Most Haunted - Yvette caught out

[richardm]

I haven't seen this video before, so perhaps you haven't either. It made me laugh so I'm sharing it anyway. It's Yvette Fielding being less-than-honest during a ouija board session. I wonder how that programme manages to keep going - surely any credibility it might have had must be shot to pieces by now, even for the wooiest of woos.

 

[Irish Murdoch]

I haven't seen this video before, so perhaps you haven't either. It made me laugh so I'm sharing it anyway. It's Yvette Fielding being less-than-honest during a ouija board session. I wonder how that programme manages to keep going - surely any credibility it might have had must be shot to pieces by now, even for the wooiest of woos.

Heh! Heh! You can barely see her finger move at all, can you?

 

[Bob Klase]

Well obviously the spirit was trying to move the glass, but it was dark and it moved her finger by accident.

 

[I'll_buy_that]

it also made her take a deep breath and deny it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlvphVWskOg

 

[pjh]

The ouija board has been explained by 'skeptics' as an ideomotor effect.
http://www.skepdic.com/ideomotor.html

Strangely enough, I just don't buy it (the ideomotor explanation that is).

I think it is reasonable when explaining dowsing. A tiny unconscious movement can cause a big movement in the tensed twig or the precariously balanced coathangers.

However, the force required (to move a glass and 3 other arms) and the spelling of words seem to be well beyond anything that be done subconsciously.

So my assertion is that when the pointer moves, at least one person is deliberately moving it to spell out a word.

Clearly, even those who are attached to ideomotor explanation must admit that in the course of the history of ouija sessions, some have been moved by the deliberate action of an attendee.

Is there any experiment or test that could be performed that is capable of convincing an independent 3rd party (me) that what we're seeing is ideomotor and not someone having some fun?

 

[Jimbo07]

Is there any experiment or test that could be performed that is capable of convincing an independent 3rd party (me) that what we're seeing is ideomotor and not someone having some fun?

That's tough.

Back when I was into ouija boards it felt like it was moving on its own. A friend confessed afterward that he was the one moving it, but it really didn't feel like a force in any one direction. He must have been well practiced...

 

[pjh]

Back when I was into ouija boards it felt like it was moving on its own. A friend confessed afterward that he was the one moving it, but it really didn't feel like a force in any one direction. He must have been well practiced...

I'm intrigued - how would it have felt different to you?

His finger is moving the glass/pointer, would you expect it to feel different depending on whether it was under his conscious control or not?

 

[RSLancastr]

The ouija board has been explained by 'skeptics' as an ideomotor effect.

I don't know of any skeptic who says that this is always the case, but it is a definite possibility.

For one thing, it doesn't require the force to move "three other arms." When one person is "having fun" at a oija board (I was such a person in my youth), the others will feel the planchette "trying to move," and will move their hands along with it. Besides, all parties are supposed to have their fingertips touching it very lightly.

I would venture to guess that in the vast majority of cases, it is someone intentionally moving the planchette. But I am open to the possibility that the ideomotor effect may be at play in other cases, particularly those times when only one person is using the board, and swears that they were not moving it intentionally. At that point, you can either call them a liar, or suggest the ideomotor effect as a possible explanation.

 

[exarch]

For one thing, it doesn't require the force to move "three other arms." When one person is "having fun" at a oija board (I was such a person in my youth), the others will feel the planchette "trying to move," and will move their hands along with it. Besides, all parties are supposed to have their fingertips touching it very lightly.

Wouldn't they be "moving along" to someone's unintended ideomotor-twitch starting it moving? And once it starts moving they'll keep it moving towards a letter or something. And I'd say it's also very likely that people are unintentionally going to slow it down to keep it from moving off the board if that was about to happen, which would result in movement in the other direction back towards the center of the board.

 

[bjb]

My understanding is that the Ouija board will not work when the test subject is blindfolded. This means the subjects need to see where the planchette is moving, otherwise, the 'forces' involved don't work. How is this *not* the ideomotor effect?

 

[pjh]

I don't know of any skeptic who says that this is always the case, but it is a definite possibility.

Well have a look at this explanation in the Skepdic:

The movement of the planchette is not due to paranormal forces but to unnoticeable movements by those controlling the pointer, known as the ideomotor effect. The same kind of unnoticeable movement is at work in dowsing.
http://skepdic.com/ouija.html
Yes the previous paragraph does refer to conscious movement, but that sentence implies that the sole cause of the movement is ideomotor.

For one thing, it doesn't require the force to move "three other arms." When one person is "having fun" at a oija board (I was such a person in my youth), the others will feel the planchette "trying to move," and will move their hands along with it. Besides, all parties are supposed to have their fingertips touching it very lightly.

I still think that the amount of force required is an order of magnitude more than needed to tip a dowsing rod. Also the ability of the subconscious to answer questions and point letter by letter to the answer seems a completely unsubstantiated claim.

I would venture to guess that in the vast majority of cases, it is someone intentionally moving the planchette.

I agree, but why does (for example) the skeptic dictionary not say something like that very clearly. It seems (to me) that certain skeptics are attached to their clever/intellectual explanations.

But I am open to the possibility that the ideomotor effect may be at play in other cases, particularly those times when only one person is using the board, and swears that they were not moving it intentionally. At that point, you can either call them a liar, or suggest the ideomotor effect as a possible explanation.

Well we're all 'open' aren't we, but in occam's razor style, why accept a complicated unprovable explanation, when a far more prosaic one is to hand?

The so called act of Hypnotism proves that asubstantial number of people will go along with a social convention.
At any ouija table there is normally:
- The person who setup/organised the event (who would lose face if nothing happened).
- Their friends, who will help because who would so see their friend embarrassed if nothing happened?
- Probably someone who has their own agenda as to what the answers should be
- Probably someone who 'believes' in the paranormal, and is willing to move the glass to promote that belief.
- Probably someone having a bit of fun.

Once again I ask, can you think of any way of proving/showing that it is ideomotor rather than plain simple conscious pushing? If not how one earth do any 'skeptics' here still consider it a plausible explanation?

 

[Big Les]

My understanding is that the Ouija board will not work when the test subject is blindfolded. This means the subjects need to see where the planchette is moving, otherwise, the 'forces' involved don't work. How is this *not* the ideomotor effect?

Answer this please, Mr Thread Starter. Just because you say ideomotor is an inadequate theory, does not make it so. To me it seems perfectly adequate, and far more so than say, "spirits" moving the planchette.

The above is correct; ouija boards don't work if the participants are blindfolded. Therefore it seems reasonable to suggest either duplicity or ideomotor as explanations.

Or do the ghosts need to use human eyes to see?

 

[Garrette]

The ouija board has been explained by 'skeptics' as an ideomotor effect.
http://www.skepdic.com/ideomotor.html

Strangely enough, I just don't buy it (the ideomotor explanation that is).

I think it is reasonable when explaining dowsing. A tiny unconscious movement can cause a big movement in the tensed twig or the precariously balanced coathangers.

However, the force required (to move a glass and 3 other arms) and the spelling of words seem to be well beyond anything that be done subconsciously.

So my assertion is that when the pointer moves, at least one person is deliberately moving it to spell out a word.

Clearly, even those who are attached to ideomotor explanation must admit that in the course of the history of ouija sessions, some have been moved by the deliberate action of an attendee.

Is there any experiment or test that could be performed that is capable of convincing an independent 3rd party (me) that what we're seeing is ideomotor and not someone having some fun?

Easy.

Do it by yourself, unblindfolded. Neither try to move or not to move the planchette, but spell your name by thinking of them in order.

 

[Darat]

Answer this please, Mr Thread Starter. Just because you say ideomotor is an inadequate theory, does not make it so. To me it seems perfectly adequate, and far more so than say, "spirits" moving the planchette.

The above is correct; ouija boards don't work if the participants are blindfolded. Therefore it seems reasonable to suggest either duplicity or ideomotor as explanations.

Or do the ghosts need to use human eyes to see?

They also don't work if no one is touching the planchette... strange that.

 

[pjh]

Easy.

Do it by yourself, unblindfolded. Neither try to move or not to move the planchette, but spell your name by thinking of them in order.

OK that didn't work. I had a glass and a 2 bits of paper with YES and NO written on them. I then asked myself "was I a devilishy handsome and clever chap", rested my finger lightly on the upturned glass and waited.

My hypotheses was that my subconscious would answer the question with a resounding YES, however after 5 minutes nothing had happened.

May I now conclude that the ideomotor effect is rubbish or merely that my subconscious has no opinion on my looks and intelligence?

Answer this please, Mr Thread Starter. Just because you say ideomotor is an inadequate theory,

You talking to me?

 

[exarch]

They also don't work if no one is touching the planchette... strange that.

I was going to make that comment yesterday, but thought it would be too obvious. But by now, the conversation has moved to a point where, apparently, it's needed to spell it out ...

 

[exarch]

OK that didn't work. I had a glass and a 2 bits of paper with YES and NO written on them. I then asked myself "was I a devilishy handsome and clever chap", rested my finger lightly on the upturned glass and waited.

My hypotheses was that my subconscious would answer the question with a resounding YES, however after 5 minutes nothing had happened.

May I now conclude that the ideomotor effect is rubbish or merely that my subconscious has no opinion on my looks and intelligence?

Or your glass is too heavy, just like Yvette's ...

 

[Garrette]

OK that didn't work. I had a glass and a 2 bits of paper with YES and NO written on them. I then asked myself "was I a devilishy handsome and clever chap", rested my finger lightly on the upturned glass and waited.

My hypotheses was that my subconscious would answer the question with a resounding YES, however after 5 minutes nothing had happened.

Thanks for trying, but you didn't do what I asked.

The "Yes/No" thing is fine, but don't assume your subconscious will choose one. You need to consciously choose one.

[Anecdotale Mode]: My 13 year old son discovered the Ouija board just over a year ago and had a blast with it. When he asked me how it works, I told him about the ideomotor effect. He was thrilled with the explanation, but disappointed because it no longer worked. I surmised that the reason it no longer worked was that he stopped trying to think of anything to make it move, so I told him to concentrate on not consciously moving his hand but to consciously pick an answer.

It worked.[/Anecdotal Mode]

And, as exarch said, you may simply need a lighter glass.

May I now conclude that the ideomotor effect is rubbish or merely that my subconscious has no opinion on my looks and intelligence?

No.

At best this will show that it didn't work for you. It does not remove the evidence about the ideomotor effect existing.


Question: Has it ever worked for you?

 

[richardm]

Or your glass is too heavy, just like Yvette's ...

A combination of that and the fact she was wearing a leather glove, methinks.

I've always thought it obvious that if real ghosts were involved you'd still need to touch the planchette. Ghosts as a rule can't move things around, you apparently have to be a special type of ghost to do that and even then it tends to be chucking things around rather than precision movment. So they're influencing you to move your arm to move the glass, supposedly. The blindfold test is a better one, I think ghosts should be able to see (ghosts of blind people notwithstanding).

Whether the movement is due to the ideomotor effect or deliberate pushing is an interesting question. How strong do the forces really need to be, once the thing gets moving? And even if the forces have to be quite strong, does that automatically mean they can't be involuntary?

 

[Garrette]

Whether the movement is due to the ideomotor effect or deliberate pushing is an interesting question. How strong do the forces really need to be, once the thing gets moving?

They are not mutually exclusive.

And one need only tape a penny to a string and watch it begin to move in circles or straight lines (according to your thought) to know that ideomotor effect exists.