Despite hearing about incidents of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and even congressional hearings on the matter, as well as claims of alien abductions, discussion about extraterrestrial beings is not a common topic in everyday life. It seems like a taboo subject, or one that may invite mockery. In response to this phenomenon, psychologists have provided detailed explanations.
American psychologist and author Jennice Vilhauer wrote in Psychology Today that the recent documentary “The Age of Disclosure” has gathered testimonies and information on UFOs from dozens of current and former US government officials, revealing shocking findings.
These officials described numerous unexplained sightings of aircraft, debris from crashes that allegedly do not match known human technology, and remains of non-human beings. All of this points to one conclusion – humans are not the only form of life in the universe.
If it were any other topic with such significant implications, it would have been a common subject of discussion and analysis by experts and opinion leaders online. However, surprisingly, people remain silent on this issue, with some outright refusing to acknowledge or discuss it.
The question arises, why is this potentially one of humanity’s greatest discoveries rarely talked about? Vilhauer suggests several reasons:
1. Humans do not neutrally process information. We absorb information through existing cognitive perspectives, shaped by our self-identity and worldview, thus assigning personal meaning to the information we receive.
2. Views challenging basic assumptions such as human uniqueness, technological limitations, or institutional transparency are not just new facts. They shake the psychological framework that gives people a sense of security.
3. This leads to cognitive dissonance, causing discomfort when new information conflicts with deeply held beliefs. When cognitive dissonance is too strong, people often choose to ignore the information rather than updating their beliefs.
Ignoring such topics is a way for individuals to regulate their emotions.
For decades, curiosity about UFOs or non-human intelligent life has been culturally dismissed as unserious or fringe behavior. Even as government agencies start official discussions, these negative perceptions persist.
Many individuals might privately feel curious about such issues but also fear appearing foolish, gullible, or extreme. Psychologists term this phenomenon as normative social influence, where individuals tend to align their beliefs and behavior with socially accepted norms.
Prior to broader discussions on non-human intelligent life and spacecraft, regardless of private thoughts, maintaining silence is a way to uphold personal reputation and societal status.
Uncertainty is also a factor.
The disclosed UFO information currently lacks definitive conclusions. It raises profound questions without providing answers. For many, ambiguity can be deeply unsettling.
People’s thinking tends to favor coherent narratives, even with flaws, over unresolved complexities. When answers are incomplete, individuals often opt for avoidance rather than continued engagement.
In other words, the challenge is not just the information itself but the lack of clear answers on how to process it.
Another easily understood reason is cognitive overload.
We live in a perpetual state of mental saturation, where the brain must handle various threats, complex situations, and novel scenarios, already operating at max capacity.
When emotionally charged new information feels abstract and lacks clear action directives, it tends to be deprioritized. From a neurological perspective, the brain leans towards addressing immediate, solvable issues.
Existential questions, especially those without obvious personal consequences, can be indefinitely postponed.
If humans are not the only form of life in the universe, it challenges long-held beliefs about self-meaning, control, power, and the role as a dominant species. These questions touch on religion, death, and humanity’s place in the cosmos.
For many, the scale of this existential impact is too vast to process immediately. Avoidance might serve as a form of self-preservation.
Vilhauer concludes that history shows that disruptive ideas are seldom immediately accepted. They often face resistance and disdain, only becoming normalized after people have had time to adapt psychologically.
The public’s tepid response to the UFO issue reveals a facet of human nature – we often resist new ideas not because we do not understand them, but because emotional change is difficult.