UFO Disclosure vs. Inclosure Psychology
Friday May 31, 2019
Being once again in a UFO mood, I’ve been enjoying Tom Dolan’s Youtube channel. It’s kinda fun. I’m also listening to his audio book, A.D., After Disclosure.
Above: Tom Dolan, ANALYZING THE US NAVY DISCLOSURE on Youtube
For the moment, “we” are more serious about UFOs as a world culture, so why not jump in and explore.
In terms of personality type, Dolan strikes me as an ISFP, though that’s mostly via experiences with other people who look, act, and talk in a similar way. Intuition based on past experience in this way can sometimes be faulty or flat-out wrong.
Regardless of his personality type, his psychology is really far on the “Disclosure” side (maybe it’s obvious, looking at the title of his book, above) of what I’d call an “Inclosure-Disclosure Dichotomy” :
Principles of Inclosure
- Think about, discuss, and celebrate the past
- Find new ways to contextualize and model the past
- File Away Information
- Bring the past forward: Persistence of Memory
Principles of Disclosure
- Think about, discuss, and celebrate new and future events
- Find new ways to contextualize and model new and future events
- Open New Files
- Bring the future into the present: Persistence of Insight
An Inclosure-minded individual or group would tend to want to ignore new or paradigm-shifting information about UFOs or extraterrestrials. These topics won’t last long at the dinner table, but that also means that dinner can be enjoyed as usual, with no huge surprises.
A Disclosure-minded individual would tend to want to bring out, or highlight, new or paradigm-shifting information about UFOs or extraterrestrials. This person will tend to err on the side of open, fun, or novel interpretations, so there is a risk of horrendous misjudgment, if perception does not take into account security or other reasonable e.g. contingency concerns.
In general, I find that INTJs are Disclosure-oriented, though mostly in the sense of others’ stuff being disclosed, and not so much our own. :-) Faced with the choice between the two options, sure, let’s go Disclosure, however let’s also emphasize our favored mental program of having some kind of an ace in our sleeve. Usually this would be techno-social: Get people off-planet, or get some orbital weapons platforms facing outward, or dig up those old alien autopsy reports and start figuring out vulnerabilities stat.
Even without an ace however, this Disclosure psychology gives us INTJs a potential leg up in dealing with new information as it comes in, and in preparing for important changes. As the U.S. Navy (per the video above) and other organizations start to apply a Disclosure-oriented mindset toward UAPs and UFOs, a lot of new mental models are going to be created. Many of those models will leak vital information about their designers’ intent and perspectives.
I’m excited about these new mental models for that reason: Analyzing the models themselves will allow the general public, people like us, to foresee a little bit more, to get a bit more meta, to zoom out, and if needed, to help create superior mental models when too much Inclosure psychology starts to push us to “close the book and file away” dynamic and potentially promising information.
Looking into Skeptics
Looking around for differing viewpoints, I’m seeing similar patterns of perception and judgment between A) UFO skeptics and B) religious apologists. I’m not saying this makes either group wrong, but the psychology is usually extremely Inclosure-friendly. In such a brittle thinking environment, it’s easy to step beyond one’s bounds.
One model that has helped me here is the understanding that nuance alone communicates a lot about one’s education on a topic. When a skeptic goes nuclear about something, that alone is kind of a sign—why are they so tense about this; why so frustrated? Maybe it’s nothing, or normal, but maybe it’s also a sign that they themselves are being pushed to an uncomfortable zone, a place they’ve never been before.
1. In terms of Jungian cognitive function, there is some overlap here between functions like Si, Se, Ni, and Ne, but in my opinion the “potential leverage vs. learning-curve risk” factor of stretching the model in this way makes it less attractive.