Is the Ouija Board Influenced by the Ideomotor Effect?

[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?

 

[Tojen]

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."

 

[SGT]

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]

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 don't know the answer, but the ouija ghost does.

 

[Tojen]

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?title=title_3&more=1&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=ind0007b&L=featnews&P=1491

 

[Curious3141]

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]

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 referred 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html" .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Aether]

You're missing my point here.

Please answer my questions directly. If that leaves you feeling like there is something more that you want to say, then say it.

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.

What events have you witnessed "that cannot be explained by supposing that the participants manipulated the glass"? Why wouldn't a video show why you think these events "cannot be explained by supposing that the participants manipulated the glass"? It sounds like all of the events that you have witnessed can be explained by supposing that the participants manipulated the glass, and the only issue that remains is to know why they did this.

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 define "this phenomenon" first, ok? It isn't clear yet exactly what you are claiming to have witnessed, and whether or not it involves mysterious physical forces (which should be evident on a video), or just some psycho/neurological wierdness (assuming it's not just an outright hoax).

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.

We could consider evidence for the claim if/when we had any, but we don't have any so for now the claim is dismissed, ok?

 

[Canute]

Aether

Sorry, but I don't want to get into a petty argument about this. I've said all I have to say, and I've already answered these questions.

regards
Canute

 

[Aether]

Aether

Sorry, but I don't want to get into a petty argument about this. I've said all I have to say, and I've already answered these questions.

regards
Canute

Sorry that you feel like you're getting into a petty argument. First you said:

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.

and now you're cutting and running rather than face the facts of your own story.

 

[Canute]

Oh well, I'll keep going then. The fact is that nobody has yet shown that the ideomotor effect explains the phenomonon we are discussing. When they do we'll all be happy. Until then it seems profoundly unscientific to simply assume that it does, as you seem to do. I make no assumption either way.

 

[Aether]

Oh well, I'll keep going then.

Glad to hear it.

The fact is that nobody has yet shown that the ideomotor effect explains the phenomonon we are discussing. When they do we'll all be happy. Until then it seems profoundly unscientific to simply assume that it does, as you seem to do. I make no assumption either way.

Let's recap:

In post #7: you said

...every now and again the glass would take off round the table at breakneck speed...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.

In post #8: I asked to see a video of one of these events.

In post #10: you said that

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.

In post #11: I said

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

I briefly explained to you the reason for supposing this later in post #13, but I will add now that supposing what we did in post #11 was useful in order to temporarily accept your claim in post #10 that "in my experience something happens more often than not" so that we could go on to inquire as to "what" happens more often than not (e.g., now we know that it is not objects moving around by themselves). In posts #14 and #16 you stipulated that

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...I make no claims about the possibility of the glass moving by itself since I've never seen it happen.

Since then you haven't answered any of my questions directly. My questions in posts #15 and #17 are intended to be probative rather than argumentative, so please go back and answer each one directly. In both of those posts, the claim that I am asking you to agree with me to dismiss is only "about the possibility of the glass moving by itself ". Once we dismiss that claim, then we are free to stop supposing that "anybody can do the experiments for themselves and get results that are consistent with ideomotor effect" and we can proceed to examine that statement next. When we're done, we don't want to still be supposing anything that we don't absolutely have to.

 

[Canute]

Aether

You're making the issues rather complicated. Here is a simplification of what I'm saying.

1. The phenomenon I am concerned with is the glass that spells out sentences while in contact with the participants fingers. I have no idea whether the glass can move when not in contact, although many people say they have experienced this. I have not, so have no idea.

2. I have many times experienced the phenomenon in question and conclude that anybody can do the same. Therefore, research into this need not be based on hearsay. (However, I do know one or two people for whom it never works, so perhaps there are exceptions).

3. My experiences lead me to the view that the ideomotor effect does not explain this phenonenon.

4. There appears to be no reason why I should abandon my view since nobody has yet published a proof that it is incorrect. If you know of such a proof I'll be happy to go and read it.

5. I do not know whether the ideomotor effect explains this phenomenon or whether it does not. I feel you should admit that you do not know either, or publish your research.

6. You are asking me to make the asumption that the i-effect explains the phenomenon. By contrast, I am not asking you to make an assumption but to stop making one.

I don't even know why we're arguing about this. Why can't we simply agree that the research is inconclusive. It would be more interesting to discuss what sort of experiments might resolve the matter.

Regards
Canute

 

[Aether]

You're making the issues rather complicated.

Every claim that you have made here is on the record and I feel compelled to deal with all of them, not just that fraction that you think is important. If the issues seem rather complicated, then perhaps it is because you have commingled them with untenable claims (e.g., inanimate objects are moving on their own), implausible suggestions (e.g., "maybe it's group telekenesis[sic]"), and unsubstantiated accusations against "scientists" (e.g., "I'm not arguing that science is nonsense, rather that scientists are sometimes unprofessionally quick to ignore anomalies which cast doubt on their paradigm").

I don't even know why we're arguing about this. Why can't we simply agree that the research is inconclusive. It would be more interesting to discuss what sort of experiments might resolve the matter.

We are arguing about this because your first set of claims was so not focused on the issue that you are really concerned about. Let's dismiss everything that you have claimed in this thread before post #22, and start over with the new list of claims that you have made, ok?

1. The phenomenon I am concerned with is the glass that spells out sentences while in contact with the participants fingers. I have no idea whether the glass can move when not in contact, although many people say they have experienced this. I have not, so have no idea.

2. I have many times experienced the phenomenon in question and conclude that anybody can do the same. Therefore, research into this need not be based on hearsay. (However, I do know one or two people for whom it never works, so perhaps there are exceptions).

3. My experiences lead me to the view that the ideomotor effect does not explain this phenonenon.

Ok, this is where a reasonable discussion about your experiences with this phenomenon can begin. What exactly have you experienced that the ideomotor effect does not explain?

4. There appears to be no reason why I should abandon my view since nobody has yet published a proof that it is incorrect. If you know of such a proof I'll be happy to go and read it.

5. I do not know whether the ideomotor effect explains this phenomenon or whether it does not. I feel you should admit that you do not know either, or publish your research.

6. You are asking me to make the asumption that the i-effect explains the phenomenon. By contrast, I am not asking you to make an assumption but to stop making one.

I don't know hardly anything about the "ideomotor effect" beyond the link that I posted earlier, and that I have personally experienced using a dowsing rod before. What I do know is that inanimate objects do not move on their own, and that I would like to see evidence of such an event before entertaining any claim to the contrary.

 

[Canute]

If the issues seem rather complicated, then perhaps it is because you have commingled them with untenable claims (e.g., inanimate objects are moving on their own), implausible suggestions (e.g., "maybe it's group telekenesis[sic]"),

Yeah, I don't find that very plausible either. So what? What you or I find implausible has nothing to do with what is true and false.

and unsubstantiated accusations against "scientists" (e.g., "I'm not arguing that science is nonsense, rather that scientists are sometimes unprofessionally quick to ignore anomalies which cast doubt on their paradigm").

You might try reading Thomas Kuhn.

We are arguing about this because your first set of claims was so not focused on the issue that you are really concerned about.

Yes it was. Please don't tell me what concerns me and what does not.

Let's dismiss everything that you have claimed in this thread before post #22, and start over with the new list of claims that you have made, ok?

Please yourself. Perhaps you could select one these 'claims' for discussion.

Ok, this is where a reasonable discussion about your experiences with this phenomenon can begin. What exactly have you experienced that the ideomotor effect does not explain?

At no point have I stated that the i-effect does not explain my experiences.

I don't know hardly anything about the "ideomotor effect" beyond the link that I posted earlier, and that I have personally experienced using a dowsing rod before.

Hooray. Now we can both admit we don't know what causes it and start from there.

What I do know is that inanimate objects do not move on their own, and that I would like to see evidence of such an event before entertaining any claim to the contrary.

If you know inanimate objects do not move on their own then obviously you'll never come across any evidence to the contrary. As for myself, I've never seen any evidence to the contrary so I can't help you on this one, as I've said two or three times already.

 

[Aether]

Yeah, I don't find that very plausible either. So what? What you or I find implausible has nothing to do with what is true and false.

You seemed to claim at first that you had actually witnessed this, then said that no it wasn't you it was your brother. That required effort on my part to disentangle your mess and it has diverted this discussion...that's what.

You might try reading Thomas Kuhn.

I don't know who that is, but you might try limiting your assault on "scientists" to Thomas Kuhn, and quoting some statements of his that you have a problem with.

Yes it was. Please don't tell me what concerns me and what does not.

When you offered a second set of claims that is more limited and defensible than your first set of claims, then you explicitly established yourself what concerns you and what does not.

Please yourself.

With your consent, everything that you have claimed in this thread before post #22 is dismissed, and we're starting over with the new list of claims that you have made.

Perhaps you could select one these 'claims' for discussion.

I already did, see below.

3. My experiences lead me to the view that the ideomotor effect does not explain this phenonenon.

What exactly have you experienced that the ideomotor effect does not explain?

At no point have I stated that the i-effect does not explain my experiences.

Claim #3 seems to state otherwise. Please explain this.

Hooray. Now we can both admit we don't know what causes it and start from there.

I admit that I don't know why people sometimes move Quija board indicators and divining rods, and that is what we might hope to discover.

If you know inanimate objects do not move on their own then obviously you'll never come across any evidence to the contrary.

I don't expect to, no. What is your point? Are you implying that I would ignore evidence to the contrary if I came across it?

As for myself, I've never seen any evidence to the contrary so I can't help you on this one, as I've said two or three times already.

You seemed to be claiming otherwise in your original post, so please take responsibility for that. If there has been confusion and complication here, it is only a consequence of your careless statements.

 

[Canute]

You seemed to claim at first that you had actually witnessed this, then said that no it wasn't you it was your brother. That required effort on my part to disentangle your mess and it has diverted this discussion..

I'm afraid the mess was yours. I made it very clear at the start that I have not witnessed a glass moving when not in contact with anybody. Yet again I'll say it. I have not witnessed this, and have no idea whether or not it can happen. I don't know how to put this more clearly. We seem to having an argument that is entirely unnecessary.

.I don't know who that is, but you might try limiting your assault on "scientists" to Thomas Kuhn, and quoting some statements of his that you have a problem with.

No, no. Why are you so determined to have a battle? Thomas Kuhn wrote an extremely famous book proposing that science progresses by a process of paradigm shifts, often associated with the death of the generation of scientists who shared the previous paradigm. I wasn't criticising him I was agreeing with him.

When you offered a second set of claims that is more limited and defensible than your first set of claims, then you explicitly established yourself what concerns you and what does not.

This was not an alternative list. It was a simplified list. I stand by every claim I've made to date, not that I've made many. Nothing concerns me except persuading you that you there is no evidence yet showing that the i-effect explains the phenomenon in question. I would expect most scientists to agree unless there is some evidence of which I'm unaware.

With your consent, everything that you have claimed in this thread before post #22 is dismissed, and we're starting over with the new list of claims that you have made.

As I say, it's not a new list of claims but a summary. But do what you like, I'm utterly confused about what you're trying to achieve.

Claim #3 seems to state otherwise. Please explain this.

Pardon? Claim 3. was: "My experiences lead me to the view that the ideomotor effect does not explain this phenonenon." What's wrong with this? It's only what I've been saying all along. What is your problem here?

I admit that I don't know why people sometimes move Quija board indicators and divining rods, and that is what we might hope to discover.

You'll not make it far as a researcher if you don't start by admitting you don't know for all cases that people move the indicators and divining rods. In fact on your assumption doing any research would be pointless.

I don't expect to, no. What is your point? Are you implying that I would ignore evidence to the contrary if I came across it?

Well, you've made it extremely clear that you're prepared to make up your mind once and for all on the basis of insufficient evidence, so yes, this is what I would predict.

You seemed to be claiming otherwise in your original post, so please take responsibility for that.

It may have seemed that way to you, but you are ever so quick to make assumptions. If you read my posts you'll see that I never claimed at any point to have witnessed the glass move when not in contact with a human being. I'll stand by every claim I've made, but not for claims I did not make.

If there has been confusion and complication here, it is only a consequence of your careless statements.

Hysterical laughter. Exit stage left.

 

[Aether]

I'm afraid the mess was yours. I made it very clear at the start that I have not witnessed a glass moving when not in contact with anybody. Yet again I'll say it. I have not witnessed this, and have no idea whether or not it can happen. I don't know how to put this more clearly.

You reported that on more than one occasion a glass did move in a way that could not be recreated by human hands and implied that you personally witnessed this:

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.

Then you said ""maybe it's group telekenesis[sic]". Anyway, let the record testify for itself and we can move on.

We seem to having an argument that is entirely unnecessary.

You made quite an extraordinary claim there, and I felt it necessary to achieve a definite resolution of that claim before moving on to focus exclusively on your less extraordinary claims. Now that this claim is dismissed, I no longer feel responsible for dealing with it.

No, no. Why are you so determined to have a battle?

You said:

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.

So, here we are examining your claims.

This was not an alternative list. It was a simplified list. I stand by every claim I've made to date, not that I've made many.

It is an alternative list, and the original list has been dismissed with your consent. This is just a way to keep track of which questions we intend to consider further here, and which ones we do not intend to consider further here. That doesn't mean that they can't be considered further at another time and place, only that we don't have to worry about them anymore here and now.

Nothing concerns me except persuading you that you there is no evidence yet showing that the i-effect explains the phenomenon in question. I would expect most scientists to agree unless there is some evidence of which I'm unaware.

Ok, we'll examine that. I am interested in that subject too, but we need to focus on that and jettison the rest of this unrelated baggage.

As I say, it's not a new list of claims but a summary. But do what you like, I'm utterly confused about what you're trying to achieve.

I am trying to achieve a definite resolution to each and every statement/claim and/or question that you have made on the record here. Dismissal of everything that you have claimed in this thread before post #22 does achieve a definite resolution to those claims so that now we may focus on what remains.

Pardon? Claim 3. was: "My experiences lead me to the view that the ideomotor effect does not explain this phenonenon." What's wrong with this? It's only what I've been saying all along. What is your problem here?

Nothing is wrong with this, but instead of answering my direct question about this you seemed to contradict yourself by saying this:

At no point have I stated that the i-effect does not explain my experiences.

You'll not make it far as a researcher if you don't start by admitting you don't know for all cases that people move the indicators and divining rods.

I'll take my chances on that.

In fact on this assumption doing any research would be pointless.

No it wouldn't, but maybe this is a clue as to why we haven't been able to converge on a common theme so far. I'm open to the possibility that some unknown signal may be steering people to unconsciously move the indicators and divining rods, or that some subconscious personality may exist that does this, etc.. I have seen references within another thread of this forum to experiments where subjects were videotaped using divining rods and tell-tale muscle contractions were seen to precede motions of the divining rods. This is perfectly believable, and this is what I would expect to see with subjects manipulating a Ouija board as well. Therefore I have plenty of evidence to convince me that inanimate objects do not move on there own, a little bit of evidence to suggest that muscle contractions always precede ideomotor-induced motions, and no evidence whatsoever of any other mechanism for inducing these objects to move.

Well, you've made it extremely clear that you're prepared to make up your mind once and for all on the basis of insufficient evidence, so yes, this is what I would predict.

Insufficient evidence? The entire Universe continually pours out evidence that inanimate objects do not move (or change their motion) on their own, and I said "I would like to see evidence of such an event before entertaining any claim to the contrary".

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.

What I do know is that inanimate objects do not move on their own, and that I would like to see evidence of such an event before entertaining any claim to the contrary.

If you read my posts you'll see that I never claimed at any point to have witnessed the glass move when not in contact with a human being. I'll stand by every claim I've made, but not for claims I did not make.

Hysterical laughter. Exit stage left.

Let's focus on your new claims 1-6 from post #22, and particularly on claim #3, ok? I'll give you the last word in this discussion of all of the other tangential/unrelated issues. Therefore, in your next post, #28, you may say anything you like with respect to these other issues that we have discussed here and I will not respond to it unless it is in the form of a direct question to me. I will feel free to respond to anything on the subject of our discussion of any of the new claims numbered 1-6 from post #22, and to anything following after post #28.

 

[Canute]

You reported that on more than one occasion a glass did move in a way that could not be recreated by human hands and implied that you personally witnessed this:

Yet again, I said that in my opinion, based on my experiences, the glass moves in a way that cannot be explained by the i-effect. I did not say that it moved when untouched by human hands. This is an important distinction you seem unable to make.

Then you said ""maybe it's group telekenesis[sic]".

Maybe it's solar winds, maybe it's the ideomotor effect, maybe it's a group delusion, maybe it's dead people sending messages. How should I know? If I could explain it I'd publish.

Anyway, let the record testify for itself and we can move on.You made quite an extraordinary claim there, and I felt it necessary to achieve a definite resolution of that claim before moving on to focus exclusively on your less extraordinary claims.

What claim was extraordinary? You've yet to show that I've made a claim that is even contentious.

Now that this claim is dismissed, I no longer feel responsible for dealing with it.

What claim? Do you call a statement beginning with 'maybe' a claim? If so then no wonder this discussion is so confusing.

So, here we are examining your claims.It is an alternative list, and the original list has been dismissed with your consent.

I will immediately withdraw my consent and undismiss it then, and stand by it. I thought it would help to summarise, but clearly not. I'm doing my best you know, but I can't seem to say anything you don't misread.

This is just a way to keep track of which questions we intend to consider further here, and which ones we do not intend to consider further here. That doesn't mean that they can't be considered further at another time and place, only that we don't have to worry about them anymore here and now.

Don't understand this bit. I'll discuss anything you like in whatever order you like.

Dismissal of everything that you have claimed in this thread before post #22 does achieve a definite resolution to those claims so that now we may focus on what remains.

I haven't dismissed anything, I just tried to tidy up. Please pick me up on any false claims wherever you find one. So far you haven't found one.

Nothing is wrong with this, but instead of answering my direct question about this you seemed to contradict yourself by saying this:

"At no point have I stated that the i-effect does not explain my experiences."

I have never claimed otherwise, as you'll see if you go and look at my posts. What I said was that in my opinion the i-effect does not explain my experiences. I would never state that it did not, unless perhaps I was very drunk and not being careful with my words.

I'll take my chances on that.

There's no chance involved. It is patently unprofessional behaviour and would be spotted in a flash by anyone assessing your research grant application.

No it wouldn't, but maybe this is a clue as to why we haven't been able to converge on a common theme so far. I'm open to the possibility that some unknown signal may be steering people to unconsciously move the indicators and divining rods, or that some subconscious personality may exist that does this, etc..

I suppose that's a start, but it's far from being enough to qualify as a disinterested approach.

I have seen references within another thread of this forum to experiments where subjects were videotaped using divining rods and tell-tale muscle contractions were seen to precede motions of the divining rods. This is perfectly believable, and this is what I would expect to see with subjects manipulating a Ouija board as well.

Fair enough. You could design an experiment to test your predictions and see if people are actually manipulating it. The prediction may or may not be vindicated. However, you cannot decide this in advance, otherwise the experiment has no purpose and will probably be poorly designed anyway.

Therefore I have plenty of evidence to convince me that inanimate objects do not move on there own,

Me too.

a little bit of evidence to suggest that muscle contractions always precede ideomotor-induced motions,

I should have thought that muscle contractions invariably precede ideomotor-induced motions. In fact it would seem extraordanarily strange to me if this were not the case.

and no evidence whatsoever of any other mechanism for inducing these objects to move.

On this our experiences clearly differ.

Insufficient evidence? The entire Universe continually pours out evidence that inanimate objects do not move (or change their motion) on their own, and I said "I would like to see evidence of such an event before entertaining any claim to the contrary".

How many times must I repeat that I am not claiming that inanimate objects are capable of self-induced motion, never have claimed this, and doubt I ever will. I don't know how to say this in a new way. All I can do is say it again and again and again.

Let's focus on your new claims 1-6 from post #22, and particularly on claim #3, ok?

Fine.

I will feel free to respond to anything on the subject of our discussion of any of the new claims numbered 1-6 from post #22, and to anything following after post #28.

Respond away. Or start from my first post, I don't mind.

 

[Aether]

Anyway, let the record testify for itself and we can move on.You made quite an extraordinary claim there, and I felt it necessary to achieve a definite resolution of that claim before moving on to focus exclusively on your less extraordinary claims.

What claim was extraordinary? You've yet to show that I've made a claim that is even contentious.

This extraordinary claim[emphasis mine]:

You reported that on more than one occasion a glass did move in a way that could not be recreated by human hands and implied that you personally witnessed this:

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.

Then you said ""maybe it's group telekenesis[sic]""

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. [no video]

Then you said it happened to your brother, and that you make no such claims:

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...I make no claims about the possibility of the glass moving by itself since I've never seen it happen.

But you did make this claim, and then you said that "I make no [such] claims...", and I have been trying to get you to agree to dismiss this claim ever since:

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

What I'm looking for from you is a definite resolution to this claim and all of the above proceedings related to it by dismissing it with your consent. Perhaps in your mind you have dismissed this claim already when you said that "I make no claims about the possibility of the glass moving by itself since I've never seen it happen"? In any event, I will not continue carrying this deadwood claim indefinitely. I recommend that you either substantiate it with some evidence, or agree with me to dismiss it.

Now that this claim is dismissed, I no longer feel responsible for dealing with it.

What claim? Do you call a statement beginning with 'maybe' a claim? If so then no wonder this discussion is so confusing.

No, I didn't call any "statement beginning with 'maybe' a claim". I called that one an "implausible suggestion":

If the issues seem rather complicated, then perhaps it is because you have commingled them with untenable claims (e.g., inanimate objects are moving on their own), implausible suggestions (e.g., "maybe it's group telekenesis[sic]"), and unsubstantiated accusations against "scientists" (e.g., "I'm not arguing that science is nonsense, rather that scientists are sometimes unprofessionally quick to ignore anomalies which cast doubt on their paradigm").

 

[Canute]

Oh for goodness sake. Life's too short to play this game. It happened to my brother, he says. Is that better? I told you I wasn't there and couldn't confirm that it happened. I mentioned it because I thought you were interested in the topic. Clearly you have no interest at all in anything but starting ridiculous arguments.

Me - 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.

What's extraordinary about this claim? This sort of thing happens, so say, to many people. I'm simply stating what happened. You may think I'm lying but that's not my problem.

Me - ""maybe it's group telekenesis""

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's invisible little people running around the table. Maybe I dreamed it all. Maybe I won't bother dropping in here again.

Goodbye.

 

[Aether]

Oh for goodness sake. Life's too short to play this game. It happened to my brother, he says. Is that better? I told you I wasn't there and couldn't confirm that it happened. I mentioned it because I thought you were interested in the topic. Clearly you have no interest at all in anything but starting ridiculous arguments.


What's extraordinary about this claim? This sort of thing happens, so say, to many people. I'm simply stating what happened. You may think I'm lying but that's not my problem.


Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's invisible little people running around the table. Maybe I dreamed it all. Maybe I won't bother dropping in here again.

Goodbye.

Case dismissed. Bye.

 

[tonyuk]

Ideomotor is a proven Scientific Phenomenon, not an excuse or guesswork.

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 referred 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.

Idemotor Response has been proven to be the cause for the glass to move, the pendulum to swing, or for the dowsing rods to cross. It's a built in mechanism within the subconscious mind. I would challenge anyone to test the theory for themselves.

Take a pendulum or ring suspended on a piece of thread in one hand and hold it steady hovering just above the palm of your other, opened hand and repeatedly ask the pendulum to move, firstly in a clockwise movement, then anti-clockwise and finally back and forth, with a pause in between each. You will be amazed at the results.

As for the idea that it's not people pushing the glass, try adding some cooking oil liberally to the top of the glass to ensure, there can be no grip on the glass. Try it again, you may just find the glass doesn't move.

I'd be interested to hear your (honest) results.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Take a pendulum or ring suspended on a piece of thread in one hand and hold it steady hovering just above the palm of your other, opened hand and repeatedly ask the pendulum to move, firstly in a clockwise movement, then anti-clockwise and finally back and forth, with a pause in between each. You will be amazed at the results.

Funny! In the 70's this was offered as proof that you were controlling the pendulum with your mind. Of course, if someone else held the pendulum there seemed to be mystical forces blocking the mind control.

 

[SGT]

I have done the experiment with friends , when I was young. The first letters are random, but when a pattern is initiated, all participants unconsciously push the glass to complete an understandable sentence.
When there are only two letters, there is a great number of words that can be formed, so the glass moves somewhat erractically. When the number of possible words narrows, the movement becomes more fast and certain.

 

[SGT]

For a scientist's experiments with the ideomotor effect see:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ideomotor.html