

I'm also not talking about consumption, but production. If J.K. Rowling was largely writing her books by rewriting her neighbor's stories of the elves that keep his money safe under the cupboards and the wizards that constantly persecute him, that would be comparable.

Your point on consumption of fiction is right. Shaver was inspired by a whole host of hollow earth fantasies, including The Coming Race. Bender (Gray Barker's MIB source) was a big consumer of pulps etc.. But the pattern that keeps emerging (there are also examples I've heard of from ghost hunters etc., but I don't follow those as well. One could also look to the initial claims in the McMartin Satanic Conspiracy case, which were made by a parent who was later diagnosed as psychotic, but only became a massive issue when opportunistic "occult investigators" created the fiasco) is of paranormal authors lifting from the vulnerable rather than from the fiction they consume and repackage.

flip

7/13/2016 11:56:56 pm

Ok I see we're talking at parallels a bit. I do get where you're coming from, but again for me it's just one of those scammers-gonna-scam things in the sense that a conman can usually find vulnerable people in any section of life. Disabled people are more likely to be taken advantage of than most. I don't think we disagree really, I'm just not seeing a need to be more worried about it happening to mentally ill people than any other disadvantaged group. (Cancer 'cures' being an easy one: the biggest promoters of certain alt med ideas are the people who got suckered: used as shields by the fraudsters, lied about, and quite often providing free anecdotal 'ecidence' for marketing purposes.)

The problem isn't just limited to one area of the fringe, and for me, it's a bit of a feedback loop (where the most culpable people are the fraudsters and promoters, who then feed off their believers in many ways). Like I said, we're not really in disagreement, I'm just taking a broader view than you I think.

DaveR

7/8/2016 03:22:30 pm

I occurred on September 19th at 11:11.

I am the alien agenda.

Bob Jase

7/8/2016 03:35:54 pm

Talbot Mundy was a damned good writer, too bad he is only remembered due to the nutcases on the fringe crabbing from his work.

Only Me

7/8/2016 05:46:42 pm

You also have the other side of the coin; the folks who are obsessive of specific fringe claims that define their "professional" lives. I'm sure a couple of names will come to mind in that regard.

I'm sure those who may be genuinely affected by mental illness will see something of themselves in such individuals. Perhaps that's why some fans remain, even when the lies, recycled material, sloppy research, etc. are exposed.

The worst part about this situation is the tendency in fringe world to play the "Big Brother is watching" card. That makes things worse for those individuals like the two men Redfern wrote about.

flip

7/8/2016 10:50:20 pm

Mental illness is not a monolith. Although some come with obsessiveness (and/or paranoia), many illnesses come with anhedonia; that is, you are no more or likely to be passionate or obsessive (or paranoid), because a lot of people with mental illnesses have little to no feeling of passion or interest in hobbies or anything else (and no paranoia).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anhedonia

Once again, you shouldn't conflate people who believe in fringe ideas with people who have memtal health issues. There will be some overlap yes, but it's not that simple.

Only Me

7/8/2016 11:11:47 pm

My apologies for not being clearer.

I'm not conflating belief in the fringe with mental illness. It's pretty obvious many fringe proponents are motivated by the promise of fame and a slice of the financial pie. They know what they're selling and are willing to say anything to keep it lucrative.

What I'm saying is that whatever the mental health issue might be, fringe claims might attract the mentally ill for any number of reasons. In the case of paranoia, the fringe's tendency to fall back on accusations of conspiracy or suppression may resonate with the person that has it, or, it may not.

The issue already exists, however, it's plausible someone hearing voices in their head might be convinced it must be due to aliens if they accept what AAT is offering.

flip

7/9/2016 12:06:02 am

As stated below, I think the attraction is based more on education, social norms and culture. Spend some time on psychforums.com and you'll find an interesting mix of fringe believers, skeptics, religious and atheist - and that's just in the schizophrenic boards. I don't disagree that it may be attractive; but attractive can mean "I'm curious and skeptical about this claim and want to learn more", just as much as it can mean "I'm curious and credulous about this claim and want to learn more".

I guess I just don't see why we should expect mentally ill people to be any more credulous than anyone else. (Therein lies a possible undercurrent of stigma that says 'mentally ill people aren't ever rational or capable of proper human thought'. Not saying anyone is doing that intentionally, just that it may be construed that way based on the way society tends to treat the mentally ill)

Paranoia can be a tricky thing. For those in minorities is it paranoia to suggest that there are systemic problems with governments that prevent people like me to life better lives? Mental health issues are complex, including the problem of government support, services and pensions. Being attracted to such a notion also resonates with the mentally ill because they experience such problems, and is just as conspiratorial. The only difference is that one is based in fact (lack of resources) and one (illuminati, etc) is not. Which one feeds into an unstable paranoia more? Does it matter?

For those who aren't prone* to schizophrenic-type symptoms (hullicinations, etc), then they are just as capable of being skeptical as anyone else and the fringe is catering to a problem that stems from educational and socioeconomic issues not of mental stability.

For those who do*, mental illness is chemical (well, it is for other illnesses too, but for this purpose...); it would not matter if ancient aliens died in a hole somewhere, the brain will find something else to fill the need. Some are capable of daydreaming (see schizotypal or schizoid diagnoses) but are likewise quite aware that it's fantasy though have a greater emotional connection to the fantasy than to the real world. Some recognise how easy it is for the mind to be tricked, having personal experience with it, and are more likely to be skeptical of strange claims. It's not so black and white as you think, which is why I have serious issues ascribing fringe beliefs to some sort of non-neurotypical prevalence.

Tackle these ideas because they are wrong, misleading, fraudulent, not based on fact. But let's not pretend it's more problematic for non-neurotypical people. It's bigger than that.

* As mentioned below, mental illness is a diagnosis of exclusion. Physical diseases, tumours, etc can present similar symptoms. But nobody goes on and on about the guy who believes in aliens because of a brain tumour and how the fringe is taking advantage of them - it's only ever brought up in the context of mental illness. Almost as if the guy with the brain tumour can't help it and if it weren't for that he'd be smart enough to think better of it, but society blames the guy with schizophrenia who should just snap out of it or is too stupid/naive to realise he's being conned ... The problem with conversations about cause/effect in fringe beliefs is that they are so full of unintentional stigma to the mentally ill that it's hard to discuss the original problem, which is how to tackle fringe believers. As any skeptic knows: we all have biases. This *shouldn't* be about how the fringe attracts mentally ill people, this *should* be about how we all are prone to believing odd things and it takes work to reduce our biases. All of us, including the skeptics.

Clete

7/8/2016 07:44:19 pm

Years ago, I worked with a person who was an alcoholic and had been one for years. Several other people in the office, much like Nick Redfern, told him to just stop drinking. A simple solution for a complex problem, the roots of which was what was causing his drinking problem. It took years of professional help for him to finally discover the root cause of his problem, which turned out to be severe depression caused by an abusive early childhood. Once, he began working on that his drinking problem began to lessen, but it did not entirely disappear. Simple solutions, offered by non professionals to complex mental problems are not the answer. So as to forestall the eventual reply by Mr. Redfern, I will now "Fuck Off".

Nick Redfern

7/11/2016 09:35:45 am

Clete, Yep, that works for me: if, every time you mention me in a comment, feel free to add the "Fuck off" reply from me at the end, and it will save me a lot of time not having to do it myself.

Luke

7/20/2017 09:59:06 pm

Years ago, I worked with a person who was an alcoholic and had been one for years. Several other people in the office, much like Nick Redfern, told him to just stop drinking. A simple solution for a complex problem, the roots of which was what was causing his drinking problem.
Well, one day he went for a medical check-up & his family doctor told him straight up he'd be dead in under a year unless he quit the booze completely - scared the **** out of him & that's exactly what he did.

Basically he DID have a complex problem - & that problem as it turned out was that he liked drinking enough to carry on until he came face to face with the reality of death...

Killbuck

7/8/2016 07:55:22 pm

Perhaps it's all the fault of the Reptillians, or the many diabolical alien hybrids secretly controlling our minds... after all, this is what they peddle. Is it not a bit too late for them to suggest not taking things too seriously????

Frankly I am inclined to determine that our crew of fringe talking heads are contributing to the destabilization of vulnerable minds rather than enlightening them.

And if the damage is starting to be recognized by them, they can always deny they had any part in the "stupidifying" of our culture and feeding fear and paranoia by declaring they were just posing the what if.

The sooner this goes to the dust bin the better.

flip

7/8/2016 11:13:03 pm

Jason: "It’s always sad, but one thing I have learned is that engaging with these types only feeds into their obsessions. I wish there were something I could do for them, but there isn’t really. Unfortunately, ignoring them is often the best thing."

There's a great discussion here to be had on being open to dealing with such people and not wanting to be burned out or feel like it's your responsibility to always respond. That's for another blog, but if interested perhaps you might want to look at some of the blogging done by mental health advocates (a couple of the Freethought Blogs people come to mind).

I'm not sure there is a right answer, but I think ignoring people based on a layman's idea of who is or isn't mentally ill is a bad way to go. If they are mentally ill you're doing them no favours by further ostracising them from a world they don't feel connected to; if they aren't then you're ostracising them based on your own biased stereotypes and assumptions.

At the end of the day, nobody would quibble with your right to do with what you're comfortable with, but I can't help but feel that there's a better way forward.

I do not agree that fringe believers are somehow more prone to be mentally ill (anyone have some stats for that?), rather I suspect belief in the fringe has more to do with culture, education and social norms.

Let's not forget too that mental illness is a diagnosis of exclusion: that many of the symptoms can be to do with other factors (like a brain tumour for instance), so all these conflations of fringe belief with mental health can just as easily be conflated with people who have a myriad other physical problems. Like with the emergence of UFOlogy, it's easy to put a range of issues into one box and say "here's the cause", but it's far more complex than that and might just have many causes. And therefore many ways of dealing with the underlying issue and those who obsess over the fringe.

Shane Sullivan

7/9/2016 01:39:07 am

Flip, thank you for taking the time to educate us. I'm sure any misunderstanding on the part of the regulars is due to ignorance, not malice. I have a history of mental health issues myself, but I'm certainly no expert on the subject, so it's my ignorance as well; I appreciate your patience.

flip

7/9/2016 04:25:02 am

Yeah, I wasn't assuming outright bias, just ignorance. Sorry if it came off that way.

I've lived with mental health issues all my life but never noticed some of the stigma until a couple of years ago. Some of it is obvious, some is very very subtle. The 'just get out more' thing is actually one of the stigmas I didn't pick up on for a long time, because it's just a given that humans should be and are sociable and I never questioned it until then.

So the ignorance is mine too, and it's important (for me) to weed these ideas out because at the end of the day, I don't want to beat myself or others up based on this stigma either. Days go much easier once you let go of a lot of the social expectations, which are just based on an ableist view of the world, and not necessarily everyone can or wants to, live up to.

/ steps off soapbox, goes back to being happily asocial

Scotty Roberts' Doppleganger

7/9/2016 01:27:34 pm

Considering Redfern's character, as displayed here in previous threads, I'm not surprised he would be such an outright prick to someone. He's an ass.

p.s. Hopefully he will join us at the next Saradigm Pymposium as we swindle more stupid people out of their money and treat them like shit as we do so.

:)

Nick Redfern

7/11/2016 09:59:31 am

You need to get your fucking facts straight, SRD. First, I was not a prick to him. I didn't, for example, brush him aside. We had a chat for about 20 minutes, as I noted in the article.

I explained why I felt that being alone, watching the clock, and waiting for 11:11 to arrive is not a good thing. I suggested that if he was able to get out of that cycle - by, perhaps, having a night out with friends - it would be helpful. That's not being a prick. That's being someone who has no training in mental health issues offering a perspective based on the person's situation.

As for your other comment about treating people like shit and swindling them out of their money, that's fucking bullshit. As anyone who knows me will be aware, at conferences, lectures etc, I hang out with the audience, we'll have a few beers afterwards, I sign books for everyone who wants it, take photos and have a good time. I don't treat people like crap - unless they warrant it such as some of the people who comment right here.

As for swindling people out of their money, that's bullshit too. To speak at a conference I charge a single fee of $300 and for a regional group meeting I charge $100. Now, the Paradigm Symposium (which I spoke at in 2012, 2013 and 2014) requires me to be at the event for the full 5 days, and to do a lecture and a Q&A.

The Contact in the Desert gig at Joshua Tree, requires me to be there for the full 5 days (plus an extra day for flying), and in that time I do a 90 minute lecture, a 90 minute workshop, and two 90 minute question and answer sessions.

I don't believe that taking 5 days out of my schedule, doing 4 presentations in that period, and charging just $300 in total is ripping anyone off. In fact, compared to a lot of speakers, that's very reasonable.

I can tell you some real horror stories of ego-driven fucks who demand this and that, and who charge well into 4-figures for a lecture, and they even have the gall to put a time-limit on how long they will sign books, and they then disappear back to their hotel rooms, or hanging out with their little cliques, etc.That's treating people shitty and taking their money.

As for my character, I say what I think, like it or not. Being tactful is really quite stupid.

Scotty Roberts' Doppleganger

7/12/2016 01:15:21 pm

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it, fuckwit? The comment was that you could help Roberts and Ward scam people out of their money for lectures that amount to bad science fiction presented as if it were reality.

Tell me, Nicky boy...how did you feel about Roberts and Ward cancelling the last symposium (which they claimed to "postpone"...for the next year!) and refusing refunds-all because they couldn't sell enough tickets to pull it off as scheduled?

Weren't you a scheduled speaker?

Clete

7/11/2016 12:08:55 pm

Don't be surprised by Nick Redfern's response. He appears to be very thin-skinned and lack any real communications skills. His normal reply to critics is to mount personnel attacks. It is what you can expect from someone, who when he files his tax return on the 15th of April lists his profession as "Asshole".

Nick Redfern

7/12/2016 02:20:12 pm

Clete:

Number 1, I do NOT scam people out of anything.

Number 2: How did I feel about it? I think it was terrible. People booked flights, hotel rooms etc etc. and lost a lot. Was I on the schedule. Yes. I found out later people weren't refunded. Will I be speaking again? Nope...

Scotty Roberts' Doppleganger

7/12/2016 04:10:05 pm

Nick..you really expect people to believe you had no idea that Roberts and Ward refused refunds, even tho you're on their Facebook friends list where shit was flying left and right about it? You had no idea until AFTER the event? If it smells like bullshit...

And I guess Thomas Fusco's revelations didn't reach you either?

Oh, and not speaking at another Paradugm Symposium is so stand up of you....considering you know they've said that was the final one.

So much bullshit.

Nick Redfern

7/11/2016 12:25:29 pm

I think you mean "personal" attacks and not "personnel" attacks, you fucking idiot.

Nope, not thin-skinned. I just feel it's important to put the record straight when people talk inaccurate shit about me - as you did. That's not being thin-skinned. It's hitting back when and where it's 100 percent deserved - such as right here, right now.

Nick Redfern

7/12/2016 04:33:46 pm

SRD:

Nope, not bullshit at all.

Here's the time line - I was booked for the 2015 gig long before it happened, as is the case with most confs I speak for.

It got cancelled right before it should have happened. Time-wise it was practically right down to the wire.

And, as I said, later on word got down to me that there were no refunds (yes, mainly thru a bunch of Facebook friends, which included angry attendees, or as it turned out non-attendees).

But what are you talking about me not hearing about it until, as you said, "AFTER the event"??? There was NO event. It was "postponed." So, how could I hear about it after the event when the event didn't happen?

Here's when I heard about it:

The conf was "postponed" very shortly before it should have gone ahead. And then, later on - probably a couple of weeks at the absolute VERY most after the postponing announcement - I started to hear all these stories of pissed off people not getting refunded - and rightly so they were pissed. Anyone and everyone should be, given flight and hotel losses.

That they decided not to do another is irrelevant to my decision not to speak. My decision not to speak again was mine and mine alone. Their decision not to have another event had no bearing on my decision. If some miracle happens and they have another event, I can 100 percent guarantee I will not be there.

Festus

7/13/2016 10:27:50 am

Why? Do u think the organizers are/were dishonest?

Nick Redfern

7/13/2016 11:26:42 am

No, I don't believe there was a deliberate dishonest act. But, that's not the point. The point is that people lost money on hotel rooms and flights etc. Nothing was done to help them. That's the issue I have. And it's a major one.

Scotty Roberts' Doppleganger

7/14/2016 02:59:11 pm

Translation: They screwed people out of their money, but since they're my buddies and they might be useful to me in the future, I'll opt for this more neutral b.s.line.

Nick Redfern

7/14/2016 03:45:17 pm

You better get this straight in your head:

It's not a neutral line at all.

Again, I don't believe there was a deliberate attempt to take anyone's money. But did people end up out of pocket - and in some cases significantly out of pocket? Hell, yes they did!

Was anything specifically done to help those people with losses for airfares and hotel room fees etc? Not as far as I can see; not a damn thing. And that's not just wrong, it's wrong to the biggest extent possible.

Do I think they fucked up big time? Yes. Do I think it was a dishonest act made to look like a screw-up? No. But, that doesn't make it forgivable in the slightest at all.

Why do you think I won't be speaking for them again, even if there is another gig? I'll tell you why: because It's specifically because of how the people got treated. That's not a neutral line at all. I will not speak for another of their events, if one should go ahead. They screwed up. People were out of pocket and still are. Hence my stance.

No, they won't be "useful" to me in the future. My words above show that.

Scotty Roberts' Doppleganger

7/14/2016 08:22:40 pm

The BIG problem you have to deal with Nick is the fact that, according to Thomas Fusco, who was behind the scenes, and stated the following publicly (before you spoke actually):

"the main purpose of this postponement of the previously scheduled October 2015 was to avoid the legal exposure resulting from outright cancelling the event. I understand that most who did attend were simply trying to salvage what they could from the monies they lost in tickets and travel from the postponement."

He also states:
"I had a nearly two-hour conversation Monday evening with a gentleman who reports he was essentially swindled out of $20,000 with the Paradigm Symposium. His involvement also placed him in close contact with the goings-on behind the scenes. He used the term "con man" (his words, not mine). This poor man actually left his home and family and moved to that area based on promises that were never fulfilled."

" the date was actually September 1, which was the deadline to pay the deposit to the hotel. They KNEW then that this would most like ly fail, since they had no plan in place or no more additional funds coming to cover the deficit. So Scotty just sat there believing that somehow the universe was going to miraculously drop the money in his lap, all the time trying to BS the hotel until they finally called his note on the 17th. See, he was not playing with the Woman's Club this time, but the Crowne Plaza! But here's the thing--during that time in September, he was not only pushing more tickets, but was telling everyone to make their travel plans and hotel reservations QUICKLY! This is the thing I found out--he sticks his head in the sand and says whatever he believes will get him what he wants with complete disregard for who will get hurt. Then, when things go bad, it's always someone else's fault, including the universe!!!!"

He also claimes that Scotty Roberts, ".. told me personally that he followed the advice he received to 'postpone' the event instead of cancelling it so that he could avoid the legal liability you mention. That's what he's doing--covering his butt."

"He knew he didn't have the money, had no means of getting it, knew that ticket sales were the worst they'd ever been for any PS, BUT...continued to try selling tickets, and what's worse, started PUSHING people to make their hotel and travel arrangements with complete disregard for the harm he might be doing others. Then he had the audacity to post what was essentially a gofundme donation page, the real reason was not what he stated, but to try to get the money he needed for the hotel. To say that it was for "the expansion of the Intrepid organization" is about the same as Clinton when he said "I did not have sex with this woman" because it was no coitus."

He was on the inside helping with the thing. Its all there on his Facebook page. The facts just aint helping you, Nick. If what Fusco says is true, then yes, it was a deliberate dishonest act.

Nick Redfern

7/15/2016 09:17:12 am

Well, all I can say for sure is that this is the first time I have seen this statement. If true, then yep that places things in a VERY different context.

And what do you mean by "before you spoke"? I didn't speak - the event didn't happen.

Nick Redfern

7/15/2016 09:21:45 am

where was the statement posted? I checked my facebook messages and only ever had a brief message exchange with Thomas around a year ago. Was it posted online or circulated privately?

Nick Redfern

7/15/2016 09:26:43 am

Where can I find a link for the text from Fusco? I tried googling portions of the text and it doesn't show up.

Fusco'ed

7/15/2016 10:09:46 am

Nick- I think he's on Micah Hanks' friends list. If I recall, you are on Micah's list as well. If you go to his friends list and look up Fusco you should find all those statements on his wall. You will have to scan through some posts of videos to get to them, but they are all there in one thread.

Fusco'ed

7/15/2016 10:10:39 am

Alternatively, you could just message him. He's been very open about all this stuff.

Rotty Scoberts

7/15/2016 10:20:08 am

Thread 1: https://www.facebook.com/thomas.fusco.90/posts/884162548379072

For some reason I can't post the second thread. If you scan down his FB wall for a post dated 21 October 2015, you will find everything posted here is what Fusco posted as well.