In defense of the 1994 Ariel School (Ruwa, Zimbabwe) UFO event and the children who allegedly witnessed it
I’ve covered this account several times, myself, and
recently linked Gilles’ exemplary evaluation of the way Cynthia Hind, a UFO
“researcher” and noted psychiatrist John Mack interviewed the children
involved.
Here is an internet link to an article about how clumsy or
errant interviewing goes astray. (The piece is about sexual abuse but the same
exigencies apply to any kind of interview to get at the truth of a matter):
Interviewing sexually abused children
Interviewing sexually abused children
However, there are caveats with the contamination
explanation offered, brilliantly, by Gilles.
A purview of the Two Volume Carmichael’s Manual of
Child Psychology, 3rd Edition [John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY,
1946, 1954, 1970, Paul H. Mussen, Editor] allows for acceptance of child
accounts as linguistically and mentally accurate; that is, free of fabrication
or deviousness, unless one is dealing with a child who is predisposed to
schizophrenia or other serious behavioral disorder.
An elaborate exegesis of how children see, remember, and
recall moments is covered in Volume One, Page 944 ff…
“According to Bruner (1964, 1966a), the child [ages 7 to 11]
first masters “enactive” representation … he then becomes capable of “ikonic”
representation which summarizes events by selective organization of percepts and
of images, by the spatial, temporal and qualitative structures of the
perceptual field and their transformed images.” [ibid. Page 948]
However, “A human being can witness a [event] without at the
time perceiving it himself…When this deferred imitation (Piaget, 1945) leads to
a learned strengthening of the response, observational learning is said
to occur.” [ibid. Page 956]
In a portion devoted to creative problem solving, there is
this:
“Some of the ‘discovery’ methods confront children with
questions and require[s] them to find the answers to them through their own
efforts.” [Mackworth (1965) and Guilford (1956, 1967), ibid. Page 972].
One can assume that John Mack is familiar with the studies
and literature, and while I watched Dr. Mack in the proffered interview
segments, it was obvious to me, from my observations at Eloise Hospital (Wayne
County, Michigan) between psychiatrists and patients during my psychological
training (Wayne State University) that Dr, Mack was aware of the proper
procedures for acquiring accurate information from those children he
interviewed.
Yet, Gilles’ – a cognitive psychologist – contamination
scenario strikes me as valid to a large extent.
The children weren’t confabulating but surely could have
been influenced by their peers’ responses and Ms. Hind’s UFO predilections.
But to continue to present their “stories” – two months
after the alleged event when Dr, Mack interviewed them and later in life, when
grown up – would vitiate the idea that actual contamination took place, despite
the onerous hypothesis Gilles so astutely presents.
That is, the children saw something odd, and did their best
to portray that observation as best as they could, under the bizarre
circumstances.
Mr. Sheaffer provides, surprisingly, a glib, facile
observation in his posting.
Gilles, at least, offers substantive material to augment his
skeptical view.
Zoam Chomsky merely excoriates the tale (or actual event) in
his usual dynamic but breezy way.
This is a “UFO event” that needs more study, and follow-up,
since the witnesses are still with us and at an age and in a mental condition to
provide better and/or more information.
Let’s not be so hasty to write the account off because
skeptics hate the idea that people see strange things and report them.
In this instance, challenging the view of children is
particularly abominable, unless one has distinct evidence that such children
are sociopaths or even psychopaths, both rare in children at the ages of those
who saw the odd craft and odd being supposedly from it.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Thursday, July 21, 2016
|
9 comments
