Misidentified flying objects? A critique.
The Journal of near-death studies 1994 DOI: 10.17514/jnds-1994-12-4-p235-243. (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Commentary Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Citations | 1 |
| Key points | Argues that Twemlow's psychodynamic account mischaracterizes UFO abductees and near-death experiencers, and contends that the "fantasy-prone personality" and psychoanalytic defense-mechanism explanations are inadequate, offering anecdotal clinical material and what the author calls evidence, not proof, for UFOs. |
Abstract
This critique reviews Stuart Twemlow's excellent paper and presents some evidence-not proof-for the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs).My differences with Twemlow concern primarily his view of the psychological and social characteristics of UFO abductees and near-death experiencers (NDErs).I review the evidence for the "fantasy-prone person ality," report personal anecdotes with patients who believe they are UFO experiencers, and briefly discuss the psychoanalytic hypothesis that NDEs can be accounted for by a defense mechanism.Stuart Twemlow's remarkable paper, "Misidentified Flying Ob jects?An Integrated Psychodynamic Perspective on Near-Death Expe riences and UFO Abductions," deserves praise.He writes cogently of variables that all psychotherapists should consider anew with each patient.It is often said that what matters is not what happens to a person, but how a person interprets the experience.Twemlow's inte grated psychodynamic perspective speaks eloquently to this theme.Years ago Lawrence LeShan (1976) addressed the question of what is really real.He said there are at least two sets of ways to determine when our view of reality is no longer useful.Both ways occur gradually and finally add up to the realization that our old ways of conceptualiz ing events or reality are not working well.The first clue occurs when we're faced with new problems, or in this case finding satisfactory