Examples of the Ideomotor Effect

[Sakari]

Considering that all of my witchboard experiences involve full length sentences and surprising answers, the advanced sort is really the only sort that interests me.

No, not really, and that's my point. "Muscle memory" is a dumb process, and I have no doubt much of muscle memory is unconscious. However, there's little evidence, if any -- no, just none -- that muscle memory is capable of expressing thoughts independently of the person's conscious thought process. Reflex is one thing, and it's not hard to buy that someone can block a punch reflexively after years of repetitive practice and conditioning, but that movement is far simpler than producing language. It's also buyable if there are only Yes/No responses (which is incidentally what most studies I've read use). Adding the language aspect of it makes this claim far more extraordinary, and it's going to need more evidence.

It means that, when people accomplish a task, they're often drawing upon automatic "memories" that they've experienced in the past but don't consciously remember as they're doing the task. The vast majority of these tasks are everyday physical activities (riding a bike, walking) or procedural activities (rules to a card game). And that is the usual place for such activities. So what they're talking about, most likely, is stuff like muscle memory or skill-based simple activities. Again, having a conversation is a bit more complex.

And since we're in this thread, I should probably comment on the videos...

http://barrettdorko.com/articles/analgesia_of_movement.htm

[aquatus1]

Considering that all of my witchboard experiences involve full length sentences and surprising answers, the advanced sort is really the only sort that interests me.

Good, we agree then.

No, not really, and that's my point. "Muscle memory" is a dumb process, and I have no doubt much of muscle memory is unconscious.

This is literally a meaningless statement. "Dumb Process" doesn't mean anything, doesn't define anything. And (using the general, modern description of "unconscious", since there is no reason to assume it refers to an obsolete idea from half a century ago), no, Muscle Memory is not either unconscious or automatic. It is a procedural memory. It does require brain activity. Just because it doesn't require conscious intent doesn't make it an automatic (in the biological sense) reaction.

However, there's little evidence, if any -- no, just none -- that muscle memory is capable of expressing thoughts independently of the person's conscious thought process.

No one ever said it was (even though it totally does, all the time)

You really need to pay attention what people are saying. Stop making strawmen.

Reflex is one thing, and it's not hard to buy that someone can block a punch reflexively after years of repetitive practice and conditioning, but that movement is far simpler than producing language.

Your belief in understanding the mechanism and its potential does not, in any way, affect the actual mechanism and its potential. Whether you think it works or not, does not change the fact that researchers have found similarities between the mechanism responsible for people being capable of performing complex tasks without intent (muscle memory), and the mechanism responsible for unintentional, yet complex tasks (ideomotor response).

It's also buyable if there are only Yes/No responses (which is incidentally what most studies I've read use). Adding the language aspect of it makes this claim far more extraordinary, and it's going to need more evidence.

Why?

Have you really worked in cognitive labs? The human mind is more than capable of creating complex stories; heck, we do it in our dreams every night. We also often physically react to those dreams, sometimes in minor ways, sometimes in ways active enough to wake us up.

There are multiple mechanisms in which the human body acts independently of the mind, in complex and seemingly (or not, depending on the theory) intentional ways.

Really, the only difference is that for some reason, you believe that communicating Yes/No is somehow more cognitively difficult than spelling. You haven't told us why, so other than your personal disbelief, what are we expected to do with it?

It means that, when people accomplish a task, they're often drawing upon automatic "memories" that they've experienced in the past but don't consciously remember as they're doing the task.

Why the past? People make stuff up on the spot all the time. For that matter, what is so incredible about drawing from memories (I don't know what you mean by "automatic")? Who hasn't seen a ouija board session at some point in their lives, and doesn't know how they are supposed to go? You ask creepy questions, there is nervous laughter, then the thingy moves, people shriek, and creepy answers are given. That people have this experience is hardly extraordinary.

The vast majority of these tasks are everyday physical activities (riding a bike, walking) or procedural activities (rules to a card game). And that is the usual place for such activities. So what they're talking about, most likely, is stuff like muscle memory or skill-based simple activities. Again, having a conversation is a bit more complex.

Not really. Hell, this conversation has basically gone around the same circle several times, and we are actually under the impression we are talking in complex ways. Most conversations are pretty shallow. The biological mechanism involved in the ideomotor response is complex, but the results are extraordinarily simple. As you yourself pointed out, most of the time it is just a yes/no answer.

And since we're in this thread, I should probably comment on the videos...

They're decent. Nothing really deep, but they contain good examples.

Edited September 6, 2015 by aquatus1

[Paranormalcy]

I have been gone for a few days, not that I "owe" an explanation to anyone or have any obligation to post in this or any other thread. Sorry if some people don't like people posting things that are in opposition to your subjective beliefs - that tends to happen on the internet. I do not know if the ideomotor is fully or partially the actual mechanism at work in Ouija boards and such, but it is a perfectly adequate (if not wholly satisfactory) explanation to consider the most relevant, reasonable, likely and valid explanation.

It's not so much "spirits and demon stuff is stupid" or "this explains everything" but just purely "does THIS explanation seem the MOST rational and plausible, and cover or at least suggest the main points, with as much reliance on tested and known experience and data as possible?". When I apply this to the various explanations, this one puts the most ticks in the checkboxes, making it the defacto answer, until and unless something more compelling appears. Yes I would be delighted, as I said before, for a full treatment, I'd watch an hours-long docoumentary on ideomotor and how it works, I'd recommend everyone read some treatise on it, if any such things existed. But i did provide what is the casual and basic fundamentals that DO indeed describe EXACTLY how the ideomotor function works, despite claims to contrary.

No, it doesn't directly explain how it works sometimes very efficiently and clearly with a group of 5 people. I very much want to know this as well, we are in total agreement, and it does frustrate me that there seems to be no real data available that answers this. But just because an established and empirical principle doesn't lay bare the subatomic truth of a subject doesn't mean it has no more valid footing than "gremlins did it". That strikes me as biased, dishonest or igorant, possible all three, if not merely a misunderstanding of how evaluating reality works.

As I said, I don't know how it works from a five point authority of understanding, but I will give you my own opinions, as I have also used the board for years and years with a group, and also what I surmise from what I experienced, saw, read and was told by others, relating to other aspects of the whole operation of the board. Since this directly deals with the ideomotor effect, I believe this is the right thread to continue in for this.

That looks like a fantastic link posted by Sakari also (thanks), I'll have to check it out later, maybe it will support or invalidate what I'm going to say, and make me sound stupid - but that's just the wild and wooly world of the internet!

As I stated, once I knew what I was looking for, I not only was able to perceive at least occasionally, what was going on when the board operated, but who was directing it and generally everyone's involvement. The more forceful personalities are the most likely to get "results" no matter who they're with, and oddly, the most often that there will be actual CONFLICT of how the board works (not just failing to move), is between two forceful personalties using the board. Basically, my group was nothing BUT forceful people (except me): one was a car salesman, Sam, the other was a career-oriented medical tech and loud, obnoxious schmoozer with a magnetic personality (even though he was a total douche), Tom, and the last was more like me but was really just a passionate and spiritual person, very emotional with strong convictions and interest in the paranormal and spirits, etc, Ken.

It definitely didn't start that way, but eventually each had their own spirit guide, but this was due to I think mostly the group's (mostly Ken's) preoccupation with paganism and shamanism and a garbled mix of New Age stuff. Each had their signature greeting (both spelled and physical, such as a figure 8 movement of the traveler).

First of all, my observation is that the board is very much a "nature abhorrs a vacuum" affair, with a strone impetus being "rewarded" most times by support and cooperation, unless someone is actively opposing it, consciously or unconsciously, out of fear, pure stubborness or a conflicting idea or answer, which would "make a better story" - unconsciously, well, partly. If you have seen my own automatic writing I've posted on UM, you can see my own influences and creativity and "dictated" writing, from a spirit, allegedly. Even then, I was very much suspecting at least automatic writing used this very same ideomotor effect (to a much smaller extent, the way I did it), and is basically a "stream of consciousness" process. I didn't "hear" a voice in my head, but words came into my head, just like if you were writing something (I've never had a creative writing course or done writing exercises, but I presume it's similar). I got a few mostly coherent stories and a seemingly continuing mentorship about my own spiritual development. So I wasn't intentionally writing it, I wasn't editing it, but I wasn't totally uninvolved - I was writing the words down (the pen wasn't moving without my volition, so it was more like I was taking invisible dictation), but since it was coming from me, it was also not what you'd call "external" (some automatic writers do the opposite, scribbling on paper to distract themselves while words and visions come into their head) or some combination. As you can see, I'm quite capable of writing at least somehwat paranormal-aspected stuff, even if it's a bit tepid and cliche.

My Automatic Writing: http://www.unexplain...mn.php?id=79050

To me, this is the primary focus at work in the board also, just like in facillitated communication with unfortunate autistics and other disabled people, where the facillitators "discovered"that the client's parents abused them or were conducting "Satanic rituals". The supposed professionals would hold a pencil in the client's hands, within their own, and the client would miraculously "write" things - it started with positive things and expressing love for their parents, etc - but almost invariably turned dark and implied all kinds of horrific events. This all eventually went to court until a scientific and legal ruling ultimately found "facilitated communication" worse than a pseudo-science with no therapeutic merit and recommended (if not forced) discontinuing it, after it was proven (and documented in court) that the facilitators themselves were unconsciousyl fooling themselves, invalidating everything they'd been "learning" about their clients - because THEY were the ones moving their clients' arms and writing the messages. But not before ruining dozens of lives and breaking families apart and traumatizing people in a horrible miscarriage of misplaced empathy, because they wanted it to be true TOO much.

Anyway, when asking some questions, I noticed Ken was intent (like, extremely focused), and yes, I could indeed feel the pressure and force from his side (we usually had 3 people using the board at once, sometimes 4), and at time we would ask questions aloud, and when it began to move toward the 3rd or so letter, he preemptively called the entire word, "anticipating" the answer it was going to spell, and would move the traveler back to the center of the board, ready for the next word or sentence. And it was totally unconscious, well, mostly. I myself experienced it on rare occasions (as I don't have a very forceful personality, or at least didn't then, so I almost never got any real response even with strong senders) - I had idle thoughts, when an aswering was forthcoming and the traveler was moving, it was a brief, most times almost unnoticeable electric tingle of excitment as the traveler moved toward finishing a word I had briefly "fantasized" about.

When the board is used (by most people, from my understanding, and certainly in my experience), there is essentially a "leader" for each answer, and the other users become "unconscious confederates", and add their "nervous electricity" as the psychograph inventor would term it. Because ideomotor function is already so subtle as to not even be noticeable to the people doing it, the other users take unconscious "cues", perhaps force, direction, speed, etc. It is a form of collaborative storytelling at the unconscious level, usually shared as the users "take turns", unless one person just totally dominates the entire process all the time (in which case the others will eventually grow accustomed to this and the board use will be even more fluid).

With many strong-willed people, there will be some tries or sessions that go well, some that have no movement, some with lots of conflict, etc - as the "fairness" perception of each person kicks in, if they unconsciously feel they haven't "had a go" as much as someone else lately. Personalities contacted via the board are an amalgam of the partipants themselves, both recongizably and/or their "inner self", or from a baser, more secritive part of themselves, that may seem very unlike them. Add to this their fictional parsonas they've also added to the mix, like bad fanfiction characters. Yeugh. Often though, tidbits that one can recognize will slip in and become customary - one person who has a very good sense of humor, when "in control" (albeit unintentionally) of a portion of a session, will tend to have replies with a sense of humor. Drunk or otherwise impaired users almost always get the same type of "spirit" or mood if they have a regular "guide" or control.

Very few people are said to COMMONLY be able to use the ouija board by themselves. But some can. To me, this is almost always a direct correlation between the person's own inhibitions and analytical personality, and their tendancy toward the dramatic and mysterious. People like me, who are always mindful and trying to figure out things I don't grasp (that interest me at least), pretty much never have any success with solo board use, because constantly in my mind is "if it moves, it's me. I don't want to do that, because it means I'm fooling myself and so that means I'm naive, and look ignorant". This is paraphrasing, but basically I'm just saying that when people that are very aware of their own actions and bodies (including people who are self-conscious and don't want to make a spectacle of themselves) will "self censor", and their ideomotor function will be paralyzed, either due to vigilant conscious attention or unconscious tension and the whole body "holding still" so the nightmare of getting a response and looking like a doofus, doesn't happen.

The fact is, for people that can use the board solo, or whose sessions even with other people tend to be fluid or even nearly flawless, this is often, if not always, due to what in psychology is known as "magical thinking" or being "fantasy prone". Ken was very much that, and he has beliefs to some extent in almost every paranormal field ("rods" of UFO lore included, until we finally saw a few videos that eliminated that nonsense for us). He can "automatic speak" and come up with short stories with no preparation, speaking "out of his head" at the drop of a hat - it's absolutely incredible. He's therefore very fantasy prone and/or magical-thinking inclined, both in paranormal subjects and in life (believes in karma and positive vibes and reaping the rewards of rituals, etc). People like this, especially with a receptive group of mostly "passive" other users, will almost certainly have extremely active and successful sessions.

The above is MY best hypothesis and understanding of my experiences and the ideomotor function. I don't claim scientific expertise or insist anyone "believe" or accept this as a most likely explanation. I am putting it out there for consideration however, and it directly highlights my view.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Paranormalcy

[Paranormalcy]

My group's experience is a duplicate of your above post, including a few that seemed not to speak English, or responded with foreign words. When you say "full sentences", do you really mean "I want to the store and then came back home and someone shot me and buried me in the back yard"? or "go outside you will see 97 aliens from the moon". The first uses a lot more articles and conjunctions.

But either way, it is quite possible to get full sentences. Some of our personalities made jokes, claimed to be "drunk", slurred their "speech", would answer in letters intead of yes/no, etc, and the traveler has moved without a question being asked, or seemingly in response to something someone is saying (or even thinking). At least from what you describe above, except for "when I'm alone". As I said, none of us could use it alone, but as I stated in my previous long post, I have a possible explanation for that, and even if there isn't one, that doesn't immediately swing the pendulum (so to speak) towards survival after death.

You see why your witchboard experiences, compared with my own, make it somewhat difficult if not impossible, to NOT accept the ideomotor effect.

[ChrLzs]

..And then you have all the subsequent moves that spell out a sentence which is going to be pretty tricky if someone pushing the thing isn't expecting that very sentence. If they are thinking it, then why are the answers often unpredictable?

MarvC.. you have made much of the fact that you'd love to get all sciency about this.. So why, why oh why haven't you ever recorded one (preferably several) of your sessions? You could even narrate as you go, and tell us what happens, make guesses as to what is going to be spelled out (or say when you have no idea what's coming..)

The thing is, how on earth can you be sure that your subconscious isn't MUCH cleverer than you are? It may be that you don't think that there could be no expectation of a sentence to be made..... but your brain is whirring away in the background, looking for the slightest hint of a pattern and ever so eager to give you exactly what you want...

It seems to me that it is likely to be extraordinarily difficult for you to 'set up' examples of this, or at least ones that would not be spotted by eagle-eyed skeptics like me, so... why not have a go now? Document your claims. Even though you could now fake it, it would be fun to watch and also show that you really are committed to the Surch for Da Truth. Frankly, I have my doubts about that.

BTW, I've gotta ask - you admit, and have given us examples of, frequent gibberish. Surely given the randomness of the process, the fact that your subconscious could be working on things without your awareness, the fact that nothing here can really be verified with the source (if said source is 'spiritual') and your admission that much of it is rubbish... then haven't we adequately explained the 'phenomenon'?

[Sakari]

Subconscious......

There are cases of sleep walkers cooking full meals.

Even murder while sleep walking.

[eight bits]

Chester

In regards to language, there's some evidence that the unconscious is able to process language (http://spectrum.ieee...rocess-language), but I have yet to see anything about minor muscle movements producing language without one being aware of it, let alone hold a conversation.

Automatic writing; see any biography of George and William Yeats. Also, since it annoys you whenever I mention Jung, I won't mention his Seven Sermons. Those were originally accepted as the product of AW. From the black notebooks, however, apparently they were received from Philemon. Either way, they are a product of Jung's unconscious.

More generally, _-term memory retrieval _ unconscious in real time. You are _ of having done _, not of doing it. Linguistic performance _ heavily on long-term _ retrieval, it follows _ considerable linguistic _ is unconscious. But, lingusitic _ is _ _ retrieval. For example, _ this paragraph - you are _ that you have largely _, but could not account _ _ you managed it in _ detail.

BTW, if there is some recently seen evidence that the unconscious does anything at all, then your earlier remark about "flawed and outdated concept" needs some serious revision.

_.

[eight bits]

Chester

Just because we're now mostly convinced the unconscious is a real thing doesn't mean we've solved all of its mysteries. There's still a lot more to understand.

No disagreement there. That's why God made science.

[ChrLzs]

I don't have a video camera.

Seriously? You don't have any digital camera at all? Almost every single one does movies, you know... This is not a difficult recording job and the cheapest p-o-s camera would do it.

Re 'gibberish'...

Not only have I not admitted that, I've vehemently denied it. You're cherry picking.

Perhaps... Maybe I just looked at the example you gave here:

http://www.unexplain...15#entry5601050

Frankly, that example you picked - which I presume would be one of the better ones? - was largely gibberish or at least contradictory for the most part - the only bit that made vague sense was that it was evil, and that's hardly a stretch for your subconscious given the way you talk about your 'witchboard'.. And you admitted that the conversation after that part you quoted 'then went off on a tangent"? How could it be less intelligible?

I look forward to seeing something better.

[Paranormalcy]

My asking for clarification about full sentences was exactly what it said it was: a request for clarification. Use of articles like "the" and such is usually avoided if it can be, in any sort of shorthand communication, including (from my experience) Ouija boards. A phrase may have "the" and "and" in it, but it doesn't start off with "the" if the rest of the phrase is "lake of fire is a lie" (an actual message we got once). "The" and many articles are "understood", or omitted in the interest of imparting the most important content of a statement, and is often somewhat similar to broken English.

[aquatus1]

And as a former English as a second language instructor, I can verify it is surprising how just missing a few articles here and there can turn a sentence into a verbal ink-blot test.