Here's a copy of an article I wrote, at the request of Scotty Roberts, editor of Intrepid Magazine, which was published in the January 2012 edition.

Embracing Uncertainty

Before we go any further, let’s get one thing straight, okay? I’m right! Trust me, I’m certain about this. Good, now that we know where we stand, let’s proceed...

I’ve spent most of my life pursuing the study of paranormal phenomena, right back since I was a kid, in the 1960s and 1970s I’ve avidly read books on ‘Otherworldly’ subjects like telepathy, telekinesis, life after death, the Spirit World and comparative religion. And over the years I’ve experienced ample evidence of the existence of preternatural and/or supernatural beings who are quite able to make their presence known to we who live on ‘this side of’ life. As my schooling gave way to my career development, after holding several managerial jobs within a variety of companies I revivified and pursued another interest that had begun in childhood and turned it into a vocation: clinical hypnotherapy. I probably couldn’t have chosen a better profession to further my own study of ‘all things psychic’, because, as it turned out (although this wasn’t my conscious intention at the time) the trance state is an excellent medium (pun intended) through which to pursue contact with the Spirit World. To use a well-worn (but very apt) phrase ‘since time immemorial’ evidence suggests that, shamans, mediums, prophets and mystics (or whatever other term you might choose to use to denote those who claim to be able to enter into communication with the Spirit World) have either consciously utilised or, in some cases it seems, an external Intelligence has spontaneously generated trance states in such men, women and children of all times and cultures in history, in order utilise them to share information of various kinds, including mediumistic (evidence of survival) and prophetic (in the sense of precognitive).

As a practicing psychic/medium myself I regularly utilise both eyes-open and eyes-closed trance states to receive and share information of this kind too. When I’m in this state, which I like to call ‘the Psychic Zone’ amazing facts can come through to me from the Spirit Realm. For example, I’ll perceive names of departed loved ones being given to me along with details of a person’s current and recent (and possible future) life circumstances and more... all of which have been verified as being accurate by many clients, many times... and you know what? Even when I’ve first shared highly detailed information (Client: Can you connect with my dad who’s on the Otherside? Self: I’ll try, give me a moment... Okay, I’m getting the name George. Client: That was my dad’s name!), beyond such readily identifiable, provable, facts, when concerning the as-yet-to-happen (the precognitive) I’ve said more times than I can recall: ‘Remember... I could be wrong!’ You see, I’m certain that I’m not psychically infallible. (I know, this might come as a shock to any who believe that everything a psychic says is of the category of irrefutable Truth.) You see, one of the spiritual awakenings I’ve had over the course of my life is that much of society is (and historically always has been, it seems), to one degree or another, in the grip of a mass pathology that resembles OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). And this realisation has caused me to be mindful, to beware of the pathological need for certainty that constantly bedevils our culture.

My awakening came as a result of an experience I had that began when I was in my 20s. Idealistic and still pursuing my interest in spiritual topics I chanced upon a magazine called The Plain Truth. The Plain Truth was produced by a church located in Pasadena, California, called the Worldwide Church of God, which was headed by ‘Pastor General’, Herbert W. Armstrong. This magazine, and its sister magazine called ‘The Good News’ had by the time I encountered it amassed millions of readers each month, from all around the world. And, what’s more, in the days before satellite TV and YouTube the church’s World Tomorrow TV and radio programmes were beamed into millions more homes around the globe... around the clock. Such first-contact media opened the door to a host of follow-up booklets to those (like myself) who requested such heavily promoted ‘gratis’ publications (with hindsight my experience of 'Worldwide', as it's come to be known by ex-members, is that this kind of ‘gratis’ is reminiscent of the ‘there’s no such thing as a free lunch’ kind of gratis). And this carefully crafted, sequential process reached out with a powerful, idiosyncratic, literal (yet heavily flawed) interpretation of the Bible and therefore of God ...and in the process gradually influenced the way millions thought. It's been many years since I left my association with the Worldwide Church ‘of God’ and with the benefit of research I’ve subsequently come to learn a lot about how cults and fundamentalist thinkers operate and this experience has been very valuable to me. By the way, I use the word ‘thinkers’ loosely in the context of fundamentalists, because my experience indicates that narrow-minded people rarely really think, instead they merely ruminate over their rigid beliefs, seeking out for company others who support their indoctrinated points of view and, sadly, often, attacking those who hold other opinions.

Cultic behaviour is of course an extreme example of something that I call ‘Mass OCD-like Behaviour’ but you can see lesser and greater examples of such behaviour across the spectrum of human conduct. OCD is also known as the ‘Doubters Disease’ because it’s characterised by extreme doubt on the part of the sufferer. Someone with OCD might obsessively doubt that his hands are clean, or that his cooker is turned off, or worry that he’s contracted bubonic plague, or that he’s committed the ‘unpardonable sin’ and as a result of such doubts he’ll seek certainty by compulsively engaging in behaviours that he hopes will allay his doubts such as, washing his hands, constantly checking the cooker, visiting his doctor seeking evidence that he doesn't have bubonic plague, or phoning his priest (or pleading with God) to seek reassurance that he hasn’t committed the ‘unpardonable sin’. However, as the name the ‘Doubters Disease’ suggests, the reassurance (certainty) gained by engaging in the compulsion is short-lived at best, and, worse, studies in the field of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy have demonstrated that in fact giving into the compulsion to try to feel certain actually makes matters worse! A person seeking help to manage OCD needs to learn to live with uncertainty because it is his need for certainty that makes him ill! The person with OCD bases his behaviour on how he feels. Not on the evidence. (He doesn’t have bubonic plague, although he feels that he does.)

As a psychic/medium sadly I find myself from time to time the target of a group of people who exemplify this kind of pathological point of view: the Attack Skeptics. Their attentions can range from sarcasm, to spite, to threat. Like the cult leaders, some Attack Skeptics build careers out of this stance, while others, like ‘rank and file’ cult members do, merely regurgitate what the ‘Messiahs of Mindless Behaviour’ promulgate. In their need for certainty, even in the face of (potential) evidence to the contrary, the Attack Skeptics follow the likes of the Spanish Inquisition and al-Qaeda, albeit, these days, in more moderate ways, metaphorically closing their eyes and humming out loud (to avoid hearing or seeing anything that might upset their point of view) while simultaneously ganging up to attack (mock) those who hold other opinions. They’re just another example of narrow-minded fundamentalists.

Sometimes, fortunately, some fundamentalists ‘wake up’ and regain their freedom of thought by extricating themselves from the grip of their cultic delusions (the book Combatting Cult Mind Control, by Steve Hassan, is an excellent introduction to this phenomenon, by the way). However, unfortunately, not all do. Once ‘hooked’ lots of sorry souls spend the rest of their lives trapped in a world of narrow-minded delusion. There’s another mental illness that outwardly can seem similar to OCD which is called Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD). The difference between the two, in a ‘nutshell’, is that the person with OCD will have some insight that his unwanted obsessions and compulsions are illogical, which means that with the correct understanding of what can be done to mitigate this behaviour, and the impetus to do what needs to be done he can improve (because he has insight), whereas the person with OCPD will engage in rigid ideation and behaviour and perceive no wrong in what he’s doing. As a counsellor and clinical hypnotherapist I’ve long since learned that you can only help a person to change if they want to change. The person with OCD is more likely to be open to change whereas the person with OCPD is not (because he won’t, perhaps can’t, admit he’s got a problem).

We also see the need for certainty evidenced amongst some who, displaying worrying credulity, accept to the nth degree anything that anyone who purports to be psychic says, with little or no evidence of the psychic source of the information. Psychic ability comes in ‘all shapes and sizes’. Some people evidence snippets of ability ‘here and there’, while others are like Olympic athletes by comparison, with an exceptional degree of ability (TV mediums John Edward, Chip Coffey, Lisa Williams and TJ Higgs, for example, fit this ‘Olympic’ description). What’s more, it must be remembered, not all psychics are ‘spiritual’ people. (I can think of a couple of people with genuine psychic ability who are quite likely sociopaths.) Nevertheless, it seems that some people are gullibly prepared to divorce themselves from their own powers of reason in order to accept ‘hook, line and sinker’ everything any real or fake (and let’s be clear fraudulent ‘cold readers’ do exist) psychic says.

It’s important that in the field of paranormal research we avoid the trap of the OCD-like behaviour of the Attack Skeptics, who, motivated by the obsession for a feeling of certainty (based on their narrow interpretation of ‘reality’) engage in compulsive dismissive behaviour of other points of view, so that we too don’t, in a reverse mirror-image way, accept every utterance by someone claiming to be psychic as valid, because we feel like we should, but instead remember to ask ourselves ‘what’s the evidence?’ Is the psychic’s ‘psychic status’ based solely on claims that he’s made that he is psychic or does he demonstrate convincing evidence? Similarly, therefore, those of us who work as psychics should remember that we too need to consistently demonstrate evidence of non-ordinary (psychic) perception with verifiable facts (names, events, etc) and remember that, even in the midst of a dizzying array of accurate facts we still might misinterpret some information that we sense and in some cases even get things wrong. If we remember these points, if we’re prepared to live with a degree of uncertainty, rather than seeking to be seen to be ‘right’ in all situations then we’re more likely to maintain a balanced, psychologically-healthy point of view.

I continue to explore spirit communication and trance states and gather evidence of non-ordinary (psychic) phenomena. But having learned the lesson of what narrow-mindedness can do and perhaps more importantly now understanding how it occurs I’ve learned that it’s vital to be willing to embrace uncertainty sometimes, not only for maintaining a good scientific approach to research, but, perhaps more importantly, in order to maintain a healthy mental outlook on life overall. This is why I’m certain that it’s a good thing to learn to embrace uncertainty.

What do you think: am I right? Are you certain?

To learn more about Intrepid Magazine and to get your own subscription visit the website here: http://www.intrepidmag.com/

Postscript to the above article:

I mentioned in the above article that you can see evidence of a need for certainty that becomes pathological in many people in other areas of life too, beyond just fundamentalist religion and militant skepticism.  Here are a few more examples for you to consider.

Music. I very much enjoy the music of Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson.  Sadly, particularly in the months after the recent death of Michael Jackson we began to see on the internet bitter (sometimes quite vicious) squabbles between some Elvis Presley supporters and some Michael Jackson supporters who had allowed their love of one or other performer to degenerate into a pathological 'fatal attraction'-type need for certainty of the kind that made them feel that they needed to prove to themselves and the world that the object of their adoration was both the one and only 'king' and what's more, the 'most successful entertainer all time'.  Fortunately, in amongst the unbalanced voices, the voice of reason rang out from fans of both who rightly said that both Elvis and Michael were incredible entertainers, with different music styles, both occupying a similar, rarified, recognised level of success in the annals of pop history.

Politics. I grew up in a pub and one of the things that I remember being said time and time again was: 'Don't discuss religion or politics, if you want to avoid an argument'.  Why is this phrase so well-known, and so readily identifiable?  Because as with religion so too in politics we see that some people (perhaps many) have fallen into a 'certainty trap', in which, in this instance they identify their political party as an extension of themselves, in the process of which they too seek to feel certain that their opinion is 'right', to the extent that they become pathologically hostile towards others who have different political allegiances.

Militant Secularism. Some modern securalists, who follow a militant approach to their beliefs exhibit patterns of behaviour that are not much different than those of the fundamentalist preachers.  Indeed it could reasonably be argued that militant secularism is a religion without God.  Charles Darwin, whom many secularists idolise, was more open-minded than many of his modern day acolytes, indeed, I understand that he even believed in God.  Modern militant secularists however can be quite intolerant of those who believe in a Spirit Realm and as a result they invest a lot of time and energy promoting their point of view, while challenging expressions of faith as often as they can. They can be seen to behave in much the same way as do 'religious people' with dogmatic beliefs, who argue with others of differing religious points of view to 'prove' (often to themselves?) the perceived superiority of their beliefs in a way that makes them feel 'certain' about the rightness of their worldview (it's a self-reinforcing belief pattern), except, rather than pushing a religion centered around the existence of God (in one form or another), Militant Secularists push a religion centered around the non-existence of God. (You have to smile when you think about how much time some secularists probably spend thinking about a God they say they don't believe in, perhaps more time than some who profess allegiance to one or other form of formal religion?!)

Sport. Football hooliganism is a tribal example of the support of a football team taken to pathological levels.  Football hooligans physically attack others out of a misplaced need to prove that they and, by extension, the team they support are preeminent.

Nationhood. Great Britain is the best nation in history.  I'm certain of this.  The fact that I'm British has nothing to do with this statement.  I have arrived at this certain conclusion as a result of balanced, sound, reason, based on the facts.  No one will convince me otherwise. My emotions as they relate to my ethnicity and upbringing have in no way influenced my conclusion. Sure, I accept that there are other great nations in the world, but, obviously, none are so great as the British. (Or is this really a subjective belief dressed up as 'fact', to promote a feeling of certainty?)

Psychotherapy. Weird as this may sound, but the field of psychotherapy is not itself immune to the problem of having within its fold too some psychotherapists who have an unbalanced attachment to a need to feel certain, with regard to the preeminence (in their minds) of the method of psychotherapy that they practice. Oftentimes highly trained psychotherapists will evince opinions that suggest that they've attached too much emotion (and with it the corresponding need for certainty that accompanies such highly charged emotions) to the form of psychotherapy they're attached to, at the expense of denigrating directly, or, more skillfully, indirectly (and therefore in accordance with current political correctness) other forms of therapy, to 'prove' that their preferred method is 'best'.  This can develop into 'kingdom building', a process by which those who hold similar beliefs will sometimes unite and 'build a kingdom' around the form of psychotherapy they practice, reinforcing their collective sense of stated and/or implied certainty that their methodology is superior.  This, in turn, can result in 'stone throwing', where practitioners of one methodology defend themselves against unwelcome statements made by practitioners of another methodology, in the process of which they in turn denigrate, to one degree or another those who first attacked their chosen model of therapy (the recent 'debate' between some CBT practitioners and Person Centered Counsellors is, in my opinion, a good case in point.)

Highly charged emotions. The extension (or projection) of selfhood into a belief, or object of affection occurs in all of the above examples. For instance, fundamentalists cast God in their own image (thereby identifying God as 'one of them' and therefore as separate, to one degree or another, from everyone else), paranormal skeptics identify themselves with their skepticism - which makes it hard for them to admit that their world view might not be wholly accurate... and some Elvis and MJ fans identify too closely with each performer and this unbalances them in their objectivity, in certain matters.  A key element to pathological certainty that stands out in all the above examples is the highly charged emotional state in which such an affected person exists, which clouds his or her judgement and results in an unbalanced (obsessive) need for certainty.

The antidote. The antidote to the malady of pathological Mass OCD-like Behaviour is simply to actively embrace being prepared to live with a level of uncertainty, when appropriate.  To avoid overly identifying with a belief or object of affection to the extent that your need to be certain that your identification represents an affirmation of adherence to a perceived Universal Truth, or something that a reasonable person observing you might conclude is implied as a direct result of your behaviours to indicate that you are bordering on such a misplaced belief.  When taken to extremes the excessive attachment to feelings of certainty lead to The Spanish Inquisition (which was certain that it acted for God, as it tortured thousands of vulnerable people), Nazism (which was certain that it was racially superior, as it acted in sub-human ways, killing millions) and al-Qaeda (which is just another version of the Spanish Inquisition, dressed up in different clothes and armed with modern weapons, certain - but wrong - that it acts for God, as it brutally murders thousands). Let them be an example to the rest of us about the very real dangers of extremist beliefs. No one is right all of the time. History however provides us with lots of evidence of people filled with highly charged emotions that made them feel certain that what they believed and what they did as a result of those beliefs was right, when they were clearly in the wrong.

No one has 'all of the answers', though many would like to convince you that they do.  Seek balance.  Be prepared to embrace uncertainty when necessary. Remain flexible and be open to the evidence and you're much more likely to avoid 'coming a cropper', due to obsessive identification with a misplaced belief or object of excessive affection.

Kerin Webb: psychic/medium, Bournemouth, Dorset, UK.