• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Ouija

I used to use Ouija boards all the time back in high school. I know I was never doing any of it on purpose. I can't say for sure that others I used them with weren't moving it, but I'm pretty sure they weren't trying to pull anyone's leg. For instance, one friend of mine got so freaked out a couple days after we'd used it, that he insisted that we needed to exorsize(sp?) my basement. I knew it was all a load of crap, but he was serious so I went along with it.
But I don't buy the ideomotor effect working on a subconcious level. I don't think the brain works that way. I think that when the movement starts its very easy for the people using it to get into a rhythem with one another. It usually doesn't start making sense until someone starts asking questions. The answers to these questions are usually obvious and so it's easy for the users to answer them themselves without realizing it. Does that make sense?
 
Hexxanhammer said:

"The answers to these questions are usually obvious and so it's easy for the users to answer them themselves without realizing it. Does that make sense?"

That just demostrates the limited scope of the participant's intellect. Just try doing ouija asking specific questions about local history with serious people. You will be amazed, unless of course you are an idiotometer.
 
Explorer said:
Hexxanhammer said:

"The answers to these questions are usually obvious and so it's easy for the users to answer them themselves without realizing it. Does that make sense?"

That just demostrates the limited scope of the participant's intellect. Just try doing ouija asking specific questions about local history with serious people. You will be amazed, unless of course you are an idiotometer.
Click to expand...

If you got specific correct answers about things you yourself didn't know, someones moving the pointer. You won't get good specific answers if no one with their hands on the pointer knows them already. What I mean is if you ask:
"Who are we talking to?"
The pointer stops at "B"
You think maybe it's Billy.
Now the pointer finishes spelling out Billy.
I noticed this tendency of "mind reading" many times. I would think of something, and the board would spell it out. Yet it did not feel like I was trying to move the pointer.
 
Before this goes too far, I want to make my point clear.
I do not believe that spirits move the Quiji !

My earlier posts were only an attempt to explain the Ideomotor Effect, and how the human brain does things all the time that most people never give a second thought to how it was accomplished.

I agree that in a vast majority of Quiji "playing" it is a purposeful attempt by at least one of the participants to manipulate the outcome. However, I also acknowledge the possibility that some responses can be caused by a subconscious thought of one of the participants.

It is these cases that individuals may convince themselves that they didn't intentionally move it. A better explanation is they didn't consciously move it. But to claim, "it was the spirits guiding me" would require a much higher degree of proof. A degree of which I feel is not possible simply because if it existed someone would have proved it by now.
 
Nucular said:
Like I said before, this ideomotor explanation for ouija boards stems back to the Freudian heyday. I just don't think it's a convincing explanation for anything beyond the simple yes/no stuff any more.

What makes us think it's not simple deception?

Diogenes, your blindfold thing obviously demonstrates it's not spirits, but doesn't prove the complex ideomotor effect and all its corollaries as you claimed.

Seems to me us sceptics aren't being very sceptical about our favourite explanation.
Click to expand...

I must admit, I just barely buy this explanation. As I've shown, the process necessary would require that our subconscious perform feats requiring an amazing amount of premeditation right under our noses. I accept it only in the absence of anything better. Is there evidence anywhere else that shows that the subconscious can play such elaborate tricks on the conscious mind?

Your explanation of simple deceit could be the real answer in the end.
 
It’s not as elaborate as you’re making it out to be. It’s much like a Rorschach test. It brings out your first response before you’ve had time to seriously think about it. The faster you answer the deeper in the subconscious it comes from. We all have thoughts on our mind at all time. Most of these thoughts we don’t even register consciously until something sparks it into the forefront.

It’s like working on a math problem that you’re having trouble with, and then setting it aside to go watch TV for awhile. Then, suddenly the light over you head goes on and BAM! there’s the answer. You may not realize it, but you were working on the problem the whole time and never consciously registered this action until you had the answer.

Remember, in the example of the Quiji, we’re only talking about a fraction of a second to establish an answer from the subconscious. Once the answer enters the person’s conscious thoughts the movement of the object is done under complete control, and the other participants passively follow the persons lead. All too willing to believe it’s the spirits instead of one of the players.

The claims made by Free Writers would be an example of something far too elaborate for Ideomotor Effect.
 
BNiles said:
It’s not as elaborate as you’re making it out to be. It’s much like a Rorschach test. It brings out your first response before you’ve had time to seriously think about it. The faster you answer the deeper in the subconscious it comes from. We all have thoughts on our mind at all time. Most of these thoughts we don’t even register consciously until something sparks it into the forefront.

It’s like working on a math problem that you’re having trouble with, and then setting it aside to go watch TV for awhile. Then, suddenly the light over you head goes on and BAM! there’s the answer. You may not realize it, but you were working on the problem the whole time and never consciously registered this action until you had the answer.

Remember, in the example of the Quiji, we’re only talking about a fraction of a second to establish an answer from the subconscious. Once the answer enters the person’s conscious thoughts the movement of the object is done under complete control, and the other participants passively follow the persons lead. All too willing to believe it’s the spirits instead of one of the players.

The claims made by Free Writers would be an example of something far too elaborate for Ideomotor Effect.
Click to expand...
This century-old Fraudian mumbo jumbo doesn't vaguely qualify as a scientific explanation. The Rorschach is bunk (no matter what Exner claimed) and the "subconscious" is a useless explanatory concept. It's not falsifiable.
(And it's spelled "ouija".)
 
Jeff Corey said:

This century-old Fraudian mumbo jumbo doesn't vaguely qualify as a scientific explanation. The Rorschach is bunk (no matter what Exner claimed) and the "subconscious" is a useless explanatory concept. It's not falsifiable.
(And it's spelled "ouija".)
Click to expand...

I was wondering why my spell check didn't like Quiji...:) sorry about that.
As for the rest, you're right, I can't argue with mumbo jumbo, nor was I trying to state an absolute scientific explanation. I was however pointing out that the human thought process is much more involved than just what's in front of us.

I'm typing this post, but that's not the only thoughts in my mind right now. I'm also thinking about processing my companies payroll today, and moving into my house tomorrow, and taking a sip of coffee as soon as I post this......and countless other things.

Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not claiming to be an expert on the human psyche. What I’ve offered here is only my opinion; not fact, not proof, and certainly not a scientific explanation. Just my opinion.
 
Jeff Corey said:

This century-old Fraudian mumbo jumbo doesn't vaguely qualify as a scientific explanation. The Rorschach is bunk (no matter what Exner claimed) and the "subconscious" is a useless explanatory concept. It's not falsifiable.
(And it's spelled "ouija".)
Click to expand...


What do you suppose the real explanation is? I'm pretty curious now. I don't believe 'spirits' are involved (never really cared, it is a game after all) but the way it actually works is probably quite interesting.
 
To find the real explanation we would have to start with the question, "Real explanation of what, exactly?"
What phenomenon are we trying to explain?
 
It's not a phenomenon. We're asking why people believe the ouija works as it does.
 
Jeff Corey said:
To find the real explanation we would have to start with the question, "Real explanation of what, exactly?"
What phenomenon are we trying to explain?
Click to expand...

How about "Leaving out conscious fraud, what reasonable explanation exists for the apparent construction of meaningful sentences from two honest persons operating a Ouija board?"
 
Sundog said:


How about "Leaving out conscious fraud, what reasonable explanation exists for the apparent construction of meaningful sentences from two honest persons operating a Ouija board?"
Click to expand...
That's not a good question, it's an assumption that such a phenomenon exists.
 
Jeff Corey said:

That's not a good question, it's an assumption that such a phenomenon exists.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon, don't go all Hoyt on us. Is your contention that the phenomenon doesn't exist, that it's all based on deceit?
 
Sundog said:
Does this strike anyone else as a completely spooky demonstration of how little control we really have over our minds?

Am I somehow misunderstanding the ideomotor effect?
Click to expand...

Having run rather a lot of subjective tests in my life, I think you understand how little control we have over our minds' ability to integrate knowledge without any intent very well.

Having worked mostly in audio, I can tell you how it works out there. Basically, we seem to have evolved to very effectively integrate our senses, NOT depend on each one separately (well, it makes sense if the Jaguar is about to jump, yes?).

So, if I run two identical tests, but I tell the listener in ONE of the tests which test item is which, and in the other one, I properly hide the identity of the probe part of the test (leaving any references identified to the best one can do in the test protocol without violating it), in the first one nearly every listener will "hear something", and will report strong impressions. In the second test (let's assume that the probe is detectable for the time being), the listeners will statisticaly have very non-random results, but the impressions will generally be weaker, EXCEPT for a few people who may have just-about-random reactions that ARE STILL STRONG.

In fact, even running a null test (probe = reference 1 = reference 2 in an ABX or ABC/hr, for instance) where the "different' signal is somehow identified (via some sense or even understanding that is other than hearing) will result in a high level of distinction even though no such audible distinction exists.

This is not 'cheating'. The subjects are not doing it on purpose. It is not a question of "training", even though some "golden-ears" claim an ability not to do this, nobody who's taken the test has done anything but one of two things, which are either 1) respond to the outside information, or 2) desensitize themselves because they are so aware of the outside influence that they discount their own experiences.

So, a "double blind test" or a cognate (there are ways to do tests using mechanical means that aren't DBT's that still avoid bias) is something that is absolutely required for anything but the most simple audio distinctions.

As I've said before, this is NOT accepted in the "high end" of the audio world, and there is where we see the solid-unobtanium cables, the "speaker cones", the "quantum clips", and the like that plague high-end audio.
 
BNiles said:
It's the minds defense mechanism to hide reality until the conscious mind can rationally deal with it. Now obviously we have stepped well beyond Ideomotor Effect here, but you are correct, the brain is an amazing organ and the mind is capable of even stranger things.
Click to expand...

I think that's going a bit far when discussing a simple question of intersensory linkage, isn't it?
 
Sundog said:


Oh c'mon, don't go all Hoyt on us. Is your contention that the phenomenon doesn't exist, that it's all based on deceit?
Click to expand...
You assumption is that it does exist.
Prove it.
 
jj said:


Having run rather a lot of subjective tests in my life, I think you understand how little control we have over our minds' ability to integrate knowledge without any intent very well...
Click to expand...

Forgive me, I'm slow today. How does this relate to whatever mechanism is in control (if any) of the Ouija board?
 
Jeff Corey said:

You assumption is that it does exist.
Prove it.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken, I assume nothing (note the word apparent), and I don't play these sorts of games. If you have a point, make it, don't make us guess what it is; I'm not that interested.

I assume that your answer to the perfectly clear question I just asked you is "yes". Surely it would be easier just to say that.
 
Sundog said:


You are mistaken, I assume nothing (note the word apparent), and I don't play these sorts of games. If you have a point, make it, don't make us guess what it is; I'm not that interested.

I assume that your answer to the perfectly clear question I just asked you is "yes". Surely it would be easier just to say that.
Click to expand...
It might be easier, but it wouldn't be accurate.
I am stating that your original question contained the assumption that it did exist.
Do you have any proof?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom