• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Trickster Theory Simplified


J.T.

Maybe Logic
I've been interested in this for a bit now, and thought I'd try and summarize it in as simple terms as I can, and get some feedback/thoughts from members here.

Trickster Theory Simplified:

It supposes there is a probably natural 'force,' like the wind, that is unconscious (though possibly becoming self-aware). It manifests itself through interaction with human consciousness.

It manifests commonly as:

* Murphy's Law
* Unusual Coincidences

It manifests more rarely:

* Paranormal Phenomena

Scientific Proof:

* The Observer Effect

It is more active in certain regions that have a history of paranormal phenomena, and is accentuated by a feedback loop effect. Whether these regions are more 'active' because of their history (and as such the cumulative effect of belief and myth on local population), or because of some geological or other reason is open to debate.

It ties in with human myths and legends; the Djinn, the Tulpas, Gods and Monsters. It would explain why in the distant past people saw gods in nature, and as we become more evolved and more technologically oriented, the form changes from gods to fairies to witches to airships to flying saucers, as discussed by Jacques Vallee among others.

It would explain the 'high weirdness' factor of much of the phenomena, the non-quantifiable data, the coincidences most researches push aside as inexplicable. For all his faults, John Keel's work is a good example of an attempt to reach, if not the truth, at least what Werner Herzog calls "the ecstatic truth."

It ties in with the occult practices, the native american traditions, the codified rituals of much of human history, supposing that if the human consciousness can -- as in the "Observer Effect" -- change the properties of a particle, it can also through some mostly untapped method access and possibly even control this unobserved 'force,' or even the fabric of the universe as we understand it. Access other dimensions, if we like string theory.

So that's it in as simple terms as I can put it -- if anybody has further thoughts on this, I'd love to add/substract to this and discuss the possibilities.
 
It supposes there is a probably natural 'force,' like the wind, that is unconscious (though possibly becoming self-aware). It manifests itself through interaction with human consciousness.

My repeated experiences with the phenomenon has lead me to think along those lines too but one of the things I am wondering about is the degree of "unconscious (though possibly becoming self-aware)". What if it is concious ? Is there only one way (ours) to be concious ?
Also I wonder if it is one entity or a full "fauna" of entities. Or both at the same time...

Regarding your list, I myself tend to link the uncertainty principle into that somehow (probably what you meant by "the observer effect") and some aspects of chaos theory which is to me its counterpart at the macro level.

That's what I can say at the moment. Do you have any other thoughts about that ? Also, have you experienced the phenomenon, if so in what way ?
 
Lance,

You're right, of course, but "Trickster Theory simplified" sounds better than "Trickster Speculation simplified" (I do work as a fiction editor).

I doubt it could be proven, either. I should state that I don't 'believe' this theory, but I like it better than most and it's worth discussing just to get the brain cells moving on a different path from the ETH or religious speculation.
 
I'll simplify the Trickster theory - with all due respect here to Chris, who has conducted some fine investigations:

It's religion, because it represents an appeal to a supernatural being / force.

I think the scientific box should be a lot bigger, and more open-minded - heck, I would get rid of the institutional box, but never the method (my view being that they are two separate things). In the end, I'll take the nuts and bolts, thanks.
 
I have no experiences of the paranormal, beyond the odd coincidences and some repeated peculiar dreams I had as a child of 4-5 years old. I have close friends who have had much more tricksterish experiences (a series of events capped by what parallels experiences related by John Keel when discussing some more absurd Men-in-Black encounters).

O'Brien suggested it is like a 3-year old who whacks his sister with a baseball bat and then wonders what he did wrong. The self-aware thing is more of a reach for me, but discussed by Chris O'Brien and as such I think needed inclusion. To me it makes more sense if the 'force' simply reflects/distorts human thought/consciousness rather than being self-aware.

The Observer Effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

I can't wrap my head around how the Uncertainty Principle ties in (but I'm not that sharp to begin with, so it may just be me).
 
I've been interested in this for a bit now, and thought I'd try and summarize it in as simple terms as I can, and get some feedback/thoughts from members here.

Trickster Theory Simplified:

It supposes there is a probably natural 'force,' like the wind, that is unconscious (though possibly becoming self-aware). It manifests itself through interaction with human consciousness.

It manifests commonly as:

* Murphy's Law
* Unusual Coincidences

It manifests more rarely:

* Paranormal Phenomena

Scientific Proof:

* The Observer Effect

It is more active in certain regions that have a history of paranormal phenomena, and is accentuated by a feedback loop effect. Whether these regions are more 'active' because of their history (and as such the cumulative effect of belief and myth on local population), or because of some geological or other reason is open to debate.

It ties in with human myths and legends; the Djinn, the Tulpas, Gods and Monsters. It would explain why in the distant past people saw gods in nature, and as we become more evolved and more technologically oriented, the form changes from gods to fairies to witches to airships to flying saucers, as discussed by Jacques Vallee among others.

It would explain the 'high weirdness' factor of much of the phenomena, the non-quantifiable data, the coincidences most researches push aside as inexplicable. For all his faults, John Keel's work is a good example of an attempt to reach, if not the truth, at least what Werner Herzog calls "the ecstatic truth."

It ties in with the occult practices, the native american traditions, the codified rituals of much of human history, supposing that if the human consciousness can -- as in the "Observer Effect" -- change the properties of a particle, it can also through some mostly untapped method access and possibly even control this unobserved 'force,' or even the fabric of the universe as we understand it. Access other dimensions, if we like string theory.

So that's it in as simple terms as I can put it -- if anybody has further thoughts on this, I'd love to add/substract to this and discuss the possibilities.

Or, perhaps it is the latest iteration of your terms list ( ...witches to airships to flying saucers to trickster). Part of me believes that this is a coping mechanism when confronted with things that are not easily categorized by the human mind. We latch onto things that are physically anomalous and thus formulate a "category" to drop all seemingly anomalous items into. This helps us cope with cultural/sociological/psychological stresses and anxieties inherently experienced when we perceive that a given scenario is radically different from our daily expectations.

As organized religion stalls (if not backslides) the time honored coping mechanism personified in the form of "God" or "God's" or "Prophets" or whatever losses effect. (obviously not for the devout or religious among you. I am talking about people with little or no religious leanings) Thus, the trickster is the next evolution of the mechanism. It in some ways is the perfect evolution. It only provides an answer and does not require dogma or personal commitment and action to be effective.

This by no means declares that there is no associated phenomenon. My idea is that once the paranormal basket is inserted into the human mind, and religion is not dominate, it is the logical storehouse for the unknown or uncertain. Since we crave broader categorization, the umbrella term "trickster" is applied.

Now, in the interests of full disclosure, I am not as well versed in this hypothesis as most of you but these are my thoughts.. or at least how they manifested this morning. :)
 
Paul,

I'm not that far off from your view in that it can't be proven either way. The lack of evidence for, say, the ETH, after this long a time though just makes me a skeptic. Not even one truly good photo? To me the nuts and bolts side often comes across just as much a religion.

As for the Trickster side - I don't buy it being an entity. But there are still issues with understanding something as universally acknowledged as gravity, too... So a force of nature that reacts to something we know exists but cannot be quantified, like consciousness. It doesn't sound that loony to me. It sounds a bit loony, but that's allright. I like things a bit off center.
 
I can't wrap my head around how the Uncertainty Principle ties in (but I'm not that sharp to begin with, so it may just be me).

I am referring to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. I have emboldened the points that could link to your view.


  1. A system is completely described by a wave function ψ, which represents an observer's knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg)
  2. The description of nature is essentially probabilistic. The probability of an event is related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function related to it. (Born rule, due to Max Born)
  3. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states the fact that it is not possible to know the values of all of the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities.
  4. Complementarity principle: matter exhibits a wave-particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or wave-like properties, but not both at the same time.(Niels Bohr)
  5. Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure classical properties such as position and momentum.
  6. The correspondence principle of Bohr and Heisenberg: the quantum mechanical description of large systems should closely approximate the classical description.

This leaves some room for high-strangeness without the need for religion. IMHO
Point 5 particularly, could explain why some phenomena, that some need to call paranormal, religious, metawhatever, might never be measured.

Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Paul,

I'm not that far off from your view in that it can't be proven either way. The lack of evidence for, say, the ETH, after this long a time though just makes me a skeptic. Not even one truly good photo? To me the nuts and bolts side often comes across just as much a religion.

As for the Trickster side - I don't buy it being an entity. But there are still issues with understanding something as universally acknowledged as gravity, too... So a force of nature that reacts to something we know exists but cannot be quantified, like consciousness. It doesn't sound that loony to me. It sounds a bit loony, but that's allright. I like things a bit off center.

I've been critical at times of the lack of photographic evidence, but I don't think that rules out the ETH at all. After all, we don't have a whole lot of photos of our own most advanced and secret aircraft, do we? The best UFO cases for me are the ones that involve the military, usually because they include multiple sources of data, for example combining ELINT, radar and eyewitness accounts (RB47 cases). None of those speak to a "Trickster-like" entity.
 
Ron and Paul,

I honestly hate not having a strong obnoxious viewpoint, instead of my "you could be right, I could be right, who knows and I don't think I'll ever know for sure" schtick. But given that I like the agnostic view in almost everything in life, I'm stuck with my own uncertain principles.

Which brings to me to Ron's point: "It only provides an answer and does not require dogma or personal commitment and action to be effective."

True, and as I get older and mortality peeks with its ugly little ass the more I start wondering about the nature of the beast. I used to be a 'dirt in the ground' person who just thought there are things we have not yet understood but will one day. Now I'm less sure of that, but aware that it may be a coping mechanism to impending death (especially since I don't believe I'll be sitting on a cloud or being dried on a hot plate afterwards).

Yet I've always felt (damn the evidence) there is more to the universe than we will ever understand. I trust that people experience anomalous phenomena (I haven't, properly speaking). Some of it defies rational/logical thought. I've never felt (there I go again) that the ETH or any other explanation covers as much ground as this one does.

"After all, we don't have a whole lot of photos of our own most advanced and secret aircraft, do we? The best UFO cases for me are the ones that involve the military, usually because they include multiple sources of data, for example combining ELINT, radar and eyewitness accounts (RB47 cases). None of those speak to a "Trickster-like" entity."

I don't think there is any reason to have just one explanation to all this (I know, I like having my cake and eating it, too). I like the string-theory and how it brings back the old science fiction chestnut of multiple dimensions (which seems slightly more likely than traveling across the galaxies).

I liked the 'trickster' speculation when I read Keel and Vallee years ago (maybe partially because they were fine writers who could tell a compelling story), and I like how O'Brien ties a lot of threads under the umbrella. It has holes, but I always liked a little rain.

P.S. You can always consider my musings as preparatory material for a self-published novel.
 
Ron and Paul,

I honestly hate not having a strong obnoxious viewpoint, instead of my "you could be right, I could be right, who knows and I don't think I'll ever know for sure" schtick. But given that I like the agnostic view in almost everything in life, I'm stuck with my own uncertain principles.

Which brings to me to Ron's point: "It only provides an answer and does not require dogma or personal commitment and action to be effective."

True, and as I get older and mortality peeks with its ugly little ass the more I start wondering about the nature of the beast. I used to be a 'dirt in the ground' person who just thought there are things we have not yet understood but will one day. Now I'm less sure of that, but aware that it may be a coping mechanism to impending death (especially since I don't believe I'll be sitting on a cloud or being dried on a hot plate afterwards).

Yet I've always felt (damn the evidence) there is more to the universe than we will ever understand. I trust that people experience anomalous phenomena (I haven't, properly speaking). Some of it defies rational/logical thought. I've never felt (there I go again) that the ETH or any other explanation covers as much ground as this one does.

"After all, we don't have a whole lot of photos of our own most advanced and secret aircraft, do we? The best UFO cases for me are the ones that involve the military, usually because they include multiple sources of data, for example combining ELINT, radar and eyewitness accounts (RB47 cases). None of those speak to a "Trickster-like" entity."

I don't think there is any reason to have just one explanation to all this (I know, I like having my cake and eating it, too). I like the string-theory and how it brings back the old science fiction chestnut of multiple dimensions (which seems slightly more likely than traveling across the galaxies).

I liked the 'trickster' speculation when I read Keel and Vallee years ago (maybe partially because they were fine writers who could tell a compelling story), and I like how O'Brien ties a lot of threads under the umbrella. It has holes, but I always liked a little rain.

P.S. You can always consider my musings as preparatory material for a self-published novel.

Hey, I'm an agnostic as well. My problem with Chris and the Trickster is that from how I hear it, he is asserting that it's the answer, which isn't agnosticism - it's belief... and it's a belief that I have no doubt is wholly unfounded in anything other than, well, belief. ;)
 
I'm not a huge fan of the Trickster idea, but find some aspects appealing. It seems to add greater layers of complexity than I suspect we need. Using myth and religious texts to somehow validate or add credibility to the notion is approaching meaningless in my opinion. We can choose any themes, characters or events from these old passages and interpret them through modern thought processes. What's to stop us applying the same cherry-picking approach to modern fiction? Harry Potter and Lords of the Rings share similar archetypes to figures in the Quran, Bible and international folklore. The archetypes are there, embedded in human consciousness, but does that mean they represent anything more substantial?

I prefer the analyses/discussions of Joseph Campbell as he draws our attention to ingrained archetypes. He (amongst many others) points out familiar figures (example Wise Man = Obi Wan, Gandalf, Dumbledore, Moses, Merlin, Solomon etc) that are still unavoidable in fiction today. This indicates a psychological origin. It shows, to me, these texts are products human imagination woven into actual events. In that light, the Djinn, Loki, Bugs Bunny and Pan aren't real beings....they're aspects of human consciousness.

The suggestion that they have somehow became tulpas doesn't appeal to me either. That UFOs are thought projections requires increasingly tangled concepts. Certainly more than speculating on a physical craft or object.

I think that sometimes we hit the wall in ufology and the paranormal. We reach the extent of our imaginations and ability to make sense of this frustrating arena. At this point, it's tempting to attribute the solution of the mystery to this construct called 'Trickster.' It's similar to Isaac Newton 'hitting the wall' after identifying planetary mechanics, he couldn't conceive that life was anything but divine creation. Is the Trickster greatly different in concept to the thinking behind Intelligent Design?

I err towards nuts and bolts, physical explanations for the mysteries and intrigues of Ufology and the paranormal. Mutilated cattle have been physically damaged and killed. *Some* UFOs leave physical trace evidence and radar paints. They are often described as solid physical craft. I honestly hate to drag out a cliché, but it's possible we're dealing with something so advanced it appears paranormal or magical. Although I'm attracted to nuts and bolts, it's anyone's guess where they come from.

I have to add that I enjoy listening to most of the ideas put forward by researchers and forum members. We don't have enough data to rule many ideas out and the discussion leads to more ideas...sometimes better. So despite the nuts and bolts having more appeal to my senses, the trickster concept remains interesting.
 
justcurious, thanks for the clarification, though I think I may need Heisenberg for Dummies. I'm not all that scientifically learned (surprising, I know :rolleyes:) and always have a hard time grasping theoretical concepts.

It reads close to how I grasp the Observer Effect, which is essentially a scientific observation of the old philosophical riddle "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound unless there is somebody to witness it."

The observer effect (far as I can grasp it, which isn't very far) suggests that the universe performs differently when you are aware of it. And I *think* this has been proven by the scientific method. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be corrected.
 
I don't rule out the concept of a "closed system" intelligence (call it The Trickster, or God, or whatever) that may interact with us. I just don't see how that explains UFO sightings of what appear to be structured craft, under intelligent control, that can be tracked on radar. Apples and oranges to me - the former belongs in a comparative religions or folklore class, and the latter in a science class.
 
I don't rule out the concept of a "closed system" intelligence (call it The Trickster, or God, or whatever) that may interact with us. I just don't see how that explains UFO sightings of what appear to be structured craft, under intelligent control, that can be tracked on radar. Apples and oranges to me - the former belongs in a comparative religions or folklore class, and the latter in a science class.

That is precisely how I feel. This is why I always want facts and figures when speaking about UFO's in addition to observational data. The observable characteristics separate them from the mystical. This is also why I am so fundamentally resistive to linking the abduction phenomenon and "high strangeness" with the physical presence of UFO's.
 
That is precisely how I feel. This is why I always want facts and figures when speaking about UFO's in addition to observational data. The observable characteristics separate them from the mystical. This is also why I am so fundamentally resistive to linking the abduction phenomenon and "high strangeness" with the physical presence of UFO's.

I agree. Don't get me wrong, however - there is no harm in Chris' speculation. Just don't expect me to accept it as gospel. :D
 
Paul,

I'm sure you know Chris better than I do -- I'm going on from several of his interviews, and I haven't read the book. But unlike, say, Childress who stated a lot of things nonchalantly as fact (it was entertaining, in a radio train wreck kind of way), O'Brien doesn't come off as a believer. I read some of it as overreaching for effect, but even that material is interesting as a thought experiment. I may be wrong, but I guess what you (or me) take from it is what matters. What do you think of Vallee's Magonia material?

But as I mentioned in another thread, I wonder if some of this comes from the differences between a left and right brain approach to the inexplicable. You can't quantify the intuitive/organic approach (arts/religion) but you shouldn't (to my mind) stick to the rigorous sci/math approach either. There must be a balance somewhere in between.

As for the radar tracking, yes, I have issues tying that with a natural force. But I don't view any of this as either/or or black/white (though not specifically as gray, either *grin*<grin>).</grin>
 
I wonder if some of this comes from the differences between a left and right brain approach to the inexplicable. There must be a balance somewhere in between.

I am totally with you on this.
With only one leg you're hopping, with only one brain you're hoping...
:rolleyes:
 
Justcurious,

Oddly enough, I hadn't noticed your discussing this very issue on the other thread. I've been catching up on past paracasts and related pods, and though I don't 100% agree with the trickster theory (if there ever is one I commit to 100%, feel free to commit me to a suitable institution), it leaves room for speculation and O'Brien doesn't claim (from what I've heard so far) it to be 'true.' Unlike, say, Imbrogno and his Djinn stories.

I enjoy hearing the Djinn (and related) stories, but when P.I. states he 'believes' there are physical creatures without having encountered one, and relates other unconfirmed and far-fetched stories, I start hesitating and backing away (latest interview on dreaded C2C). I'll take speculation over belief every single time.
 
Back
Top