Labor of Love

As Valentine's Day approaches and love is in the air (or at least on the airwaves in the form of commercials), I've been thinking of one of my favorite sayings:  "Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate."  So, with that in mind, I'd like to share what I love regarding paranormal research:

Those who question everything:
Accepting claims or "evidence" at face value doesn't count as either investigating or research.  As I've mentioned ad nauseam, there are countless environmental, psychological and physiological explanations for seemingly paranormal experiences.  Since I've started this blog, I've always maintained that unless we actively seek, identify and rule out every possible natural explanation to a claim, we cannot honestly declare it paranormal.  And "unexplained" doesn't necessarily mean paranormal.  It just means we can't explain it at the time, which change with more information and expertise.   I appreciate those who aren't afraid to ask questions and challenge claims.  When a paranormal team posts a picture on social media claiming they caught a ghost, we should ask for control shots, comparison shots, environmental conditions, EXIF data before we blindly say "good catch".  Same goes for EVPs.   We should ask what else could that "voice" be?  Something mechanical?  Environmental? Organic?  Is there video available to cross reference a cause of the sound?  When we go on a ghost hunt or ghost tour, we should do our own independent research into the history of the location and its ghost stories.  Contact local historians or librarians who have access to, or can point you to, documents containing the truth.  Many locations either manipulate facts or fabricate stories to lure paying customers.

Those who sincerely seek other opinions:
Many times we see excited ghost hunters throw up a picture on a paranormal page, saying they want honest opinions, but in reality, they really just want a pat on the back for their "proof".  Then they get defensive when people more knowledgable about photography inform them they really took a picture of a moth. But occasionally, my faith in humanity is briefly restored when people accept informed opinions and even express gratitude for the information.  These are the people who have an authentic thirst for knowledge and are not in this just to boost their egos.  This is where networking, as long as people can be civil, is be a good thing for the paranormal community.  I personally learned a great deal in such constructive forums, gaining not only new information, but resources for continued reference as well.

Those who keep an open mind:
Many people still misunderstand the term "skeptic", confusing it with "cynic",  one who outright dismisses claims.  But a true skeptic dismisses or accepts a claim based on objective, verifiable data.  They may change their mind if new information is presented.  Most skeptics I know are open to the possibility that the paranormal exists, but demand valid evidence. On the other hand, I respect the believers who recognize and manage their own cognitive bias and are open to natural, rational explanations to seemingly paranormal evidence or experiences.  If we are honestly searching for the truth in paranormal claims, we must accept it might not be what we expect.

Those who walk the walk:
I love those who actively practice and experiment with their cameras, recorders, and other equipment outside of investigations.  Those who take the time not only to learn how their gear works, but what factors and conditions may affect them, and what quirks they have that can create false positives. Those who are willing to eliminate equipment and techniques they once favored, as they apply more objective methodology. Those who are constantly reading all they can about valid investigative techniques and searching for new resources.  I appreciate investigators who physically go to locations and research the claims themselves.  I applaud those who go beyond a cursory fact check, and actively search old archives and documents and even interview people who have a connection to the history of the location.  Unfortunately, this sometimes results in exposing a well-known story as a fabrication and these investigators receive some backlash from some ghost hunters for destroying their fragile little fantasies.  But that is REAL investigating,  and what those all of us who call ourselves "investigators" and "researchers" should strive for.

Those who possess a little humility:
I have a lot of respect for those who can say, "I don't know".  Too often, we see paranormal investigators who present themselves as "experts" and instead of doing the morally right thing and admit something might be beyond their knowledge, they make up something that sounds science-ish to save face.  This is a disservice to any client they have as well as paranormal research.  It's okay to say "I don't know" and then refer to someone who does have the expertise to get to the bottom of a claim.  I also respect those who can admit they were wrong.  Most of the skeptics I know started out as believers.  But as they learned about the many factors that can cause misidentification or misperception, they were willing to reevaluate their beliefs and change their approach to paranormal research.  They threw out useless fancy gadgets and distanced themselves from their former favorite TV para-celebs.  (I cringe when I think of the money I wasted over the years on some popular "ghost hunting" gadgets.)

Those who engage in civil debates:
The reason I dislike the term "paranormal unity" is because those who wave that banner claim all paranormal investigators are searching for the same thing. That is false.  There are those who want to prove ghosts exists, no matter what.  There are others who want to prove ghosts do not exist, no matter what. There are those who are like me, who believe in the possibility they exist, but all natural causes must be identified and ruled out first before we can even consider anything might be paranormal.   So even though there are clearly different agendas, I encourage civil discourse and debate because it is an excellent way to expand our viewpoints and gain knowledge.  I admire those who are passionate in their opinions, but can express them without name-calling, personal attacks and insults.  If we are truly trying to get valid information out there, the fastest way to shut people off to it is to engage in such tactics.  The people I learned the most from, and who most inspired me to practice and promote critical thinking in paranormal research, where those who backed their arguments with objective information and sources instead of bashing.

Sharing is caring:
I applaud those with professional expertise who are happy to impart information to others.   Those who are willing to put themselves out there and promote their opinions on websites, blogs, podcasts, videos, books, lectures, etc.  They list sources for others to check on and learn from on their own.  They are happy to promote and support others who have expertise in specific areas.  They take the time to answer questions and give their educated opinions on submitted "evidence".  Most of them who I know personally do not receive any monetary compensation for it, and instead receive a lot of headaches in the form of criticism, threats, and cyber stalkers. But they do it for the love of sharing knowledge and combating the overwhelming amount of misinformation regarding paranormal investigating.  I also admire those who support preserving the history of locations they investigate.  I know several teams who help their local historical societies preserve historical sites by fundraising or even physically participating in restoration and upkeep.

Those with a healthy perspective: 
I am wary of those who seem obsessed with the paranormal.  Passionate interest is one thing, but making ghost hunting one's identity is another. I see teams that are way more invested in creating team logos for their shirts and cars, getting as many likes for their team pages than doing basic research into the "evidence" they are posting or learning any scientific methodology to go with the science-y terms the like to use.  I've met too many such people who are so emotionally invested in their "evidence", or ghost hunter identity that they are shut off from reality. They resist any facts that may challenge their illusions.   On the other hand, I've seen skeptics who don't know when to walk away from a lost cause.  You just can't reason with the unreasonable, so move on to something productive and constructive.  I respect those in the paranormal community who are equally active in other interests, like history, sci-fi, music, and volunteering for charitable causes.  And I love those who have a healthy sense of humor and have FUN when researching or discussing the paranormal.  

Those who nurture their curiosity:
Most of us got into paranormal investigating because we were curious.  Were there really ghosts?  Could we capture them on film or tape?  Why would they haunt a specific location?  I have skeptic friends, who may not believe there is any scientific evidence of ghosts at this point, who still love investigating.  Why?  Because they never lost their curiosity, they just redirected it.  What could cause that sound?  What factors could contribute to people seeing a shadow person in that hallway?  Why do batteries drain in that basement?  What is the real history behind the stories?  And the list of questions to ask goes on - including, "What if?"

Don't Dream It, Be It

"We spend too much time in our heads and not enough time being productive, working, contributing to society, building community. Instead we shake off the thoughts with trivial pursuits and entertainment hoping for relief from our own haunts when all the time our forefathers, though tough, had it right. We need to step away from distraction and embrace one another, grab hold of life and quit living vicariously through entertainment, fantasy. Reality is just outside our door and it is nothing to be afraid of." ~ William James (Psychologist, Society for Psychical Research)

The New Year prompts me to reflect and reassess what is working to enrich my life and what isn't.  I strive to foster pursuits that serve a positive, constructive purpose and eliminate those which don't.  This includes my interest in the paranormal.

Several years ago, I was as a blind believer in the paranormal.  I was a faithful fan of paranormal "reality" shows and I enjoyed going to creepy places and watching my KII meter light up. But the more I learned from people with expertise in various sciences and technology, it slowly dawned on me that what I watched on TV and saw emulated on "ghost hunts" wasn't working.  It wasn't bringing me any closer to finding the truth in paranormal claims.  I began to ditch false and/or counterproductive "theories", equipment, and methodology.  Of course, along with that, came the realization that authentic "evidence" of the paranormal, if it exists, remains frustratingly elusive.

During the past year, I have been lucky to meet or network with a number of interesting people within the paranormal community, from true believers to staunch skeptics.  I've been introduced to informative web radio shows, books and articles.  The more I listened and learned, the more it reaffirmed for me that there is a need to promote critical thinking when considering paranormal claims.  Many paranormal investigators are still clinging to baseless notions and resisting scientific facts that may challenge their beliefs. Some of them go into people's homes and businesses and spread misinformation, which is not only a disservice to the people they want to help, but also continues to hinder any valid research in the paranormal.  But I also know there are some who are genuinely looking for answers, whether they turn out to be paranormal or not.  It is why for now, I will continue with this blog.

Socrates said, “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”  While reading books by actual scientific investigators like Joe Nickell and Ben Radford, I am acutely aware that I have much more to learn.  I have become concerned with my own role as a paranormal investigator.   For example, I am no longer comfortable doing residential cases. First, because of the popularity of paranormal TV shows, many clients have unrealistic expectations and have already formed strong conclusions, and therefore, reject common sense explanations I might offer. Also, something that has been bothering me for a while, is that many well-meaning paranormal investigators (myself included) go into people's homes and offer advice in areas in which they have no academic or professional credentials. I've come to realize that even though I am careful to explain I am not an expert and my conclusions are based only on opinion, clients still had the perception that I had answers that I, and most ghost hunters I know, do not have the qualifications to give. As I've said many times, I don't want to risk misleading people, especially if I am invited into their home to "help".  In my opinion, investigators who boast "expertise" and advise in specific areas when they have no such accredited education and degree, are akin to those who present false positives like orbs as paranormal evidence.

Many of us grew watching shows like In Search Of... and Unsolved Mysteries which profiled parapsychologists with scientific degrees exploring the realm of the supernatural.  I thought it would be a pretty cool occupation.  But unlike some of the parapsychologists I admired, I never got around to getting an advanced degree in a relevant science like psychology, physics or anthropology. Then a TV show called Ghost Hunters profiled a couple of plumbers who did ghost hunting, making paranormal investigating accessible to everyone.  The problem was, it made it accessible to everyone - regardless if they had any clue of what they were doing or not. This reminds me of something the character Dr. Ian Malcom said in Jurassic Park: that the researchers were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.  We all know how that turned out:

This observation is not limited to paranormal investigators, but to some skeptics as well.  There are some who have no more qualifications than the ghost hunters they criticize, who have spread misinformation too. An example, I've seen is some armchair skeptics dismissing paranormal claims as products of Fantasy Prone Personalities.  While FPP may indeed be a factor in some cases, there are other physiological, environmental and psychological factors that can cause people without FPP to experience misperceptions and mistake some experiences as paranormal.  For example, people with FPP may be prone to experience hypnagogic hallucinations, but according to medical doctors who study these sleep disorders, other factors, including certain medications, stress, disrupted sleep patterns, may also cause them in people without FPP.

"I'm here to help" is a common slogan among ghost hunters.  It's even one of the reasons I wanted to become an investigator.  While I think most have best of intentions, I'm not sure if many of them have stopped to consider what this really means or the responsibility this carries.  We still see many investigators present false positives as "evidence" and making claims that they cannot validate.  The result is they are misleading the very people they pledged to help.   To be crystal clear: I am not telling ghost hunters to give up their hobby.  But I am asking them to be more honest and mindful of how they promote themselves to clients.  If teams are unwilling to conduct investigations from a truly skeptical  approach (which does not mean if you can't debunk it, then it must be a ghost), then I request they ditch the term "scientific".  If teams use unproven theories and/or equipment to draw their conclusions, again, ditch the term "scientific".  A more fitting description might be "experimental" or "exploratory".  If teams go in with the foregone (and unproven) conclusion that ghosts are everywhere and they can communicate with them and even help them "move on", then these teams, no matter how much technical gear they tote around, are metaphysical-based, not scientific.

I am asking teams who are committed to being science-based to educate themselves and seek knowledge from people with relevant expertise.  One of the most common mistakes - one I've been guilty of myself - is that many fledgling ghost hunters seek their "education" from other ghost hunters (or paranormal TV shows) instead of: 1. people who have a sound foundation in scientific methodology to reduce confirmation bias and subjective data/techniques 2. people with professional expertise in environmental, physiological and psychological factors that can contribute to misperceptions, and 3. people with professional expertise in equipment used on investigations to reduce false positives.

Going back to William James's quote at the beginning:  "... grab a hold of life and quit living vicariously through entertainment, fantasy." if paranormal investigators want to present themselves as "experts", then I encourage them to go out and earn it.  They either can get a degree in a relevant science from an accredited college or gain professional experience that can be applied toward paranormal research.  (Sorry, bogus on-line degrees or certifications don't count.)  If they truly want to help others, then after looking for ghosts in old battlefields, abandoned hospitals, asylums, orphanages, etc. they might also consider becoming a volunteer for the living.  There are a lot of people in veteran's programs, youth programs, hospitals, homeless shelters, etc. who could use assistance.   I've heard a lot of investigators declare that they want to "help" ghosts find their way in the afterlife.  Right now, there is no evidence that anyone can do that.  So perhaps they could also consider helping people who are still with us in this life, by pursuing a service-orientated profession such as nursing, counseling, teaching, or police work.

I wish you a Happy New Year.  I hope you will step out the door and continue this journey with me. Out there, we just might find the answers we're looking for.

The Skeptic Stigma

For some reason, skeptics are often met with scorn within the paranormal community, even from those who claim they are "science-based".   I remember attending a public ghost hunt a few years ago and the lead investigator announced if there were any skeptics in attendence to "keep their mouths shut" and "not ruin the fun" for everyone else.  Ironically, this person boasted that her team was made up of "serious investigators", using "science" as part of their research.  If this were true, one would think she would welcome an objective opinion because in actual science, this called peer review.  Then several weeks ago, I was on a radio show discussing my views about paranormal investigating.  I mentioned that I call myself a "skeptical believer", meaning while I believe in the possibility of the paranormal, I recognize beliefs aren't facts and approach research as a skeptic. In my opinion, it is more responsible because it decreases the risk of misleading others. One of the emails that came into the show asked me why ghost hunting teams offer their "services" for free, but skeptics seem to always "have an agenda" to sell books and make money.  As I explained on the show, there are flaws with this assumption.

First off, not all ghost hunting and paranormal investigating teams offer their self-proclaimed services free of charge. There are some teams out there who charge even though there is no accredited degree or certification for ghost hunting, nor is there any formal governing body that regulates the field.  Some people tag on labels such as "forensic" or "professional" or "ordained" - as if that magically gives them any more authority than anyone else in the paranormal community -  and use these titles as a justification to charge their clients.  Also, there are those who charge for public ghost hunts.  To be clear, I have no objection if the money goes to the venue, especially if it is a historical site, but some teams pocket the money for their "services".  Besides entertainment, what exactly, are these services?  Many of them also present "evidence" that would never pass muster in any valid scientific research.

Secondly, there are mountains of books for sale written by believers about "true" ghost stories.  There are also many "how-to" books or "case studies" written by ghost hunters from a non-skeptical approach.  Many assert opinions or personal beliefs as facts without any actual evidence to back them up. In my experience visiting various book stores over the past few decades,  as well as attending a few paranormal conventions, these types of books greatly outnumber those written of a skeptical nature.  And according to bookstore owners I've talked to, they tend to sell better.

Third, turn on the TV:  if you have basic cable, you will see several channels featuring paranormal "reality" shows: Ghost Hunters, Ghost Adventures, My Ghost Story, A Haunting, The Haunted, Long Island Medium, Haunted Highway, The Dead Files, and the list goes on.  These all approach the paranormal from, and cater to, a believer's perspective.  In addition, many of these shows mislead viewers by presenting false positives as "proof" of ghosts, manufacturing claims or manipulating historical facts.  How many shows can you list that approach the topic from a truly skeptical approach? I don't mean those that debunk one or two things and then go on to present false positives and misinformation in the very same episode.

Then there are the para-celebs.  Generally, these tend to be people who are famous in the paranormal community because they've been profiled on TV, not for any useful contribution to valid research. Many of them go on and use their relative fame to write and sell books.  Some of them attend paranormal conventions and sell their books for a grossly inflated amount and then charge to sign them.  In many cases that I've seen first hand, some paracelebs also charge their adoring fans - who already paid a pretty penny to get into the convention - another fee just for the privilege of snapping a picture with them.  So far, I haven't seen any skeptics doing that.

Many times when I explain to fellow paranormal enthusiasts that I conduct research from a skeptical approach, I often get a somewhat lukewarm to frigid response.  Most of these people mistakenly confuse the term "skeptic" with the term "cynic".  They fail to realize that skeptics, unlike cynics, don't automatically dismiss claims and evidence.  They either dismiss - or support - them based on scientific methodology, including peer review and independently replicated results, etc.  Even after dismissing a claim, they remain open to the possibility if new evidence supports it.  Another reason is that some of these people are resistant to any information that may challenge their beliefs or "evidence".  To me, this suggests they're more invested in preserving their egos than finding valid answers or acting in the best interest of their clients.  And unfortunately, when I present alternative natural explanations, a lot of people draw the false conclusion that I assume they are stupid, crazy or lying about their experience.  That is untrue.  Think of optical illusions:  we see things that in reality, aren't there.  In certain situations, while trying to process data, our brains create misperceptions.  Does that mean we're unintelligent, insane or dishonest?  Of course not.  But perhaps for some, it's easier to "shoot the messenger" than to accept facts.

Do you see the black dots in the grid?  No, you don't.  It's a common optical illusion.  (Wikipedia)

One anonymous reader of my blog accused me of throwing rocks at investigators when I should instead be throwing them at the main-stream scientists who don't take paranormal claims seriously.  Believe it or not, I used to feel exactly the same way.   Furthermore, I've been guilty of many of the issues I now criticize!  But then, I started to actively participate in paranormal investigations, as well as research facts about common misperceptions and misidentifications.  I learned from people with professional expertise in fields such as photography, audio engineering and psychology.  I have personally observed that many investigators call themselves science-based, but fail to apply any science to their investigating. Since many paranormal investigators present false positives as evidence, fail to use any valid controls or protocols during investigations, and ignore environmental, physiological, and psychological factors that can explain claims, it's no wonder that mainstream science has little interest.

Many paranormal investigators post their evidence, saying they welcome comments.  Unfortunately, some of these people really only want to hear "good catch" and aren't receptive to informed opinions that can disprove it. They become overly defensive and delete such comments and call skeptics names like bullies, trolls, jealous, etc.  To be fair, there are some skeptics who are unable to participate in civil debate, resorting to name calling and personal attacks. A few of them also conveniently hide behind fake names or the anonymity of a web page while trashing teams. But ultimately, the burden is on those who claim that they caught evidence, to prove it.

When presented with links or articles with information that could explain many paranormal claims, some paranormal investigators grouse about why skeptics bother to investigate (or write about) the paranormal if we constantly dismiss claims.  Well for me, it's very simple: no one can authentically declare something paranormal without considering, identifying and ruling out every other possibility first.  Just wanting or believing something to be true doesn't make it so.  I often hear paranormal investigators state that they want to "help" clients or "prove" the paranormal is real.  Presenting false positives, misinformation, and personal beliefs as "evidence" does not help anyone, nor does it prove ghosts exist.  I started out as a true believer, accepting paranormal claims at face value.  I am now, as someone I respect described, a skeptic with latent beliefs.  This shift has occurred mostly by continuing to research information and applying what I learn.  But I'm finding myself being pushed further toward skepticism by the hypocrisy of those who say they want the truth, yet decry those who present it.