• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Psychosocial Hypothesis (PSH)

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
5,774
NOTE:

This thread was established to contain a discussion that originated on this earlier thread:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/tim-goods-source-for-the-original-mj-12-papers.65785/

... and which was tangential to that earlier thread's topical focus.

I haven't heard any better theory. It's untestable in any simple way, but it's the only approach that takes into account all of the strange elements and antiphysical aspects of UFOs that the simple ETH ignores.

The psychosocial hypothesis explains all these 'antiphysical' aspects far better, and is consistent with the complete lack of any testable physical evidence for UFOs. If Vallee claims to be interested in the use of science in studying UFOs, he would have been better off studying the psychology of perception.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The psychosocial hypothesis explains all these 'antiphysical' aspects far better, and is consistent with the complete lack of any testable physical evidence for UFOs. If Vallee claims to be interested in the use of science in studying UFOs, he would have been better off studying the psychology of perception.
Well, there have been lots of examples of physical evidence for UFOs and I'm sure you must be aware of them. How the psychosocial theory "explains" antiphysical aspects of UFOs I cannot imagine -- unless you are claiming that all witnesses are totally unreliable, which is hardly a plausible idea given the many multiwitness cases, and cases involving highly qualified witnesses and trained observers. And it is an untestable theory as well. If you really feel that the whole phenomenon is just psychosocial, I can't imagine how you have managed to keep interested in it for half a century!
 
Name one single piece of testable, physical evidence for a UFO. Rabbitholes at Bentwaters don't count.
 
Well there is physical evidence:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/physical-evidence/
There is just not a lot of testable and incontrovertible evidence. There are ground impressions, sometimes radiation, even angel hair. radar returns, sensor and camera data. What there is, is a lot of circumstantial evidence, though physical evidence may be forthcoming.
 
Well there is physical evidence:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/physical-evidence/
There is just not a lot of testable and incontrovertible evidence. There are ground impressions, sometimes radiation, even angel hair. radar returns, sensor and camera data. What there is, is a lot of circumstantial evidence, though physical evidence may be forthcoming.
There are indeed many many trace cases.....in and of themselves it does not prove that alien craft or aliens created them though in many of the ones that Ted Philips documented ufos were seen in and around the locations involved.
I read this many years ago......again while it is very interesting ,it's hard to know in many of these events what actually created the physical traces.
http://www.cufos.org/books/Physical_Traces.pdf

ps: I will also say that of the alleged alien artifacts that have been claimed to be genuine none have ever been proven to be of alien origin to any honest scientific consensus. As a matter of fact......Dr Vallee undertook this task many years ago and tracked down as many as he could find based on various tales and in the end found nothing of any real substance to any of the alleged alien stuff. I'm not sure in which book he tells this story but he did relate it in writing.
 
Last edited:
Precisely. The lack of testable evidence does not support the multidimensional hypothesis (even humans from another alternate reality would leave some traces) but it does support the psychosocial hypothesis.
 
Precisely. The lack of testable evidence does not support the multidimensional hypothesis (even humans from another alternate reality would leave some traces) but it does support the psychosocial hypothesis.
Well, I doubt that we have any way of determining whether humans from another reality would or would not leave traces. The trace evidence offers confirmatory support to witness reports on occasion (e.g. in the Socorro case and some of the French 1954 cases) -- i.e. something landed, but there is no way of determining its origin. The psychosocial hypothesis has been around since one of the early Blue Book studies, and I am not aware of any strong evidence supporting it. Yes, once a UFO wave starts it (a) encourages witnesses to come forward, and (b) generates more false positives and hoaxes, but claims of a causal relationship haven't been established. For every wave that appears to be related to social stress (such as the 1909 wave) there are other waves that appear totally unrelated, and many periods of high stress (e.g. the early 1960s with the Cuban missile crisis and the assassination of Kennedy, the Civil Rights movement etc.) when UFO reports are very rare. Most of the proponents of this theory do little except assume its truth. Moreover, this theory in no way explains the details of the reports, especially the high strangeness cases, and the odd little features that crop up in cases that have not been given publicity.
 
Well, I doubt that we have any way of determining whether humans from another reality would or would not leave traces. The trace evidence offers confirmatory support to witness reports on occasion (e.g. in the Socorro case and some of the French 1954 cases) -- i.e. something landed, but there is no way of determining its origin. The psychosocial hypothesis has been around since one of the early Blue Book studies, and I am not aware of any strong evidence supporting it. Yes, once a UFO wave starts it (a) encourages witnesses to come forward, and (b) generates more false positives and hoaxes, but claims of a causal relationship haven't been established. For every wave that appears to be related to social stress (such as the 1909 wave) there are other waves that appear totally unrelated, and many periods of high stress (e.g. the early 1960s with the Cuban missile crisis and the assassination of Kennedy, the Civil Rights movement etc.) when UFO reports are very rare. Most of the proponents of this theory do little except assume its truth. Moreover, this theory in no way explains the details of the reports, especially the high strangeness cases, and the odd little features that crop up in cases that have not been given publicity.
I agree with you Carl....the psycho-social idea might explain some cases here and there but not the vast majority. I have always believed that each case should be looked at on it's own merits. With that in mind we need many different explanations for all the cases.
Some are lies/hoaxes, some might be psychological in nature, some might be misidents of natural phenom, some misidents of actual human aircraft, some of course are unknowns. It's the unknowns that are of interest but at our current stage of abilities and science it might be a long time before we can understand what those truly are.
 
Ii's the other way round: the psycho-social hypothesis explains 95% of all cases, and the ones we are interested in are the ones which can't easily be explained in this way. I think that this remaining 5% of interesting cases can also be explained by psycho-social factors, but there is plenty of room for doubt.
 
Ii's the other way round: the psycho-social hypothesis explains 95% of all cases, and the ones we are interested in are the ones which can't easily be explained in this way. I think that this remaining 5% of interesting cases can also be explained by psycho-social factors, but there is plenty of room for doubt.
Maybe you should define your hypothesis. If you are including simple mistakes, misperceptions, etc. then that is widening it quite a bit.
 
I agree with you Carl....the psycho-social idea might explain some cases here and there but not the vast majority. I have always believed that each case should be looked at on it's own merits. With that in mind we need many different explanations for all the cases.
Some are lies/hoaxes, some might be psychological in nature, some might be misidents of natural phenom, some misidents of actual human aircraft, some of course are unknowns. It's the unknowns that are of interest but at our current stage of abilities and science it might be a long time before we can understand what those truly are.
Agreed, and the approach used by Vallee, studying the phenomenon statistically, identified a number of characteristics of UFO reports that run counter to the psychosocial theory -- e.g. the inverse relationship between population density and numbers of sightings. If a certain proportion of the population is liable to respond to news about UFOs, or international tensions, by mistakenly reporting sightings themselves, then we would predict more sightings in densely populated areas. The evidence clearly contradicts this hypothesis.
 
The psychosocial theory states that absolutely every sighting is caused by human psychological phenomena; this covers misperceptions, mis- remembered events, hoaxes, hallucinations, and delusions. Of these, honest misperceptions are the most common.
 
I don't think the psychosocial theory of UFOs would make sense to folks who have tried to intercept them, seen them at close range, or where there were corroborating sightings; those folks would think that is funny= you haven't seen one yourself so other folks must be mistaken...
 
The psychosocial theory states that absolutely every sighting is caused by human psychological phenomena; this covers misperceptions, mis- remembered events, hoaxes, hallucinations, and delusions. Of these, honest misperceptions are the most common.
Can you cite a verified definition online of the psycho- social...because that is not the definition I understand from the past usages.
I don't believe the psycho social originally included mis-idents and mis-perceptions and hoaxes.. but only 'psychological' cases.
 
Maybe you should define your hypothesis. If you are including simple mistakes, misperceptions, etc. then that is widening it quite a bit.
I agree....it seems like we have a different definition than eburacum. It may be that the meaning of the term has changed over time.
 
This version on wiki does include mis-perceptions and related mis-idents.......when I first recall the usage it did not....but seemed to imply cases of psychological hallucination or mental disturbances/delusions brought about by various reasons.
If we accept this definition....then it can explain many if not most so-called ufo sightings.


From Wiki...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosocial_hypothesis

"In the English ufo literature, the term psycho-social hypothesis first achieved prominence in April 1984 when the cover of Magonia featured "The Rise of the Psycho-social hypothesis" by Jacques Scornaux and Peter Rogerson. Scornaux's[6] use of the term traces back to French ufo controversies spawned by Michel Monnerie whose book Le Naufrage des Extra-terrestres (1979) presented "le modèle socio-psychologique" as a direct challenge to the extraterrestrial hypothesis.[7] Claude Maugé had exposed Magonia readers to a brief outline of "the socio-psychological model" emerging from French studies in 1983, but flipping the syllables made the term more conventional to existing academic vocabulary.[8] Rogerson's adopting the term represented to him an evolution and de-escalation of exotic hypotheses he had been entertaining that originally included paranormal notions like psi, collective hallucinations, and the collective unconscious.[9] The term marked the embrace of a fully normal system of psychological processes that included dreams, hallucinations, fantasy interpretations of materially real stimuli, distortions of perception, and metachoric experiences ."

ps: As a side comment I don't like the nature of the term since it implies 'psychological or sociological ' problems in the witness testimony and not simply a misident or misperception.
 
Last edited:
Mis-identifications, failures of memory and hoaxes are all psychological phenomena. What else are they? I'm particularly interested in failures of memory. There is a very real phenomenon that happens to witness testimony over time, where it changes to become a/ more impressive b/ stranger and c/ more consistent with other witness reports.
 
Mis-identifications, failures of memory and hoaxes are all psychological phenomena. What else are they? I'm particularly interested in failures of memory. There is a very real phenomenon that happens to witness testimony over time, where it changes to become a/ more impressive b/ stranger and c/ more consistent with other witness reports.
I'm sorry but I simply don't consider mis-idents and hoaxes to be psychological in nature ( not sure what a failure of memory has to do here with ufos)...not at all. Mis -perceptions perhaps but that's almost the same as saying a mis-ident when you get down to it. To me' psychological' issues refer to mental states with some problems in the witness and not simply mistaking something. Maybe I'm being too particular but that's my take on it. So the psycho social simply doesn't work for me in many cases. Maybe we can come up with a better descriptive terminology.
 
I believe in the psychosocial skepticism phenomenon; skeptics are loathe to have their paradigms overturned by repeated anomalies. Theyu cleave to norms of belief and will not change unless forced to. All individuals who may have seen something unusual are simply deluded, hallucinating or insane.
 
The psychosocial theory states that absolutely every sighting is caused by human psychological phenomena; this covers misperceptions, mis- remembered events, hoaxes, hallucinations, and delusions. Of these, honest misperceptions are the most common.
Well, if that is what it claims then it is clearly wrong: besides the statistical evidence there are clearly many alleged UFOs that fall into the black projects category, and it would be absurd to say that a sighting of a discoid object, especially near known research facilities, would be a mistake or a misperception rather than a genuine view of a physical device. I am not going to quote all of Vallee's studies, because I assume you would be familiar with them, but many of them have come up with data inconsistent with the psychosocial model. It appears that all you are really doing is repeating the standard line of official agencies beginning with Blue Book, only dressing it up in more "scientific" language. I am sure that the huge numbers of witnesses to the strange events in Brazil, catalogued by Vallee in Confrontations, some of whom were fatally injured by rays that seemed to penetrate their homes, would take a somewhat jaundiced view of your theory.
 
Mis-identifications, failures of memory and hoaxes are all psychological phenomena. What else are they? I'm particularly interested in failures of memory. There is a very real phenomenon that happens to witness testimony over time, where it changes to become a/ more impressive b/ stranger and c/ more consistent with other witness reports.
I think all experienced investigators are well aware of these failings of memory, which is obviously why they try to get reports from witnesses ASAP. As someone who did their post grad research on memory, I agree this is something that needs to be taken into consideration. How though would it apply to cases (e.g. Socorro) where the witness told his story immediately after the sighting, and has never changed his testimony over the decades since? If all you are saying is that humans are not perfect witnesses -- well, I think we all know that. But the justice system has had to struggle with this issue no less than ufologists, and automatically categorising the witness to a UFO as mistaken or dishonest would be equivalent to the police assuming that all witnesses to crimes must also fall into those categories. In both cases you have to search for physical evidence, look for corroborative testimony from different witnesses, and make a reasoned assessment.
 
I think all experienced investigators are well aware of these failings of memory, which is obviously why they try to get reports from witnesses ASAP. As someone who did their post grad research on memory, I agree this is something that needs to be taken into consideration. How though would it apply to cases (e.g. Socorro) where the witness told his story immediately after the sighting, and has never changed his testimony over the decades since? If all you are saying is that humans are not perfect witnesses -- well, I think we all know that. But the justice system has had to struggle with this issue no less than ufologists, and automatically categorising the witness to a UFO as mistaken or dishonest would be equivalent to the police assuming that all witnesses to crimes must also fall into those categories. In both cases you have to search for physical evidence, look for corroborative testimony from different witnesses, and make a reasoned assessment.
I hear that a lot from skeptics "The human memory is notoriously bad at remembering details, and we make lousy witnesses...". I think that's true in most mundane circumstances where the details are generally familiar, e.g. if a normal looking person rushes up and stabs someone or steals their child and runs off, there is very little unusual about the situation other than the crime itself (people are wearing regular clothes, walking on the ground, etc.). In situations where things are very unusual as when there is an object hovering in front of you with no visible means of propulsion, with strange lights on it, making a sound like a swarm of bees, one becomes hyper-vigilant and perceptive (we are wired for it). Many individuals who have seen UFOs up close remember details clearly --they are burned into their minds, and many would like to forget about the experience.. Just look at the officers after the Ohio police chase, or the many other clear description from adult witnesses and their drawings.. Children might be an exception, as they are still partly in the world of imagination, and I personally think hypnosis leads to confabulation.
 
Confrontation with something remarkable and / or unexpectedly indecipherable is not guaranteed to result in more precise perceptions or memories. Situation awareness is not necessarily enhanced, and memory formation is often inhibited, by stress or shock.
 
...... Children might be an exception, as they are still partly in the world of imagination, and I personally think hypnosis leads to confabulation.

That reminds me of the famous Ruwa, Zimbabwe case where muliple children saw the little ufo and little alien(s) who then proceeded to send info into them about humans ruining earth. Dr Mack was involved in investigating the case.
Is this an example of the psyco-social hypothesis in action...is this simply the imagination of over 30 children that day? Or is there something else going on here...even beyond a simple ETH theme?

btw....this would be a good case to see if the 'psycho social' works and we could break it down step by step.
 
Last edited:
That reminds me of the famous Ruwa, Zimbabwe case where muliple children saw the little ufo and little alien(s) who then proceeded to send info into them about humans ruining earth. Dr Mack was involved in investigating the case.
Is this an example of the psyco-social hypothesis in action...is this simply the imagination of over 30 children that day? Or is there something else going on here...even beyond a simple ETH theme?

btw....this would be a good case to see if the 'psycho social' works and we could break it down step by step.
I think it reinforces the idea that UFOs are more than just nuts and bolts craft; who knows what other kinds of technologies would have been developed by something capable of creating UFOs.
 
I think it reinforces the idea that UFOs are more than just nuts and bolts craft; who knows what other kinds of technologies would have been developed by something capable of creating UFOs.
Ok....and that's not an uncommon idea as presented by many ufologists over the years.
So...lets assume it was 'aliens'....why did they visit school children....act a bit goofy ...float by the 'craft' ..allegedly tell the kids earth was in trouble...then just vanish like turning off a tv?
What's the point of this? Is this an attempt at communication...information...a public show they are watching us......to me it's absurd.
If advanced aliens are that inept then imho we don't need their visits.
 
Confrontation with something remarkable and / or unexpectedly indecipherable is not guaranteed to result in more precise perceptions or memories. Situation awareness is not necessarily enhanced, and memory formation is often inhibited, by stress or shock.
I don't think we can generalise. There are a lot of factors. One is the belief system of the witness; if he or she has a very narrow concept of what is possible, the memory of the perception may be censored or forgotten altogether. Or a believer in extraterrestrials would be more likely to bias his report in that direction. Every case has to be assessed on its merits.
 
Ok....and that's not an uncommon idea as presented by many ufologists over the years.
So...lets assume it was 'aliens'....why did they visit school children....act a bit goofy ...float by the 'craft' ..allegedly tell the kids earth was in trouble...then just vanish like turning off a tv?
What's the point of this? Is this an attempt at communication...information...a public show they are watching us......to me it's absurd.
If advanced aliens are that inept then imho we don't need their visits.
I think that Vallee's control system notion could be key. We are being shown things but in such a way that we can't easily interpret them at a conscious level. They may be intended to have an effect at a deeper level. For one thing, UFOs exercise the mind and after struggling with all these weird things in my teenage years I found it a lot easier to grasp difficult ideas in psychology or other subjects that caught my interest. In fact when my supervisors questioned how I could be interested in such things and yet still work in conventional science I answered (1) that so far these things are outside the boundary conditions of our current science, and (2) they help develop mental muscles that come in very handy when dealing with easier stuff. It may be an educational effort.
 
Ok....and that's not an uncommon idea as presented by many ufologists over the years.
So...lets assume it was 'aliens'....why did they visit school children....act a bit goofy ...float by the 'craft' ..allegedly tell the kids earth was in trouble...then just vanish like turning off a tv?
What's the point of this? Is this an attempt at communication...information...a public show they are watching us......to me it's absurd.
If advanced aliens are that inept then imho we don't need their visits.
They also don't need to buzz people in cars or show themselves just to certain individuals, but they do. Why? I think it is because they are reinforcing the idea that they ARE alien. It's a virtuosic feat to reveal yourself just enough so that the militaries and governments of the world know you are here, and almost half of the population believes / knows it, and yet there is no tipping point over hundreds of years. May seem like magic to pull that off, but that is just from our limited perspective. Donovan refers to it as "acclimation". I think it is a certain level of contact, possibly it will grow as it is now with the US military, possibly leading to intervention.
 
Back
Top