Pet hates number 4: Ghost hunting 'reality' shows

[Mulder]

These TV programmes have almost completely destroyed serious ghost research. Now all we have is hundreds of groups aping the TV shows and believing they understand something about ghosts. It has also spawned an industry of allegedly haunted places being hired out for increasingly large sums of money. Money - there I've mentioned the word! Could this have anything to do with the phenomenon?

[Meerkat]

These TV programmes have almost completely destroyed serious ghost research. Now all we have is hundreds of groups aping the TV shows and believing they understand something about ghosts. It has also spawned an industry of allegedly haunted places being hired out for increasingly large sums of money. Money - there I've mentioned the word! Could this have anything to do with the phenomenon?

A money making scam, with dubious "mediums" arranging all night vigils at extortionate prices. You are correct in the assumption that these television programmes have increased the interest in the paranormal but it seems lost on some folks that the programmes themselves are classed as entertainment, not as scientific investigations. They now all seem to carry some kind of disclaimer - and rightly so.

[Dr B]

Why should locations let hundreds of people in for free?

[Mulder]

Why should locations let hundreds of people in for free?

If someone genuinely thinks they have a haunted location, they might be interested in letting a small scientific team in to investigate the alleged phenomena (for free).

However, there are lots of places out there whose only claim to be haunted appears to lie with having been featured on TV because 'someone felt funny in the cellar once'. As a result they now have sell time to the gullible. I was taken to task in another thread for suggesting that the stupid might deserve to be exploited, so some people here may disapprove of this practice.

I suppose it's like the whole 'genuine psychic' question. Is it right to rent out a location when it is almost certainly not haunted?

[Meerkat]

Why should locations let hundreds of people in for free?

I'm not saying that the locations should let people in for free, what I'm saying is that there are unscrupulous people out there who are using their so-called gifts to exploit people and charging extortionate prices for an "Invo" (how I hate that expression).

If anyone wants to investigate a so-called haunted location, then go with an non profit making group and do away with the obligatory medium who serves no useful purpose in the first place.

[wooo_oops]

Where do you think this money goes then? Certainly not into the pockets of the people who work hard to keep these places going - for your entertainment on a wet Sunday afternoon!

Here's my take on it:
In 2001, Foot and Mouth disease had taken hold and it wasn't just farmers who were facing ruin, many heritage sites were expecting huge losses in revenue and matched funding. They had to get the punters back in their thousands, and how?

Once the FMD crisis had subsided and people were let back in to the countryside, one particular heritage building had already put into place its insurance - a ghost story (which was faked), but had attracted publicity from all over the world. It had the desired effect and visitor numbers were almost doubled, thus negating somewhat the financial effects of the FMD crisis. If it weren't for that story and subsequent TV shows, publicity and 'ghost hunts', the building would no doubt have perished. Once other places realised the potential, could you blame them for jumping on the bandwagon?

Do you think that the staff of these sites (some of whom volunteer their time to look after ghost hunters) would be happy to do it weekend after weekend without charge? There's public liability insurance premiums, paying a member of staff to stay up all night, electricity used, cleaning up to be done afterwards...

It's just another form of tourism. I say let them get on with it, and you can do your 'serious' ghost research elsewhere.O0

[dalriada]

Once the FMD crisis had subsided and people were let back in to the countryside, one particular heritage building had already put into place its insurance - a ghost story (which was faked), but had attracted publicity from all over the world. It had the desired effect and visitor numbers were almost doubled, thus negating somewhat the financial effects of the FMD crisis.

Oh name names! Or give a clue as to where this place may be?

Dollars-to-donuts theres a "serious ghost research" report on it somewhere with hundreds of hours of data logged....

>:D

[wooo_oops]

You'll find it here about 1/3 down the page...Angel of Lies (http://www.users.waitrose.com/~magonia/ms45.htm)

Even though many of the investigators who have visited knew about the hoax ghost story, (it's not a secret), this has been ignored in favour of 'fishing' for ghosts in this place because it's almost perfect in context for it. I think that there are many groups who consider they do serious research because they use certain scientific instrumentation...
However, many people enjoy 'investigating' or 'fishing' or 'thrillseeking' there - which is my point. It seems to be purely tourism now. There are very few people doing 'serious' ghost research imho.

[Mulder]

If the ghost hunting shows were just about generating tourism revenue, I wouldn't care about them. The problem is, genuine ghost research has been completely squeezed out. Ghost research is meant to be about explaining why people see ghosts - something which undeniably takes place and deserves explanation.

What the TV shows, and all their weekend imitators, do is completely irrelevant to that explanation process. They barely even talk to witnesses - the only people on the shows who have actually seen the ghost! Instead they indulge in pseudoscience, by misusing and misunderstanding instrumentation, and the promotion of 'spiritual' techniques when there is no evidence from apparition reports that ghosts are spirits at all. They also generate lots of 'information' from mediums which is then taken to be part of the case by subsequent investigators.

As an exercise in the power of suggestion and belief, the TV ghost hunting shows can hardly be faulted. But their effect on the public's perception of paranormal research has been dire.

[Dr B]

If the ghost hunting shows were just about generating tourism revenue, I wouldn't care about them. The problem is, genuine ghost research has been completely squeezed out. Ghost research is meant to be about explaining why people see ghosts - something which undeniably takes place and deserves explanation.

That is simply not true and I think you are over doing it a bit here. There is a problem, but there are also quite a lot of people working in this field and producing interesting takes on it.

Persinger, Wiseman, Braithwaite, French, Brugger, are all actively publishing in the field and carrying out research.

I agree with you about there being an 'issue' but I disagree about your statement that there is no good research going on anymore. It's simply not true 8)

[Mulder]

I suspect all the people you are talking about come from the pre-TV ghost hunting show era. The problem is, the new generation of people, who could be doing useful research, are being diverted.

[Dr B]

Quite right. O0

Yes, indeed - while i do think many modern groups are not really 'doing research' it does index an interesting cultural shift.

If we take a longitudinal view, then when we look back at this era I think it will be clear for what it is.....largely bollocks.

O0

[Mulder]

There is another problem. People like Alan Gauld and Tony Cornell have complained that they don't get any haunting cases any more. Is that because there are none any more? I doubt it! The TV programme 'Haunted Homes' seems to find them.

It is more likely that such cases are being investigated by groups who are obsessed with proving 'ghosts are spirits'. They are likely to miss the evidence for more mundane causes of apparitions and haunt phenomena. This means that potentially valuable data is lost forever just to indulge someone's passion for 'ghost hunting'!

[wooo_oops]

True enough. Do you consider this a serious problem? If so, what are you going to do about it?

[Mulder]

True enough. Do you consider this a serious problem? If so, what are you going to do about it?

That should be 'what ARE you doing about it'. That would be telling ... :smiley:

[wooo_oops]

That should be 'what ARE you doing about it'. That would be telling ... :smiley:

Phew. That's alright then. (Unless it involves an automatic rifle).;)

[dalriada]

Persinger, Wiseman, Braithwaite, French, Brugger, are all actively publishing in the field and carrying out research.
I agree with you about there being an 'issue' but I disagree about your statement that there is no good research going on anymore. It's simply not true 8)

That's a list of 5 academic researchers, who hold postgraduate qualifications in psychology, cognitive neuroscience and neurology, who have appointments in recognised and respected institutions, who publish in mainstream peer-reviewed journals and who carry out research appropriately grounded in their respective theoretical/methodological backgrounds. Would any of you really refer to yourselves as a "ghost reseacher" in preference to, for example, a cognitive neuroscientist?

I think there's a distinction to be made between "real researchers" who happen to have a interest in the topic of hauntings and "ghost researchers" who just really, really love ghosties, have some very hazy notions about research and who don't have an academic background in a serious discipline. I was going to add another list of "ghost-researcher" names in here for contrast effect, but you can probably well-imagine the sort of names that would include, and let's face it no matter how enthusiastic (or self-publicising) they may be, they're not going to be appearing in print in any honest academic journal anytime between now and the second coming/Mayan apocalypse...

:cheesy:

[Dr B]

Oh - I totally agree with you O0. However, my point is that real research is going on which is providing a mechanistic understanding of the apparitional experience.

One of the ealier posts seemed to imply no such research is going on and no such understanding exists. O0

It is true that it is academic research, but it is true that it does exist and that was my point. O0

I suppose this raises an interesting issue concerning amatuer research. When i was a student and amatuer my research still aspired to be as scientific as it could be within my financial and practical limitations. My conclusions and investigations still led me towards a scientific interpretation. Now, maybe this is what has changed over recent years - young amatuers with bags of enthusiam are just not engaging with the appropriate material (probably because the inappropriate material is more salient and acts as a distraction).

Dunno really.....