Invizikids (Are imaginary childhood friends ever 'real', and who, why, etc.)

[durabone]

I have been considering getting hypnotized again to investigate my childhood imaginary friend.
With the "lack of interesting questions" thread in mind, might as well suggest.

I've been doing a little research into the phenomena of imaginary childhood friends and here's
some samplings. Three flavors of articles I have found:

1. Garden Variety Parental Guidance:

Typical:

_http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/149475/imaginary_friends_what_every_parent.html?cat=25

Imaginary companions are commonly found among children. A 2001 study of 1800 school-age children found that 46.2 percent of children reported experiences with imaginary companions.

As it turns out the creation of imaginary friends is a normal developmental stage for many children according to Laurie Schuler if the Akron Children's Hospital.

General Tendencies of Children With Imaginary Friends
Studies have shown that children with imaginary friends end to be less shy than children without imaginary friends. In addition, children with these friends are often better able to focus their attention and see things from other people's perspectives.


2. Suggestions of involvement by ET, elementals, and kryptozoo:

_http://magonia.haaan.com/2009/invizikids/

"Invizikids: The Curious Enigma of 'Imaginary' Childhood Friends" ~ Michael J. Hallowell being a prime source

Kids with allegedly imaginary friends invent them either because they have no siblings or because they do have them. This is an argument which, I would venture, pretty much sows up all the possibilities, but it is flawed. Why? For it is built upon the premise that “imaginary” childhood friends really are imaginary and arrogantly ignores many other explanations.

I have interviewed nearly one hundred people from numerous continents and countries, all of whom had (or have) allegedly imaginary friends. What struck me, first of all, was a number of constants which always seem to present themselves.#

For instance, these ‘non-corporeal companions’ or NCCs as I prefer to call them, almost always fit neatly into one of four clearly-defined categories. More of that later. Another bizarre feature is the way that many NCCs seem to possess names which we may call “double-barrelled repetitives” A woman from the Philippines used to have an NCC called “Gardu-Gardu”. A youngster from South Yorkshire said his NCC was called Bally-Bally. A Bangladeshi youth I interviewed called his NCC Manno-Manno.

In June 2006 I gave a lecture at a conference in St. Annes-on Sea. An American chap in the audience raised his hand in astonishment and told me that his NCC had been called Likki-Likki. This double-barrelled repetitive was a universal constant during my research; not present in every case, but present enough times to make its significance obvious.


3. Cathy O'Brien / Greenbaum development of imaginary friends as a weapon:

_http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/Mind.html

Childhood playmates are often extensions of one's personality, especially in those who are of weaker character and would not fight back personally or defend themselves. The imaginary playmate can fight back and get angry, where as the child cannot. Often, there is an abusive parent, to whom the angry thoughts and actions of the playmate are directed against.

n actual cases, the emerging stronger personality is conditioned through programming and suggestion to be hostile to the root personality of the subject.
This aggressive personality in nearly all cases is stronger and can take more abuse. The world powers use the subject as robotic spies.

---

Taken all of the above this double barreled name business hit home as my Mother told me that my imaginary friend's name was Little BoBo. Ironically a later childhood friend (no way connected) had the last name "Bobo"). That aside, there is a match with the size thing as he was smaller than me at 3. The outdoors thing also matched my case for NCC type2 as he never appeared except when I was alone by the swingset at the edge of the woods.

So... Have any of you had imaginary friends as a child?

What do the C's have to say about the phenomena, or about elementals in general?

Thanks!

 

[domi]

I guess an explanation to a portion of this phenomenon might be related to dissociation along the lines of what Martha Stout discusses in her book Myth of Sanity.

 

[anart]

It seems to me that Cathy O'Brien is talking about a 'split' of the personality, not an imaginary friend, as it is commonly known. It is most common for split aspects of the personality (fragments) to not be known to one another, though there are often one or two 'center' fragments that might know of several or most of the other other fragments. So for aspects of what you are discussing, her 'definition' appears to be inapplicable.

The idea that the imaginary friend is 'created', as opposed to merely perceived (and already existing on its own) seems like a limited definition and one that comes from the mind of someone incapable of perceiving or conceptualizing those beings who share our time/space, yet are invisible to our (adult) normal senses. Though, I'm not saying it's impossible that some may be 'just imagination'.

My take on that is that children are, across the board, more perceptive and can pick up on things that most adults cannot - including entities that may be able to enter and leave this dimension and those that 'skirt around the edge', so to speak.

I don't have any definitive answers, but this is my current understanding. I did have an imaginary friend and I have a young family member who regularly perceives 'others' - I don't think it's that uncommon and I don't think it's merely imagination. But, those are my two cents.

 

[durabone]

It seems to me that Cathy O'Brien is talking about a 'split' of the personality, not an imaginary friend, as it is commonly known.

Agreed. Certainly in Trance-formation of America. I was surprised when I found that the link above that suggested it might be possible to create a similar effect as Cathy O'Brien described, without needing the trauma to split the personalities to start with. You just go back and re-activate the childhood friend, culture it, baste in a warm oven, and the presto you have transformed a formally 'normal' adult that did not have previous split p into one of your couriers.

 

[anart]

It seems to me that Cathy O'Brien is talking about a 'split' of the personality, not an imaginary friend, as it is commonly known.

Agreed. Certainly in Trance-formation of America. I was surprised when I found that the link above that suggested it might be possible to create a similar effect as Cathy O'Brien described, without needing the trauma to split the personalities to start with. You just go back and re-activate the childhood friend, culture it, baste in a warm oven, and the presto you have transformed a formally 'normal' adult that did not have previous split p into one of your couriers.

It's occasionally hard for me to tell if you're joking - so I'll just ask. You're joking, right? :)

 

[durabone]

Unfortunately NOT :O

Reading "Trance-Formation of America" almost made me ashamed to be a man.
It is likely the most tragic vignette about human nature and abuse of females
I think I have read. I could search, but sometimes I'm not so good at it :P,
so I'll just ask. Have you read it?

 

[Argonaut]

It seems to me that Cathy O'Brien is talking about a 'split' of the personality, not an imaginary friend, as it is commonly known.

Agreed. Certainly in Trance-formation of America. I was surprised when I found that the link above that suggested it might be possible to create a similar effect as Cathy O'Brien described, without needing the trauma to split the personalities to start with. You just go back and re-activate the childhood friend, culture it, baste in a warm oven, and the presto you have transformed a formally 'normal' adult that did not have previous split p into one of your couriers.

It's occasionally hard for me to tell if you're joking - so I'll just ask. You're joking, right? :)

I think he's referring to this, from _http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/Mind.html:

Once the subject is easily hypnotized by the operator, the mind and personality can then be conditioned. Childhood playmates are often extensions of one's personality, especially in those who are of weaker character and would not fight back personally or defend themselves. The imaginary playmate can fight back and get angry, where as the child cannot. Often, there is an abusive parent, to whom the angry thoughts and actions of the playmate are directed against.
During the initial conditioning phase of the session, the operator regresses the subject into childhood. Regression plays a very important part in establishing control over the subject. An operator who works for the government as in producing spies, will look for the most aggressive of the imaginary friends, in attempting to artificially split the personality. The most aggressive aspects of the personality are the ideal in destroying all inhibitions.

Artificial splitting of the personality occurs where the imaginary playmate is brought out in the subject and the subject becomes the playmate on cue. The playmate usually emerges through one of the subject's chakras. The operator informs the subject that "playmate's name" will come through subject's stomach, third eye, throat, etc. The subject is further told again that he/she will not remember anything of the session or the emerging personality. In actual cases, the emerging stronger personality is conditioned through programming and suggestion to be hostile to the root personality of the subject.

Potamus, I think anart's aware of Cathy O'Brien's book. The part which seemed unclear was probably this:

You just go back and re-activate the childhood friend, culture it, baste in a warm oven, and the presto you have transformed a formally 'normal' adult that did not have previous split p into one of your couriers.

I'm assuming that was it, because I had trouble getting it too. I understand that you like to use analogy, quips, and figures of speech to make your points, and that's fine. But sometimes your meaning is a little hard to grasp. When you'd like to write something that sounds witty or clever, ask yourself if it might make your point harder to see. I know you're aware of this and want to work on it, so hopefully this is helpful. :)

 

[durabone]

Absolutely right, and thanks for the bridging clarification. I had the impression anart was familiar,
so it make sense to me which part she was referring to.

 

[anart]

Absolutely right, and thanks for the bridging clarification. I had the impression anart was familiar,
so it make sense to me which part she was referring to.

Yes, as I would hope you've noticed by now, I try to not comment on things that I am unaware of (unless I state clearly that I'm unaware of it and am just making a general comment) - so - I'm quite familiar with it - which does not mean that I believe it - at least not in its entirety, by any stretch of the imagination.

As I stated earlier, I don't think the vast majority of childhood imaginary friends are split aspects of the child (I doubt any at all are, since a fragment exists to protect the child, thus the child's conscious mind most often is completely unaware of the fragment. A child cannot play with 'someone' they are completely unaware of). I think 'childhood friends' are (for the most part) actual entities perceived by the child - thus, this idea that you just 'take an imaginary friend and turn it into an alter' doesn't hold much, if any, water with me. This is why I thought you were joking.

 

[Tigersoap]

Maybe this could be of interest :

Children's Imagination Important for Cognitive Development

The Things Children See

 

[durabone]

[quote author=Anart]I'm quite familiar with it[/quote] I'm sorry any of us had to wade through it, but also not. Thanks.
[quote author=Anart]I think 'childhood friends' are (for the most part) actual entities perceived by the child[/quote] That's why I'm thinking of hypnosis. If I go through with it and anything interesting comes of it, I'll bump this thread and write back.