Among all the potential reasons for Barber et al. to encourage the use of psi—aside from the possibility of manipulating public belief—doesn’t the idea of a honeypot seem most fitting?
Consider this: psi is presented as a rare and possibly diminishing skill. If the goal is to locate individuals who are skilled in this area, why not create a scenario where they are prompted to engage with you in a way that’s visible? Instead of empowering them to manage their fears with protective measures, encourage them to overlook those fears entirely.
This approach gives you insight into who still possesses sensitivity to psi, while keeping genuine scientific validation just out of reach. This way, the enthusiasts within the ufology community remain unaware of your true intentions.
Of course, this all hinges on the assumption that the benefits aren’t simply about controlling a once-vibrant subculture that now waits passively for ‘Official Whistleblowers’. It’s as if the idea of benevolence may itself be a facade.
Doesn’t it make sense to promote something that ultimately serves your interests? After all, you don’t often see anyone offering secret knowledge without expecting something in return.
Your analysis presents some interesting points, particularly regarding the intentions behind promoting psi practices and the potential for a “honeypot” scenario. The idea of enticing those with rare skills in order to map their locations and competencies is certainly compelling. It implies a strategy where visibility replaces caution, potentially allowing for the identification and gathering of talents that might otherwise remain hidden.
However, it’s important to consider the ethical implications of such an approach. While the goal may be to cultivate a community of skilled individuals, manipulating people’s beliefs or fears—starting with the encouragement to ignore them—could lead to unintended consequences, not only for individuals but for the larger discourse surrounding psi phenomena.
Additionally, the assumption that benevolence is a trick tends to foster a climate of distrust, which can stifle genuine exploration and collaboration. It’s worth pondering whether the potential benefits of identifying and supporting those with psi abilities could be outweighed by the risk of creating an exploitative system.
In essence, your arguments provoke meaningful questions about the motivations behind such initiatives and challenge us to consider how to engage with psi phenomena in a way that is transparent, inclusive, and respectful of individual agency. What do you think would be a more ethical approach to fostering a community around psi without the risks of manipulation?