debunking the ideomotor effect...

**bfpri** · May23-06, 03:46 PM

I have heard that there have been research done with a controlled experiment that the answers the ouija board gives back is not always random letters. Do you have a site or something for this?

**Tojen** · May24-06, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by bfpri

I have heard that there have been research done with a controlled experiment that the answers the ouija board gives back is not always random letters.

I asked my ouija board about that. It said, "Csrkls'tika'dkjgjhaisieoit'a'ejgj."

May24-06, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by bfpri

I have heard that there have been research done with a controlled experiment that the answers the ouija board gives back is not always random letters. Do you have a site or something for this?

The first letters may be random. After two or three letters, the participants try unconsciously to form words. The ideomotor effect does the rest.
The only way to do a controlled experiment is to have all people that touch the cursor to be blindfolded and independent persons noting the letters. In this way, if intelligible words are formed we may assume that perhaps there is some ESP taking effect.

~~PIT2~~ · May24-06, 04:57 PM

Unless they have a mindmap of the layout of the board (like a blindfolded person may still type properly on a keyboard). A better test would be to ask the participants a question to which they dont know the answer, but the ouija ghost does.

**Tojen** · May24-06, 06:17 PM

Facilitated Communication, a technique for supposedly helping autistics to
communicate, shows how the ideomotor effect works and how dangerous it can be.

--Hannah, whose speech was limited to snatches of songs, echoed dialogue and unintelligible utterances, is profoundly autistic, and doctors thought she was most likely retarded.

But on that October day, after she was introduced to the use of a
specialized computer keyboard, Hannah proved them wrong. "Is there anything you'd like to say, Hannah?" asked Marilyn Chadwick, director of training at the Facilitated Communication Institute at Syracuse University.

With Chadwick helping to stabilize her right wrist and her mother watching, girl thought to be incapable of learning to read or write slowly typed, "I llove Mom." (via Time and CNN)

--Facilitated Communication seems to be more like a Ouija board (the ideomotor effect): if only through unconscious influence, the facilitators are often writing down thoughts in their own heads, the words that the observing parents might wish to see (such as, well, "I love Mom.")

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?titl...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Reuters - A top judge on Wednesday cleared a British businessman of
abusing his severely mentally handicapped son and dismissed evidence gained
from a psychological aid which has been likened to a ouija board.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss slammed the technique which led to
accusations that the 50-year-old Briton had abused his 17-year-old son, who
has a mental age of under two years.
A technique developed in Australia and known as facilitated
communication was “dangerous” and should not be used by British courts to
support or dismiss allegations of abuse, said Butler-Sloss.
She said the teenager, who suffers from autism, epilepsy and cannot
speak, was last year questioned by a worker at his residential unit using
facilitated communication techniques.
The “facilitator” supports the arm of the person with communication
difficulties as they spell out a message on a card with a standard
typewriter lay-out and the words “Yes” and “No” on it.

http://list.feat.org/wa.exe?A2=ind00...eatnews&P=1491

**Curious3141** · Jun17-06, 07:24 AM

In addition to PIT's suggestion about asking tough questions, it would be a simple measure to randomise the order of the symbols on the OB. The blindfolded participants can never see the board.

**Canute** · Jul7-06, 07:50 AM

Quite. If the selection of letters is due to the ideomoter effect then it should be very easy to demonstrate this. Strangely, however, it has not been demonstrated. I've participated in many sessions - with a wine glass and letters in a circle - and have no idea why sentences come out rather than gibberish. However, it is clear to me that chanting 'ideomoter effect' whenever someone raises this issue is not science but quackery. Only someone who has little experience of doing it could believe this. It is quite easy to rule out this explanation, since it would require that the participants are able to manipulate the glass. This requires the application of pressure on the glass. If you do it with just two people it is very obvious if either of you is applying such pressure. Even if you do it yourself inadvertently the other person will spot it.

On one occasion, just myself and my mother present, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, this was the name the glass spelled out, came on with the message that 'the only way to eternal life is through holy communion'. Some ideomoter effect for two non-Christians. Try spelling out this message on purpose without it being perfectly obvious what you're doing. At the time I thought this message was complete nonsense. However, at the time I thought it refered to the wafer and wine ceremony, and hadn't heard of the communion of the mystics.

On another occasion, for four days in a row, the glass claimed to be James Joyce. A few friends had been 'talking to him' for a while. When I asked to join he told me to **** off, which I felt lent some authenticity to the events. After it/he changed his mind I joined in. Usually the movement is very weak. In this case every now and again the glass would take off round the table at breakneck speed and knock all the letters onto the floor. It was a right pain in the neck continually sorting them out again. We tried many times to recreate this movement intentionally but could not do it. The glass would just tip over when pushed from the top with such vigour.

I make no claims about what is actually happening and do not believe in supernatural occurences. I assume it is a natural phenomenon. However, imho it is about time scientists explained it since it is very easy to replicate experimentally. But all they do is chant 'ideomoter effect', as if that's the end of the matter. But I want to know the answer to this conundrum and will not accept an implausible and unproven guess.

**Aether** · Jul7-06, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Canute

However, imho it is about time scientists explained it since it is very easy to replicate experimentally.

Why don't you videotape one of these events, and post it on a website so that we can see what you're describing first hand?

**Evo** · Jul7-06, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Canute

I make no claims about what is actually happening and do not believe in supernatural occurences. I assume it is a natural phenomenon. However, imho it is about time scientists explained it since it is very easy to replicate experimentally. But all they do is chant 'ideomoter effect', as if that's the end of the matter. But I want to know the answer to this conundrum and will not accept an implausible and unproven guess.

How many times have you done this blindfolded and completely unaware of the positioning of the letters? If you get the same results without being able to see the board, then you have something worth looking into. Try it and let us know what happens.

**Canute** · Jul8-06, 07:51 AM

I haven't tried this, and anyway don't do it at all any more. It might be interesting to try, but fairly pointless. Whatever the result it would prove nothing about the ideomoteor effect. In any case, it's not my job to figure this stuff out, at least not without a research grant. I don't have a view on what is happening, other than that the ideomotor effect does not explain it. I find it hard to believe that it is possible for the dead to communicate with living, so maybe it's group telekenesis. I have no idea, but do get bored with pseudo-scientific explanations based on received opinions and a lack of research.

There is no need for video evidence by the way, anybody can do the experiments for themselves. Sometimes one sits for a long time and nothing happens, but in my experience something happens more often than not.

**Aether** · Jul8-06, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Canute

There is no need for video evidence by the way, anybody can do the experiments for themselves.

Let's suppose that "anybody can do the experiments for themselves" and get results that are consistent with ideomotor effect as described here.

Sometimes one sits for a long time and nothing happens, but in my experience something happens more often than not.

When you say that "in my experience something happens more often than not", do you mean that something not explainable as ideomotor effect happens more often than not? If so, then video evidence of such a thing would be useful.

**Canute** · Jul9-06, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Aether

Let's suppose that "anybody can do the experiments for themselves" and get results that are consistent with ideomotor effect as described.

Why would anyone suppose this? The idea would be to prove it, not suppose it.

When you say that "in my experience something happens more often than not", do you mean that something not explainable as ideomotor effect happens more often than not? If so, then video evidence of such a thing would be useful.

I think from a video it would not be possible to tell whether the participants were cheating or unconsciously moving the glass. A live experiment with the researchers participating would be much better.

The ideomoter effect is not an explanation for my experiences in my opinion. For a start, one would expect the ideomotorised movements of the participants to conflict with each other, not to produce lengthy and meaningful messages. I suppose there may be some sort of unifying force at work, where all these movements are somehow resolved into a group effect but this implausible to me, and there is no evidence for it that I know. How would we explain how the ideomotor effect operating independently on, say, five people, produces just one coherent sentence? We would have to assume that they all had the same sentence in mind (unconsciously) right at the beginning of the sentence. Either that, or they each adjusted the sentence independently as it unfolded. But in this latter case, most sentence would trail off into nonsense. If five people, acting independently deliberately try to cheat and create sentences on purpose nothing but havoc is the result as they all try to impose their will.

Btw I'm not arguing that science is nonsense, rather that scientists are sometimes unprofessionally quick to ignore anomalies which cast doubt on their paradigm. Nor am I arguing that the i-effect is not the explanation for many other so called psychic or paranormal phenomena.

Canute

**Aether** · Jul9-06, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Canute

Why would anyone suppose this? The idea would be to prove it, not suppose it.

In post #7 you claimed that

In this case every now and again the glass would take off round the table at breakneck speed and knock all the letters onto the floor. It was a right pain in the neck continually sorting them out again. We tried many times to recreate this movement intentionally but could not do it. The glass would just tip over when pushed from the top with such vigour.

You seem to be claiming to have witnessed something that cannot be explained by the ideomotor effect nor as a voluntary act of any of the participants. I can't tell by your statement that "in my experience something happens more often than not" whether you mean something along the lines of "my wine glass claims to be James Joyce and cusses me out more often than not", or "my wine glass takes off around the table on its own more often than not". So, please answer my question: "When you say that "in my experience something happens more often than not", do you mean that something not explainable as ideomotor effect happens more often than not? If so, then video evidence of such a thing would be useful."

I think from a video it would not be possible to tell whether the participants were cheating or unconsciously moving the glass.

That isn't why I asked you for a video. What I want to see on a video is evidence of inanimate objects moving around on their own with no possible way that any of the participants could have induced the motion either by ideomotor effect or voluntarily.

A live experiment with the researchers participating would be much better.

The ideomoter effect is not an explanation for my experiences in my opinion. For a start, one would expect the ideomotorised movements of the participants to conflict with each other, not to produce lengthy and meaningful messages. I suppose there may be some sort of unifying force at work, where all these movements are somehow resolved into a group effect but this implausible to me, and there is no evidence for it that I know. How would we explain how the ideomotor effect operating independently on, say, five people, produces just one coherent sentence? We would have to assume that they all had the same sentence in mind (unconsciously) right at the beginning of the sentence. Either that, or they each adjusted the sentence independently as it unfolded. But in this latter case, most sentence would trail off into nonsense. If five people, acting independently deliberately try to cheat and create sentences on purpose nothing but havoc is the result as they all try to impose their will.

You seem to be focused on the "my wine glass just claimed to be James Joyce and cussed me out" bit when the other bit about inanimate objects moving around on their own is what I'm focused on.

**Canute** · Jul10-06, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Aether

In post #7 you claimed that You seem to be claiming to have witnessed something that cannot be explained by the ideomotor effect nor as a voluntary act of any of the participants.

Not exactly. I'm claiming that it has not yet been explained in this way. Perhaps it will be one day. This seems very unlikely to me, but I may be proved wrong.

I can't tell by your statement that "in my experience something happens more often than not" whether you mean something along the lines of "my wine glass claims to be James Joyce and cusses me out more often than not", or "my wine glass takes off around the table on its own more often than not".

I meant that the glass starts spelling out words more often than not.

What I want to see on a video is evidence of inanimate objects moving around on their own with no possible way that any of the participants could have induced the motion either by ideomotor effect or voluntarily.

Ah, this does not happen more often than not. It happened to my brother, who now refuses to go anywhere near wine glasses and letters. Frightened him half to death. But I only have his word for that. It's never happened to me.

**Aether** · Jul10-06, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Canute

Not exactly. I'm claiming that it has not yet been explained in this way. Perhaps it will be one day. This seems very unlikely to me, but I may be proved wrong.

You haven't personally witnessed any motion of an inanimate object that couldn't have been induced by the muscle contractions of one or more human beings present, right? If so, then let's suppose that any such motion of an inanimate object that you witnessed was in fact induced by the muscle contractions of one or more human beings present, ok? All that remains is to explain why the muscles of one or more human beings present were instructed by their respective central nervous system(s) to contract in the way(s) that they did, right?

I meant that the glass starts spelling out words more often than not.

Ah, this does not happen more often than not. It happened to my brother, who now refuses to go anywhere near wine glasses and letters. Frightened him half to death. But I only have his word for that. It's never happened to me.

Let's agree to dismiss this claim and not consider it any further, ok?

**Canute** · Jul11-06, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by Aether

You haven't personally witnessed any motion of an inanimate object that couldn't have been induced by the muscle contractions of one or more human beings present, right?

You're missing my point here. I feel that I've personally witnessed events that cannot be explained by supposing that the participants manipulated the glass. However, of course I cannot prove this, and would not expect a skeptic to believe it on my word alone, or anyone else's. My suggestion was that anybody who is serious about explaining this phenomenon would not simply assume it is caused by the ideomotor effect but, rather, would conduct experiments. This is often not possible with anomalous phenomenona since they are difficult to reproduce under controlled conditions. This is not the case here, since the effects are fairly easy to reproduce. Thus, we ought to have some proper data to work on, and not simply assume we know the solution. I've seen no research which shows the ideomotor effect explains what I've witnessed. All I've seen are a few papers speculating that it does.

Let's agree to dismiss this claim and not consider it any further, ok?

I think it's worth considering this claim since so many people have made it. But I agree that it makes sense to explain the less extraordinary cases first. I make no claims about the possibility of the glass moving by itself since I've never seen it happen.